There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman and his father who started the whole thing. This is certainly the best of the best. But Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going by the Gra in all details, not just some.]

It has been known for a long time that the religious world is sick. It is hard to know why. The fault I believe is not in the holy Torah, but rather just the opposite. The trouble is the Torah of the Dark Side. This was the very reason the Gra put his signature of the famous letter of excommunication. The fact that this was ignored I believe is what has caused all the troubles.
My evaluation here is not based such on simple confidence in the Gra, [faith in the wise] as much as experience. It is no secret that the religious world is off its rocker. [I admit though that it would have been better if I had listened to the Gra in the first place simply based on faith.]
So the idea here is that what is wrong with the religious world is that they have this facade of keeping Torah, but in fact keep anti-Torah--the Torah of the Sitra Achra.

So the best idea at this point would be to reconsider paying heed to the Gra in this area. If that could set things right I am not sure. That might not be enough. But at least it would be a start.
I mean to treat the letter of excommunication as if it had and still has legal validity. [Which it did and still does.] Also may I add by the law of the Torah, the rule about a "Herem" (excommunication) is more strict than "nidui" which is just rebuke. The law of Herem is a great deal more severe.
[But if we would go by strict letter of the law, Rav Nahman would be OK and not in the category of the Herem. See the exact wording and you will see what I mean.]

[side note: There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman  and his father who started the whole thing. This approach is the ideal of what the Lithuanian yeshiva is supposed to be. Also, Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going  by the Gra in all details, not just some. Of all of them I would have to say that Ponovitch is the best.]


I would like to bring an insight of Rav Shach of Ponovitch which is a nice example of his crystal clear type of thought.
It concerns a law in the Rambam laws of damages caused by one's property. 1/2 pebbles knocked by an animal that causes damage is usually 1/2 damages. But what if the animal kicked [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the other part grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated and if the other party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.

The question is, "Why?" Not only does this not seems to follow from the Gemara but also in the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" change from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.

Rav Shach explains this perfectly clearly. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].

So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.

Can one defend the path of Torah based on Reason? My approach to is that I became aware of some of the questions. But at the same time I also was looking at Spinoza, and discovered Dr Kelley Ross.[Simply because he has a nice analysis of Spinoza.] But then I began to take note of Kelley Ross's other writings. Kelley Ross is more or less based on Kant, Fries and Leonard Nelson.
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.

However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.


 This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.

An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".


So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.

But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.

So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy.  Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]

[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism  which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]

To the degree that people pay heed to the important points of the Gra, that is the degree they succeed in Torah.

One of the major aspects that is important about the Gra is in an ironic way expressed most plainly in the 13 stories of Rav Nahman. There in the 12th story you have this idea that every saint "tzadik' contains the essence of some Divine trait. And that bringing these traits together would result in a great help for all mankind.
And the trait the Gra represents is that of pure Torah. And the proof is in the pudding. Wherever you have a yeshiva based on the Gra, [i.e. straight Litvak yeshivas like Mir or Ponovitch or Brisk] there you have people following the straight unadulterated path of Torah.
 But a major obstacle in getting to any tzadik of the realm of holiness is the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side. And in Torah there is a general principle זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים [God made evil parallel to good].
So even more important than coming to the realm of holiness that one can find in a Litvak yeshiva, it is more important to avoid the Dark Side that is elsewhere.
How can you tell? One basic way is "faith in the wise". Even if one does not understand what the Gra says or why, still by listening and heeding his advice, one is saved from the Dark Side.

[I actually did try to follow the Gra in every detail for some time, but I fell from that. However, even if I can not succeed, why should I not want others to succeed?  Learning Torah and trust in God are certainly the major points of the Gra, but so is his signature of the letter of excommunication. To the degree that people pay heed to these important points of the Gra, that is the degree they succeed in Torah.]
Even in Lithuanian yeshivot however there are pathological tendencies. They are not solely going by the Gra. But that is the point. To the degree they do not go by the Gra, that is the degree there are pathologies.

w89 [C Major] mp3  w89 midi   w89 nwc

The straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra

To follow the path of the Gra is the only way to get in contact with the essential essence of Torah.
I have no idea why this but I have seen this. It seems to be like playing the violin or repairing shoes. Learning Torah needs a teacher. So it is not just a matter of learning the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. It does seem to require the atmosphere of  Litvak yeshiva. But what happens when you are not exactly accepted in such a group? After all, Litvak yeshivas are highly selective.
I have no idea about what to do in such a situation, but I simply mean to raise the issue which comes up more often than is known. [And I agree they are right to be selective. But that does not help to know what to do for those that are outside. What I imagine is even if one does no merit to learn, at least to hold onto truth of the straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra.]

[The best idea that I can see is to try to get through the Avi Ezri and Hidushei HaRambam at least ("derek girsa") saying the words and going on.]

atomic bomb on Hiroshima

My impression of the issue of using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is that (1) the Supreme War Council of Japan was not unanimous in bringing a peace proposal to the Emperor. [It could not bring such a proposal unless it was unanimous].
[The military  had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology  and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima.  Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA.  That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.




[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is  a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more.  And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]

[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.

There really is no reason to think that "reason" is infallible.
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is  where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows  reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site