Reason with Faith

The approach of the rishonim to combine faith with reason. It was pointed out to me that that is not necessarily the approach of the prophets. It does seem clear that the prophets wanted to be understood on their own terms.

My own approach is that I have seen a bit too much of religious fanaticism to think that faith without reason leads to much good. Reason without a priori assumptions also is empty.
So to me it seems the approach of Reason with Faith is the best. But then what is the right kind of synthesis? Immediate non intuitive knowledge. as brought in Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross makes the most sense to me.

Talmud Babylonian Bava Mezia page 43a Tospfot.

Tosphot asks a question on Rav Huna. The Maharam Shif makes note that the same question could apply to Rav Nahman. Besides that I also have a question on the answer of Tospfot to that question.

The Mishna says when one gives to a money changer money to guard that was not wrapped up, the money changer can use the money and so if it is lost then he has to pay it back. Rav Huna said not just if it was lost in a small accident but also in a big accident. That is he is a borrower since he can use it. Rav Nahman says only in a small accident but in a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Tosphot asks on Rav Huna whether a seller can use the money he receives before the buyer has picked up the fruit that he is buying. [That is before the actual deal is done]. If he can  use it then there is a question from the barber. [If one pays a barber with money (bedek habait) that one dedicated for use in the Temple. then he is not transgressing the prohibition of meila until the haircut begins.] If he can not use it then why can he not say "your money was burned up in the attic before you picked up the fruit and since I did not own the money at that time then the deal is off."
So the Maharam Shif asks why not ask the same thing on Rav Nahman. Normally you would respond well the question does not apply to Rav Nahman because to him the money changer is only a paid guard who can not use what he guards. But here we have a case where the paid guard can use what is is guarding.

במשנה יש דין הנותן כסף לשולחני לשמור אם הכסף אינו חתום אז השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף ולכן אם הכסף נאבד השולחני חייב. לדעת רב הונא הוא חייב גם אם הכסף נאנס באונס גדול כמו גזלן עם נשק. היינו יש לו דין כמו שואל. רב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבד אבל אונס גדול פטור כמו הדין של שומר שכר. תוספות שואלים מן המשנה נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פירות יכול לחזור בו היינו בקניין רגיל אין חלות של קניין עד שהלוקח מושך את הפירות. זה שמשך המוכר את הכסף אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד. אז תוספות שואלים ממה נפשך לדעת רב הונא. אם המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה זה שנתן לספר אינו חייב במעילה מיד? היינו שיש לנו את הדין גזבר או מי שיש לו כסף של בדק הבית שנתן את הכסף לבלן ה גזבר חייב במעילה אבל אם נתן את הכסף לספר לא. החילוק הוא שמיד שנתן כסף לבלן הוא יכול לרחוץ מיד אבל בספר אין קניין עד שמתחיל את התספורת. אז אם מוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף עד שלא נגמר את הקניין למה מי שנתן לספר אינו חייב מיד. מצד שני אם המור אינו יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה המוכר אינו יכול להגיד ללוקח נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה? היינו עד שלא נגמר את הקניין נשרפו הכסף. אז אם אין אחריות למוכר הוא יכול לומר נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה.
המהר''ם שיף שואל למה לא לשאול אותו דבר על רב נחמן? לרב נחמן השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף הגם שהוא שומר שכר ולכן יש לשאול המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אבל אינו חייב באונסים. תוספות עונים בתירוץ הראשון אין שמירה לכסף אלא בקרקע. אבל אני שואל שזה היה צריך להיות גם בשולחני עם מעות צרורות! והוא אינו חייב!

[So just to be clear--I think what the Litvak Torah world does in trying to keep out evil people is a great thing. The problem is that they usually do not pick the right ones to throw out.]

I noticed that in the two great Litvak yeshivas that I was in there was a kind of exclusivity. --that is a kind of attitude that only we have the truth. And to some degree they are correct. When you look at the general religious world it is hard not to notice that the ones that have really\ quality are the Litvak yeshivas.  But I try to hold more from a kind path that you see in some Rishonim [medieval authorities] where there is also an emphasis on Metaphysics and Physics.

And I did anyway have troubles in the Litvak world. So even though I recognize their point about the importance of Gemara Rashi and Tosphot in depth and still wish that I would be able to sit and learn Torah all day like they do, I have found that it does not work so well for me. And after that I anyway started paying attention to the Rambam and the חובות הלבבות about the importance of learning Aristotle and Physics.

