my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot.

The Litvak yeshiva world. True that it is the prime example of loyalty to Torah. Especially the verse "Do not add nor subtract." 

However my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot. Not that I disparage those that learn Torah all the time. Still I try to walk on this sort of middle path. [All of one's complaints about the straight Litvak world can be balanced by the fact that whatever actions taken against you can be balanced by your own faults that led at it least in half to that very situation.] Besides that see the story of Rav Nahman [the first]about the giants and the mishne lemelech second in authority to the king. the giants that were obstacles in the end turned out to be the very thing needed.

 

It is a subject mentioned in the Mishna, and Gemara itself. Torah with Derech Eretz in one mishna. And there is removed the yoke of derech eretz from all who receive on themselves the yoke of Torah.

I can not really say one or the other is right. It seems to depend on one's root soul

.

[I do however say that that the area of dinge an sich is inherently contradictory as Kant said. So simply going by reason and deciding things based on texts alone is inherently wrong. Rather the basis of Torah is objective morality. So the right path is not the issue. The real issue is how to be a mensch. how to come to the right moral decisions. That is objective morality.

Musar [books on ethics]

 You see in Musar [books on ethics] an emphasis on correction of character traits. The reason I think is this. One might be aware of his own sins and try to correct them. But that leaves the root of the sin not fixed --the kind of fault that led to the sin. And also sins can be hard to identify, and sometimes even if one is aware of them, they might contradict each other. That is the very nature of the spirituality--It does not lend itself well being reasoned about. Thus it is best to work on one's character and by that uproot the source of ones faults. 

I have tried to identify my sins by mean of experience. That is: to see what actions caused problems. This is often easy because one can see immediate results. Other times the results of certain actions can be a long time coming. But in any case, this is better than reasoning from books, for the mind is often highly misleading. One can find anything he wants in any books. This is unreliable.  

 I am not saying what kind of path one ought to take. My father as you can see was more along the lines of what you could call secular, while I went to Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY. So what seems best to me is along the lines of Dr Kelley Ross's modification of the Kant Fries school where he shows an array of values. That is to say: I think every person is or can be connected to a certain area of value. Clearly that area is what ought to spend his or her time perfecting. [I do not think Mozart ought to have tried to become a Physicist. Nor do I think he would have been a great one even if he had. Rather he found or was guided by his dad into the area of value that was right for him.]

However I also think every area of value has an opposite area that  one can get pulled into if he or she is not careful. E.g., one who has talent in music must be careful not to be pulled into anti-music.  

[{Also, I think one ought to be balanced. Even if one concentrates on one area, he should also have some balanced with the other areas of positive value.]

why my dad {Philip Rosten} doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. It is that the company TRW became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. S

 I just wanted to make clear why my dad {Philip Rosten}doesn't get credit for laser communication between satellites. The reason is not due to anyone's malice. It is simply that the company TRW more or less became a car manufacturing company after the mole was found who was selling all the advances in technology to the KGB. So what ever  was developed at TRW was simply sold to the other aerospace companies [like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. ]. And that is the cause that the paper records of who developed the technology was lost.

[No one foresaw that TRW would eventually be rehabilitated and get back into the action in the 1990's] 

Nedarim 91

 I was hoping to have an answer for this question before I write it down. But so far nothing has occurred to me. So I might as well write it and hope that someday I might merit to some answer.

Simply put it is this. There is an argument between the Raavad and the Rambam concerning the case where a woman says to her husband "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the Raavad this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the Rambam, she can go and get married  and gets her ketubah. Rav Shach [Laws of marriage 16:26] brings the source of the Raavad. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the Rambam.

The source is Nedarim 91. The mishna says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her ketubah. One is a woman that says "I am forbidden to you." Then the sages changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. Rav Hamenuna said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed.

The parallel to the case of the mishna   to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her ketubah.

However Rav Shach I think is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the Raavad.

I mean to say that Rav Hamenuna's case is different anyway from the mishna--even the first mishna [before the sages changed their mind.] In the mishna we force him to divorce her. In the case of Rav Hamenuna we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the mishna a woman who is the wife of a priest that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband. She is forbidden to him. And since the rape was against her will, she gets her ketubah. The parallel of Rav hamenunah is when she says you divorc]ed me is not exact. To the Rambam She is believed and gets her ketubah. To the Raavad she does not. The aspect where the Rambam makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the Raavad is that she gets the ketubah because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם concerning the case where a woman says to her husband, "You have divorced me." She is believed. To the ראב''ד this means only that if she gets married to someone else, she can stay there. To the רמב''ם, she can go and get married  and gets her כתובה. And רב שך in בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה  כ''ו  brings the source of the ראב''ד. My question is that that source looks more along the lines of the  רמב''ם. The source is נדרים צ''א. The משנה says at first there were three cases when a woman is divorced and gets her כתובה. One is a woman that says, "I am forbidden to you." Then the חכמים changed their minds and said perhaps she has put her eyes on someone else. רב המנונא said however a woman that says "You divorced me" is believed. The parallel to the case of the משנה  to me seems to imply when she says you divorced me she is allowed to remarry and gets her כתובה. However רב שך is making a point here that in the case of "you divorced me", we do not make him give another divorce. We simply believe her. So this is in that sense a proof for the ראב''ד. I mean to say that רב המנונא case is different anyway from the משנה, even the first משנה [before the חכמים changed their mind.] In the משנה we force him to divorce her. In the case of רב המנונא we simply believe that she was divorced.

