To learn from the middle and outwards

One thing i heard in high school by an assistant to the physics teacher. To learn from the middle and outwards. [He also said from beginning to end and from end to beginning.] This idea is a great help in learning Physics since it is often the case that i need review to understand what I am learning. But review in itself can be hard to know from where to start. So what I do is just to start where I am already holding in the book--for example Polchinski's String Theory Notes. [The idea is to  just start from where i am already holding [e.g. page 60] and then to go back to the previous section and from there just to say the words in order until i get to where i was at page 60. and then to go back to two sections before and from there also to work forward to page 60. etc until i get to the beginning.

the idea behind this--that makes it worthwhile- is the books of Musar which go by Rav Saadia Gaon that Physics and Metaphysics are in the category of learning Torah. [However this is an argument among the rishonim.]

The Gra says when people do open evil, it is easier to guard oneself from them. But when people hide their hatred in the hearts and pretend to be your best friend, you can not guard yourself from them.

There is a Gemara that says that the first Temple was destroyed because of idolatry, forbidden relations, and murder. The Second Temple because of baseless hate, and that baseless hate is worse.

So I was wondering how this is possible until I saw the Gra explain this. He says when people do open evil, it is easier to guard oneself from them. But when people hide their hatred in the hearts but pretend to be your best friend, you can  not guard yourself from them.

[To me this seems clearly to be a hint to what Rav Nahman was talking about in his lessons about people that are evil even though they are scholars. See Le.M. Vol I:12 and I:28] (If the Gra's letter of excommunication would apply to Rav Nahman I would not be quoting Rav Nahman. But my opinion is that it did not apply to Rav Nahman.]

[Incidentally I saw in the Five Books of Moses that is printed with collected commentaries by the Gra that  at least one issue why he signed the letter of excommunication was that of Kishuf--black magic that pretends to be from the realm of holiness.]

Bava Kama page 13

The most obvious problem on Bava Kama page 13 is that the Gemara only deals with one of the two possibilities in R. Nathan. Why does it not deal with the possibility that in the case of the ox and the pit that both are thought to have causes all the damage? Well Tosphot seems to deal with this. He at least implies that that would already make it clear that R Nathan would agree with R Aba. I can not see why?
Just for clarity's sake let me present the basic subject. R. Aba says a peace offering gores another animal. One collects from the meat, not the parts that go on the altar. [That means they both share equally. The owner of the damaged animal can not say he wants only the meat.]
ר' אבא אמר שלמים שהזיקו גובה מבשרם ואינו גובה מאימוריהם
The Gemara says R Nathan could agree with this because he holds in his case on page 53 that owner of the pit has to pay 3/4's damage because the damaged animal was found in his pit. But clearly that is only to one opinion on page 53. What about the other opinion that both the owner of the pit and ox caused full damage.

To me it seems clear that if I would be learning with David Bronson that he would not move from this issue until it would become clear. But I pretty much gave up already on understanding this.]

The reason there is some lack of clarity for me here is the issue of "Breira" choosing after the fact.
That is let's says two people inherit something. Can one say retrospectively that one part went to him?
So here whether each one did all the damage or one each did half why does it make a difference? So let's say in the case of a ox and pit that cause damage and each does half. So how would that apply to the case of an animal that gores another? The owner of the gored animal would be able to say some particular part did half the goring if you say "Breira"( choosing after the fact). But then if both do the whole damage also you can say the same. If he can choose which part then he still can choose that part of you say Breira ( choosing after the fact). 

straight Torah

The main advantage to the path of the Gra and Rav Shach is that it is straight Torah. That is--no admixtures. So even if one like me who does not have that merit that is needed to walk on the path of straight Torah still it gives you an idea of what straight Torah is supposed to be about.

To some degree this is also the advantage of the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter except that Musar itself seems to be liable to led one to distractions.

Also I should add that even though in theory the Litvak Yeshiva world identifies with this straight path of Torah, a lot depends on which particular institution you are dealing with. In my opinion Ponovitch and Brisk are the best in Israel. I myself was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in the USA and both places impressed me very much. -In different ways. Shar Yashuv was definitely very much into the spirit of Torah as much as the Mir but their ways of learning were different. Shar Yashuv was more along the lines of calculating the subject in its place. The Mir was into learning in a more global way like Rav Haim of Brisk.


[Neither were into learning anything mystic even though I did venture into that area myself later.]

