It seems to me that when I was at Walt Disney's "Its a small world after all," I got the impression that he was saying that people differ in dress, but all biological differences are irrelevant. [the song itself is from Mozart]

This came up because of my question about elite schools. The idea of my learning partner was that the USA is not elite enough. 

This seems to me to relate to the fact that most species have changed within the last 10000 years And the human species is also evolving into different species. Perhaps many different species. But at minimum we can see the major differences with be three. Whites. Blacks. Muslims.

The differences in species start with race and can come about by one groups being separate from another group for enough time. It does not matter why one group is separated from another. But it is that separation that causes the species to diverge.
This may not sound like Sunday school, nor John Locke. But it is simple biology.

In the Talmud, Sanhedrin, 62b.

Rabbi Zachi said there is something stricter about the Sabbath Day than other commandments of the Torah. For if one forgets concerning the Sabbath, and does two acts of work, he brings two sin offerings; and if he forgets about the other commandments, and does two acts, he brings one sin offering.
This is part of a whole discussion. But for now I wanted to make note of an amazing question.
It is the fact that the Gemara asks on Rabbi Zachi, and even as the Gemara tries to answer him, it still remains clear that the Gemara is unhappy with his statement. 
It asks, 
"What is he talking about? If one forgot two types of work on Shabat--so that he is liable twice, but also for other commandments if he eats blood and fat he is also liable twice. If on Shabat he did one type of work twice, he is only obligated once, but also if he ate blood twice also he is only liable once."

Then the Gemara tries to claim his statement is referring to idolatry and that will bring a support to Abyee.

But what is wrong with what he says at simple face value? We know on Shabat there is חילוק  מלאכות, division of work. He forgets two kinds of work he is liable twice. This we don't have any arguments about. If he forgot two or more areas of his beard he is not supposed to shave, then he is liable once. There is no division of work in other commandments.
This questions comes from my learning partner. And I can tell you don't bother looking at Tosphot or the Maharsha. No one addresses this. This is one thing I have found out about him. Often he will think of questions that should have been obvious but for most people are not.

You might ask maybe he means he forgot Shabat? Then he is in fact only liable one.


סנהדרין סב: רבי זכאי אמר יש חומר בשבת מה שאין כן בשאר מצוות. בשבת אם עשה שתי מלאכות בהעלם אחד הוא חייב  שתי חטאות משא''כ בשאר מצוות. הגנרא שואלת על איזה מצב הוא דיבר? אם הוא עשה טחינה וקצירה בהעלם אחד שזה חייב שתיים כמו כן בשאר מצוות אכל חלב ודם הוא חייב שתיים. אם עשה שתי פעולות  טחינה שזה חייב אחת כמו כן אכל דם ודם וחייב אחת. יש פה קושיה גדולה. מה שרבי זכאי אומר  בדיוק גמור. בשבת יש חילוק מלאכות משא''כ בשאר מצוות. בשבת אם עשה שתי מלאכות בהעלם אחד-היינו ששכח שתיהן- הוא חייב שתיים.  אם שכח ואכל שני מיני חלב הוא חייב אחת.

To make this clearer: the Gemara is treating the works of Shabat as separate mitzvot. But they are not. They are only part of one mitzvah--Shabat.

I am not saying there is no answer here, but it eludes me for the moment. [Two years later I am pretty sure I never found an answer.]

When I was in high school I felt I needed more of a challenge. The school I was in was going too slow for my taste. [Today looking back on it it is hard  to see what I was thinking.] In any case, my parents made the efforts and found an elite private school that had very high standards and feed into the Ivy League school in the USA. After they accepted me, when it came time to make a final decision to attend or not I backed down. This gives me a little perspective on what an elite school is.

I now have a little perspective on some mistakes I made in life after  that. Because a one time I was in a very good yeshiva in NY--the Mir. And then I got involved in Breslov. And I must have been thinking that by leaving the Mir and joining Breslov that was coming close to a true tzadik. Yet now I see that leaving an Ivy league yeshiva to join a mass movement is not the same thing as coming close to a tzadik. In fact now it looks to me just the opposite. Joining Breslov in no way implies one is coming close to a tzadik. In fact, what ever fear of God one has before he joins, he will probably lose because of the nonsense people say. \?