[The point is that to the משנה a woman who is the wife of a כהן that has been raped must be divorced because she is forbidden to her husband.  And since the rape was against her will, she gets her כתובה. The parallel of רב המנונא is when she says you גירשת אותי is not exact. To the רמב''ם She is believed and gets her כתובה. To the ראב''ד she does not. The aspect where the רמב''ם makes sense is getting the ketubah. The point of the ראב''ד is that she gets the כתובה because she was raped and thus did nothing wrong. This does not have a parallel to our case of when she says You divorced me. 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם בנוגע למקרה שבו אישה אומרת לבעלה "גרשתני". מאמינים לה. לראב''ד זה אומר רק שאם היא מתחתנת עם מישהו אחר, היא יכולה להישאר שם. לרמב''ם, היא יכולה ללכת להתחתן ולהשיג את הכתובה שלה. ורב שך בהלכות אישות ט''ז הלכה כ''ו מביא את מקור הרב''ד. השאלה שלי היא שמקור זה נראה יותר לצד הרמב''ם. המקור הוא נדרים צ''א. המשנה אומרת בהתחלה היו שלושה מקרים בהם אישה יוצאת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. אחת מהן היא אישה שאומרת: "אסור לי עליך". ואז החכמים שינו את דעתם ואמרו שאולי היא שמה עיניים למישהו אחר. רב המנונא אמר כי עם זאת מאמינים באישה שאומרת "התגרשתי ממך". נראה שההקבלה למקרה של המשנה מרמזת כשהיא אומרת ש"התגרשתי ממך", מותר לה להינשא מחדש ולקבל את הכתובה שלה. עם זאת רב שך מציין כאן שבמקרה של "התגרשתי ממך", אנו לא גורמים לו לתת גט נוסף. אנחנו פשוט מאמינים לה. אז זוהי במובן הזה הוכחה לראב''ד. אני מתכוון לומר שמקרה של רב המנונא בכל מקרה שונה מהמשנה, אפילו המשנה הראשונה [לפני שחכמים שינו את דעתם.] במשנה אנו מכריחים אותו לגרש אותה. במקרה של הרב המנונא אנחנו פשוט מאמינים שהיא גרושה

העניין הוא שלמשנה אישה שהיא אשתו של כהן שנאנסה חייבת להתגרש מכיוון שהיא אסורה לבעלה. ומכיוון שהאונס היה בניגוד לרצונה, היא מקבלת את הכתובה שלה. ההקבלה של הרב המנונא היא כשהיא אומרת שאתה גירשת אותי לא מדויק. לרמב''ם היא נאמנת ומקבלת את הכתובה שלה. לראב''ד היא לא. ההיבט שבו הרמב''ם הגיוני הוא לעניין קבלת הכתובה. הנקודה של הראב''ד היא שהיא מקבלת את הכתובה במשנה כי היא נאנסה ולכן לא עשתה שום דבר רע. אין לזה מקבילה למקרה שלנו כשהיא אומרת שגרשתני

Rav Nahman has this great idea of talking with God as one talks with a good friend. But to him it was not a casual conversation. For example he would go out in the morning to some secluded spot in the forest and spend the whole day asking God to come close to His service. And I took this idea to heart when I first arrived in Safed. [This did not last long--but the basic idea has remained with me about the importance of this sort of conversation with God.] But I also realize it has to flow out of some deep level under the layer of normal consciousness.

[That is there is some surface level of consciousness. That is the stream of thoughts. Then there is the level under that--the one doing the  thinking. Then under that there is some level that is even hidden from that level. This is commonly called the subconscious--discovered by Leibnitz. [Attributing to him by Nietzsche.] 

Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,

 I think China lost world respect by means of its actions in Hong Kong.  Or put more clearly,- it lost its ability to make friends. It has lots economic power, but not friends. I mean just think about how many friends has in South East Asia?  On the other hand, think about friends of the USA. Especially in that region. Australia and Japan and Taiwan. But in terms of just the simple fact of how many the sorts of liberal democracies are  allies of the USA. So the fact that everyone saw what was done to Hong Kong, how many Western democracies would help China in any future conflicts?

This could be corrected by keeping their word as to respecting the rights of Hong Kong as they promised when Britain gave them control.

[Military allies are as important and even more so than economic power.,,,,,   as you can see in the history of the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens. It is not a matter of how many pencils China can produce. It is a matter of how may people have confidence in their word of honor. If they do not tell the truth, then the pencils do not matter.