I forgot the path of Shar Yashuv until I encountered it again in my learning partner in Uman, David Brosnon who also learns in  exactly that same way. And that is more or less the path along which i wrote my two books on Gemara.חידושי הש''ס עיוני בבא מציעא

The Torah does forbid taking or giving interest on a loan. So how is it that banks do this even in Israel? The way this works is based on a gemara in Bava Metzia [page 104] which says that an iska [money given to deal with] is half a loan and half a guarded object. That itself is based on a mishna in Bava Mezia page 68 that says to give money to someone to buy some project or product and to sell and they will divide the profits is forbidden unless the one who is to do the selling gets paid. [How much is a debate.]

The way this works is that half is a loan that has to be paid back. So the lender can not get profit from that. But half is a משכון object that one is paid to guard. So the first party can get profit from that. The trouble is that there has to be risk so that it is not interest. The risk part is on the guarded object which if stolen does not have to be paid back. The basic idea is that any time there is a possibility for the lender to loose or to make money that is not considered to be interest.


So how much does the one that receives the money have to be paid? This is an argument among the sages of the Mishna. Then Rashi and Tosphot disagree about our particular Mishna holds. Then there is a debate between Shelomo Luria and the Maharsha and Maharam about what Tosphot and the Rosh mean. This is a long and hard issue that I have just begun to work on. The Rif, the Baal HaMeor and the Ramban also have a lot to say about this but I have not had a chance yet to get into this in detail.

development of philosophy?

So what do you learn from my post yesterday about the development of philosophy?

One lesson is that the issues that Kant and Hegel were dealing with were not the same as the issues in the Middle Ages.  So a person might take Aquinas or Saadia Gaon or Maimonides and still have to deal with more modern issues like the Mind Body problem.
You can also learn to ignore twentieth century philosophy as being vain and empty and as John Searle put it "obviously false".
The most recent developments that are of interest are of Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school which does take a certain direction in Kant. With him there is a kind of knowledge which is known and yet not from reason and not from the senses. So you might well understand that to be a defense of faith.
[That is a continuation of Leonard Nelson.]

Another development is Michael Huemer. That is a development of Prichard and the Intuitionists. That is to say that reason recognizes universals.

Hegel is the most rigorous and systematic of almost any philosopher who has ever lived. It is not just that his system puts things together. It is rather that everything is connected. To me he seems to be a direct develpment of Plato and Plotinus.--But he is informed by Kant and Schelling.

Pre Socratics, Decartes, Hegel.

. The Pre Socratics with the question how is change possible? After all what is already is. And what is not is nothing and can not be made into an "is". For it to become an is it already has to be something. This led up to Plato who said the realm of the Is is one realm--the true realm. The world we are in --the changing world is the world of change. Then came Aristotle and Plotinus and after that it took some time to sort things out.
Then the Middle Ages with the question of faith with reason. in the world of Torah it was Saadia Gaon who combined them. After him everyone accepted that a synthesis of faith with reason is the proper way of Torah.

The proper approach here also was unclear  and all Torah thinkers were going with Plato until the Rambam who turned to Aristotle. The remainder of the Middle Ages was simply to clear up the loose ends.

Then began the Mind Body problem with Descartes. This question has two approaches to it. One from John Locke. He was the beginning of the empirical approach to this. i.e. the mind --reason--abstracts from the senses. That is how it gets to pure reason. By this process of abstraction. [Hume went on this path after Locke.] Then the Rationalists- Spinoza, Leibniz. Berkeley was a radical version of this holding that all we know is what is in our own heads.
Kant published two versions of the Critique of Pure Reason. He treads a middle path where there is a ground of validity of pure reason--but only within the confines of conditions of possible experience. -not actual experience. Then came the neo-Kant people that understood Kant in different ways and modified him. That would be Fichte and Hegel on the side that reason can go into the thing in itself  (dinge an sich). Then Fries on the side of immediate (not through anything) non intuitive (not by the senses) knowledge  --a kind of third source of knowledge.
 In any case after Kant people were either trying to figure him out and also Hegel. Picking up the loose ends so to speak.  The World War One came and everyone abandoned Kant and Hegel and anything German. So the 20th century was a lot of mediocre people making up profound sounding stuff. As John Searle said about 20th century philosophy "It is obviously false."
Like there was one girl listening to Sartre talking how words mean on thing for the person talking but something else for the one listening. So a twelve year old girl asked him "So why are you talking?"
Dr Kelley Ross considers the Kant Fries School as a kind of continuation of Plato.
. Hegel to me seems to be also a kind of continuation of ancient Philosophy Plotinus in particular. At least consciously Hegel was giving a defence of Christianity though many took his ideas in the opposite direction. I think in some way that Hegel went even beyond Aquinas in this sense. That with Aquinas he got everything to fit together (as a large puzzle). But with Hegel, the pieces all are interconnected as an organic whole.