Saturday is the day of the week one is supposed to rest from labor. We know what "labor" means because the Bible tells us to build the Temple, but not to do so on Saturday.
So we know that the types of labor that went into building the Temple are the types of labor you are not supposed to do on Saturday.
If one forgot that today is Saturday and did some kind of work, then he brings a sin offering (Leviticus chapter 4);-- a she sheep or a she goat. It is best not to forget because this can get to be expensive.
There are other kinds things for which one brings a sin offering. One example is eating fat that is over the stomach of a cow. [That is called chelev in Hebrew]. But that is indistinguishable from fat from other areas of the animal. So lets say Joe is at his table and eats a piece of fat he things is allowed.
Then Mr Smith comes in and asks, "Where is the chelev I left on the table?" Joe brings a sin offering. But he would also bring a sin offering if he thought chelev is permitted.
That is: there are two kinds of accident for which one brings a sin offering; (1) a mistake in material facts, or (2) a mistake in law.



If you forget it is Shabat is that the same as a mistake in material facts or in law?
What I am getting at is this.
One bows to an idol and he did not know it is an idol. He is not liable.
But if he thought it is not an idol because it is made of clay, not silver or gold, then he is liable a sin offering [a she goat].[The Book of Numbers 15] Rambam שגגות ז:א
So he made a mistake in law and he is liable. And that is what we find in laws of Shabat also. If he did not know something is forbidden, he is liable a sin offering. But what if he forgot? You would say it is the same thing. Then in idolatry why in Sanhedrin (62b) does Abyee not say שגגת עבודה זרה [accidental idolatry] is when he forgot?
I answered once that Shabat he is required to remember so forgetting it is close to doing something on purpose.(To me today this seems ad hoc, or a Pollyana kind of making an unwarranted exception for one thing.)
But today it occurred to me that idolatry might not be like Shabat. My learning partner has suggested that you can't say someone is liable for idolatry unless there is a physical object involved.
Let's say someone bows to Apollo. Without a physical statue in front of him, you can't say he is liable
So what I suggest is forgetting Shabat where there is no physical object involved is forgetting a law, and thus he is liable. But forgetting an idol is an idol is forgetting material facts, and thus he is not liable.
Appendix: I am probably not writing this in the proper order.
In any case, you can ask: if the Rambam is right (that serving the idol he thought was allowed because it was clay), then why did not Abyee and Rava jump on that example?  Answer: They did. Rava certainly did when he says "אומר מותר". [H says it is allowed.] And Abyee is also doing the same. He is saying a case of mistake in law is a שגגה accident.
 יש ארבעים ושלשה חטאים שבשבילם אדם מביא קורבן חטאת. יש שני מיני שגגה בהרבה מהם, שגגת מציאות ושגגת דין. החברותא שלי רוצה לומר שרק כשיש הנאה יש שגגת מציאות. למשל אדם אכל חלב ולא ידע שהוא חלב ואחר כך אמרו לו. הוא חייב חטאת. אבל אדם שהרים ירק בשבת בחשבו שהוא תלוש, והתברר שהיה מחובר, הוא פטור בגלל שהיה מתעסק. לפי זה אפשר להבין אביי בסנהדרין סב: אביי אמר שאם אדם השתחווה לאנדרטא (ורש''י מוסיף ולא ידע שפעם היתה נעבדת והתברר שהיתה נעבדת), לא כלום הוא
אני שאלתי על זה מהרמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז:א' וב'. זדון עבודות ושגגת עבודה זרה חייב רק חטאת אחת. אבל החברותא הראה לי שהרמב''ם מסיים שהוא חשב שאינו עבודה זרה בגלל שלא נעשה מכסף או זהב. משמע שטעה בדין.