The thing about the Litvak world was that as long as I was a part of it, things were great. That is in Shar Yashuv and in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But once I came to Safed I kind of dropped out of it and then found that I was no longer welcome when I wanted to get back in.
 There is some effort to keep out evil influences and I guess that is what they thought of me. But they are for some reason not really all that successful in keeping out evil influences. For example they ignore the two important warnings of Rav Shach and the Gaon of Villna--the Gra. So as David Bronson noticed--they do try to keep out people that are connected with the Dark Side--but they usually mix up who in fact really is a problem.

[The problem with the Sitra Achra in the Torah world I admit is hard to discern. You really need "faith in the wise" to believe that the Gra was right and Rav Shach also. It is not visible on the surface. And also in terms of the writings of the Ari it is not obvious at first glance why the Gra was right. It takes a certain degree of discernment to see the problems.[I should add that however this problem is not limited to the Dark Side in the world of Torah. Because in fact in every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value that pretends and poses as if it is the real thing.]

c

Spinoza. A few critiques.

 A few critiques.

When in high school I used to try to learn Spinoza. I was never on the intellectual level to even begin to criticize him. But eventually I began to notice a few things. One is that all the rishonim [medieval authorities] hold that God created the world something from nothing. Not from himself. [I mean to say that in Torah thought, God is simple. He has no substance, nor form. So the world is not made of his substance. He has no substance. I also noticed at some point that Leibniz has an extended critique on the proofs of Spinoza. I also saw at some point in a footnote on a book on Aristotle by an Israeli professor that Aristotle puts on substance lesser restrictions than Spinoza does. That is to say the function of substance in Aristotle is the sub layer that modes are applied to. Hot cold etc.But Spinoza has substance occupying a much more difficult position. That is to Spinoza substance can not be effected by anything else.

Last but not least I noticed that Hegel has a few points that I had not thought of:the fact that Spinoza does not get from substance what he wants. He does have "nature naturing" [as Dr. Kelley Ross points out.] But that does not come out of substance. It is added in. [To Spinoza substance does have infinite modes but that still does not get to nature naturing.] So at some point I decided to go with the basic idea of Torah that God created the world something from nothing. Not from Himself.

I also at that time took note that the Ari himself states this very thing a few times in the beginning of the Eitz Haim.

The idea of Emanation of the Ari does not contradict creation from nothing as you can see right in the start of the Eitz Haim.

I might add that the Rambam makes a point in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the verse Know that the Lord is God, There are none else besides Him" means simply that there are no gods besides God but in a deeper way also that nothing has independent existence besides God

learn at a fast rate

I was on the street and saw a woman selling the pamphlets of Rav Shick about learning fast--which comes from Rav Nahman of Breslov. I mentioned to her that I saw the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in NY Rav Shmuel Berenbaum in the afternoon learn at a fast rate. I walked by his place in the start of the afternoon session and towards the end the the afternoon I saw he had progressed more than ten pages.
[And in terms of Gemara learning -that is a lot].


I think it is  a good idea to apply this method of learning to Mathematics and Physics. That is to have a few fast sessions in which one just says the words and goes on until he finishes the book--and then starts over again. But also to have a few sessions of learning in depth with immediate review. That is how Litvak yeshivas anyway learn. The morning for deep learning and the afternoon for fast learning.

[The reason to apply this to math is more or less along the lines of the rishonim that held that physics and metaphysics are important to learn besides the regular session in Gemara.

[I might add that in Shar Yashuv and with my learning partner David Bronson, I noticed that to get inside of Tosphot it is needed to spend a great deal of time on even just one page of Gemara. But that woulkd have to come under the category of in depth learning. That does not take away the need to do all of Shas as the Gra and Rav Nahman pointed out.]

bullying

Some girls asked me about bullying--that is what were my experiences [in school]? My answer was that I never experienced anything like that at all. The reason is that when I was in school this was simply a different day and age. That is I was in Newport Beach CA in Mariners elementary school and then later in Hawthorn elemntry school [BH] and then Beverly Hills High School. Clearly something terrible was happening in the world in the 1960's in such a way that a new world appeared in the 1970's in which the world became a crazy place. The 1960's was a transition from the world of the 1950's and the 1970's. The world became a madhouse. But I was mainly guarded from the problems since I was in the Mir in NY [after high school] and then later in Safed in Israel . So I was more or less unaware of how drastically the world had changed. What does it all mean? I am not sure.
[I might add that the reason I was accepted in the Mir in NY was that I already knew some Hebrew since I learned Torah in Temple Israel in Hollywood and after that in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv. I have to add that in some ways I think Shar Yasuv was superior to the Mir in terms of their analysis of Tospfot. But the Mir was more into the path of Rav Haim from Brisk.]
Since most of the time in the 1970's and 1980's I was involved in the Torah I did not see what was going on around me. Only when I emerged from my shell I saw the religious world in itself had become a hell hole. The explanation of this I found in Rav Nahman's idea of Torah scholars that are demons.יש תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים כמובא בזוהר פרשת פנחס/
That is to say that the Dark Side has penetrated the religious world and taken it over.