הבעיה כאן היא זאת. כשהרמב''ם רוצה למצוא שגגת עבודה זרה הוא הולך לטעות בדין ואז הבן אדם חייב קרבן. וכשהגמרא רצתה למצוא שגגה שהוא פטור בשבילו היא הלכה לטעות במציאות. איפה הדיון הפשוט? שהוא שכח שהצורה הזאת היא עבודה זרה??
  רואים מזה שהגמרא והרמב''ם מדקדקים לומר דווקא טעות בהוראה
לא כמו שבת שבמצב שאדם שכח שהיום שבת כן הוא חייב קרבן.
אני חשבתי לתרץ שבן אדם חייב לזכור את השבת ולכן כשהוא שכח זה קרוב למזיד והוא חייב חטאת, מה שאין כן בעבודה זרה. אבל היום חשבתי שיכול להיות שע''ז אינה כמו שבת. דוד אמר לי שאי אפשר לחייב בן אדם על ע''ז אלא אם כן יש חפץ גשמי. בלי זה אין על מה לחייבו. מזה אני בא להציע ששגגת שבת איפה ששכח את השבת אין שום חפץ גשמי. זו היא טעות בדין, ולכן הוא חייב חטאת. אבל כששכח שאיזו צורה היא ע''ז זה שכחת מציאות ולכן הוא פטור.
עכשיו אפשר לשאול אם הרמב''ם צודק למה אביי ורבא לא תפסו את הדוגמה שלו--שחשב מותר בגלל שנעשית מן חומר לא כסף ולא זהב? תירוץ: זה כן שבם אומרים. רבא אמר שגגת ע''ז היא כשהוא אומר מותר. אביי גם אמר ששגגת ע''ז היא כשעשה טעות בדין וחשב מאהבה ומיראה מותר.

Individuality is known to be an important principle.  "One was Abraham" That Abraham served God only by thinking that he was alone in the world and not looking at people that tried to stop him from serving God in the way he knew he was right.  They were trying to tell him the only way of getting to God is by intermediates. And also anyone who wants to come close to God can do so only in this same way--by not looking at the people that want to distract him.
But it is less known that the Gra said a similar thing.on Proverbs 14 verse 2.
"We know from the Rambam that for a person to correct his own character flaws he has to do things that are wrong in the eyes of people." [This we know from Maimonides in the eight chapter introduction to Pirkei Avot.]

The Gra says one who succumbs to social pressure to do what is right in the eyes of people but which he knows is wrong in terms of his own need for character correction, God despises him.

In other words there is no mitzvah to follow social norms. There is only a mitzvah to follow the Torah. And the Torah does require of people to have good character. Good character is one of the 613 mitzvot.  מה הוא רחום אף אתה תהיה רחום מה הוא חנון אף אתה תהיה חנון "As God is compassionate so must you be compassionate. As God is kind, so you too should be kind." And this is listed in the list of the 613 by the Rambam.
I have to say this because some people think the Torah requires conformity with the group. But clearly only stupid people can think that because it is self contradicting. Even so I have heard it from many people who have clearly not thought out their position.

The Gra, Eliyahu from Vilnius says that every word of Torah is a mitzvah that outweighs all the other mitzvahs.
In this context he is talking about the Oral and Written Law. You need to be careful about this because nowadays many people think any ideas that any jerk says in Hebrew is called Torah. Some go further and say that anything  some idiot with a paper of ordination from three other idiots says is a halacha. [The Oral Law is the two Talmuds, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta. Five books. Nothing more or less. ]

In any case, the Gra is getting this from a Mishna and a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud.
And that is important because it has become customary to change what the Torah's view is on things in order to make it more compatible with some delusional idiots ideas of what Torah ought to say.

So this idea is money in the bank. We can count on this idea as being accurate, that every word of Torah outweighs all the other mitzvahs.
And when the Talmud says when a mitzvah comes along that can't be done by others one stops learning, the Gra says that means one is allowed to stop learning to do the mitzvah, not that he has to.


And here the Gra is making a lot of sense. For one who is occupied in one mitzvah does not have to do any other mitzvah even if the other mizvah is greater. So it makes sense that one can go and do the other mitzvah if he wants to, but he does not have to.

This is all in the way of introduction. I know the Rambam holds from learning Physics and MetaPhysics as the fulfillment of the command to love and fear God because of how it inspires a person. I just wanted to bring the idea of the Gra as a first axiom and then

 And learning Torah is like sacrifices that need to be for the sake of heaven for them to have any value. A sacrifice that is offered with intention to eat it after its time allotted is not just not a mitzvah, but karet [cutting of from ones people].

I am not one to try to decide between these people. But what I would suggest is that if we can't be learning Torah with the kind of התמדה constancy as the Gra was advocating, at least we can put in a couple of hours per day. [For people just starting that would be the written law that is to go through the Old Testament word by word from beginning to end, and the Mishna. upon which the Talmud is based. Also one session with Talmud in depth to begin to get an idea of the depths of the Talmud because that is important at the very beginning of ones learning. If you don't get that right away, you never get it. You find lots of people that think learning Talmud in depth means memorizing lots of commentaries  or other nonsense.