The solution to this problem seems to me to be more or less to go to a Litvak Yeshiva that follows the path of the Gra and Rav Shach as far as possible. [I assume there must be places like that even though I do not have the merit to be anywhere near one/ My impression is that I myself would not have had such terrible problems if I had simply stuck with the straight Torah path of the Gra and the Litvak world. It was the fact that I more or less left that path and then my attempts to get back in ended in failure.]

Bava Mezia page 43a. First Tosphot on the page. The question of Tosphot

  Bava Mezia it seems to me the question of Tosphot is thus. [And I should add that clearly Tosphot thinks he is asking on Rav Huna even though it can be expanded to Rav Nahman also. This you can see in the language of Tosphot where he clearly points his question towards Rav Huna. but the fact that Tosphot is on the question of RavNahman we can see he is also asking on Rav Nahman.]
  The question is this:There is no משיכה for money. I mean to say this. If the money given to the money changer would be a loan then fine. We can see that the money changer would be obligated as a person that took a loan. But he is not a borrower. he simply has permission to use the money. That does not make him a borrower. It would make him someone that borrowed an object like an ax. But money is not an ax. There is no קניין on the money as if it would be an ax.
  [The unstated problem I am trying to adress here is that the question of Tosphot seems to be more appilicable to Rav Nahman than to Rav Huna-because to R yohanan the whole reason that money does not acquire is so the seller can not say to the buyer your wheat was burned up in the barn before you took it home. This does not seem to apply to Rav Hiuna who holds the seller in that case would be liable.]
  I was not able to learn this Gemara for a few days sadly enough. But today I went to the mikveh in the sea and on the way to the library the intenion of Tospfot became clear to me.
I am still looking for a place I can sit and learn Torah but without any success.
  Anyway after writing the above paragraphs I want to just add a little bit of background as far as I can remember the gemara itself.  In the Mishna we have the law that if you give to a money changer money to guard --but the money is not sealed, the money changer can use it. But if he loses it he must pay it back. The mishna says "if he looses it:" but Rav Huna said also if he looses it by means of a accident that was not his fault he still has to pay it back. Rav nachman said only if he loses it but if it a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a teaching that says if a person that has in his possession an object of "bedek habait" gives it to a to a money changer to guard and the moeny changer uses the moeny, then the first person is liable for meila.
Tosphot asks from the mishna נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.
בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. שאלת תוספות היא כך .אין משיכה לגבי מעות. דהיינו אם המצב היה שהשולחני קיבל מעות בתור הלוואה הכל היה בסדר. אבל הוא אינו לווה. הוא פשוט קיבל כסף לשמור הגם שיש לו רשות להשתמש עם הכסף. וזה אינו גורם לו להיות לווה. אבל הוא גם אינו שואל בגלל שכסף אינו חפץ. אובייקט.
השאלה שאני משתדל לענות עליה היא ששאלת תוספות נראית יותר להיות שייכת לרב נחמן. היינו שהסיבה שאין משיכה במעות היא בגלל החשש שהמוכר יגיד ללוקח חיטיך נשרפו בעליה. וזה שייך רק לרב נחמן אבל לרב הונא הנפקד הוא שואל ולכן חייב באונסים. אבל עכשיו רוצה לומר שהשאלה שייכת  במיוחד לרב הונא בגלל שאין משיכה במעות אלא אם כן הוא לווה. ובמצב שלנו הוא אינו לווה וגם אינו שואל. הרקע כאן הוא זה. החוק במשנה הוא המפקיד מעות פתוחות לשלחני ונאבדו השולחני חייב בגלל שהייתה לו רשות להשתמש בהן .רב הונא אמר אפילו אם נאנסו. ורב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבדו. ורב נחמן שאל מחוק שגזבר שהפקיד ליד שולחני מעות פתוחות והוא השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. השאלה היא שרק אם הוא השתמש, לא אם רק נמסרו לו. תוספות שואלים מן הדין נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.