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.

In the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]

In the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] you have a basic scenario like this. Before the creation of the world there was simply the Divine Light everywhere-and thus no place for creation. So there had to be made an empty space חלל הפנוי from where God emptied out his light.But he did leave a source of light in the exact middle. Then he sent down a beam of light that as onion rings [ten rings] --crown until royalty. Then after that he sent down again light in the form of a man אדם קדמון. Then this form of a man sent light down from his ears nose mouth and eyes. These formed world outside of the body of Adam Kadmon. One world created from this was "Akudim" stripped. The nekudim "dotted". [both are mentioned in Genesis in report about Jacob with the striped and spotted sheep.] Then there was the famous Shivrat Hakelim [breaking of the vessels]. So at that point we have the vessels along with some sparks of light left in them falling down into three lower worlds Creation Formation and then the Physical Universe. Then begins the process of bringing up the fallen vessels and repairing them (this repair happens in the place where there were the dots nekudim but at this point this is called Emanation Atzilut). [In more detail it makes sense to learn the Eitz Haim of the Ari. That books gives the full picture in more detail. Other books of the Ari deal with other issues like the Shaar HaGilgulim which talks about the root of different souls. A major theme there is how a lot of souls have their root in Cain and others in Hevel his brother. But it is useful to know that the Ari himself revealed that information to his student Rav Haim Vital to give him details about the roots of his soul [Rav Haim Vital's] which was from Emanation. The idea is that there are rare souls whose come from the world of Emanation. It is well known that the patriarchs are souls of Emanation. This is one reason why you find some souls to be from Emanation, That is to say some souls are united with some sephera of Emanation like Abraham being united with the sephera of Hesed Kindness. Isaac united with Power etc. But also you can have a soul that is from Emanation but just a spark of some sephera there--not the whole sephera.
[I knew someone who wanted to convert and the question was asked if they thought Jesus was divine? I do not see how that is a valid issue since lots of tzadikim are thought to be divine in the sense that the world of Emanation is considered pure divinity. כולו אלקות
[The way I see the Ari is as a modification of Plotinus]

Questions on the Gemara -Talmud.

In the Talmud there are some passages that give some people pause. I would like to say that I asked David Bronson in Uman about some passages that were bothering me and his answer was to open the particular passage and see what it is actually saying. Most times that cleared up the issue. But that does not mean there are no good questions or that everything in the Talmud is 100%. Rather the Talmud is an approximation of the Oral Law. It is how the Oral Law had been handed down and written down. But there are differences between things that are directly from Mount Sinai and things that were judged to be so by one court of law in one generation that can be overturned by a later court if the later court is greater in wisdom and number.
But in any case, there were some passages that were brought to my attention that I would like to address.

One is a case brought that a person tied up another and put him in his basement--he is not judged guilty of the death penalty. That is in Bava Kama dealing with laws of causing indirect damage. So the Gemara there does not go into the issue in more detail as it does in Sanhedrin where the actual subject of murder comes up. There in Sanhedrin it is brought that when you have a murderer who has murdered but without the condition that would make him judged guilty accoutring to the laws of the Torah but you still know he did murder, you take him in a cell and give him dry barley  until he dies
The idea is that in the Torah it is hard to actually incur the death penalty since the conditions are hard to come by. That is there has to be two witness that see the act and the act has to be direct--not by indirect causation and there has to be a warning by the witness right before the act saying to him, "If you do this you will incur the death penalty because of such and such a verse."

I should be impeached.

I should be impeached. I confess. I did an infamous tit for that transaction today. A despicable quid pro quo. I bought two packages of potato chips I offered money to the owner of the store to give me those two packages. {Maybe Trump and I can share a cell at Sing Sing prison?]

Mir Yeshiva in NY

I was discussing some of my path that led me to the Mir Yeshiva in NY and later to Safed. In the conversation Spinoza came up. The basic story is this. I knew that Einstein liked Spinoza so from the age of 11 until I actually went tom Shar Yashuv and the Mir I learned Spinoza. But not that I had any concept of his being supposedly under some excommunication.

In fact I think that for a excommunication to be valid the people making it need to have a certain degree of knowledge in Gemara. But if the people that put him into excommunication are anything like the religious leaders today then their ban is not valid.--This is for the reason that there is no Tosphot anywhere in Shas that you can ask any  religious rav about and he will know the answer. They are simply ignorant. The reason is to get into their position they have connections and learn a few laws but knowledge of gemara and Tosphot --forget about it.

So the idea of excommunication is  valid idea and when it is done properly certainly has legal validity. But that I think could not have been the case with |Spinoza.

In any case the only book of Spinoza I was familiar with was the Ethics and from that I got the idea that morality is objective and that reason recognizes moral principles.. His idea of God I also did not find a problem with since to him the center of gravity is on God-not nature. Nature is simply God doing his thing. Natura Naturans--Nature naturing. Still in all that was not my concept of God which was more along the lines I heard at home--of God that is the first cause and that hears and answers prayer--and is not the world but rather the creator of the world.
At any rate, to me going to the Mir just seemed like a natural continuation of the education I got at home and in Temple Israel.--that moral laws are recognizable by reason--and that God hears prayer.
My fall from the Mir I think was because I was not really finding myself in that environment very well. I had gotten married and somehow sort of got pulled away from learning. In the long run I think I ought to have been stubborn to stick with the straight Torah path of the Gra and the Litvak Yeshiva world.

The way to go about learning Physics in my opinion does not involve books that are meant for laymen. See this blog :https://motls.blogspot.com/ where you can see that books written for laymen give wrong ideas--especially nowadays.

Instead the best way to go about is I think is to say the words and to go on. לומר את הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם לא יבין תכף יבין אחר כך ואם ישארו איזה הוא דברים שאף על פי כן לא יוכל לעמוד על כוונתו מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל שיחות הר''ן שיחה ע''ו


From where do you learn that learning Physics is a part of learning? From Musar. חובות לבבות הקדמה ושער הבחינה פרק ג
Also in the Mishna Torah Laws of Learning Tora-- about dividing one's learning into Written Law Oral Law and Gemara and "Pardes" is in the category of Gemara--and the Rambam says there that he explained what Pardes is in the beginning of Mishna Torah in the first four chapters. There he explains Pardes as the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics as you find in Aristotle and his later commentaries.

religious truth

My opinion about religious truth follows a idea that is brought in the Phenomenology of the Spirit by Hegel. You can look on a process of growing of fruit a fruit tree thus--the bud is destroyed by the blossom, Then the blossom is destroyed by the fruit. Or you can say the bud is sublimated into the blossom and then the blossom is sublimated into the fruit.
So Plato Aristotle Aquinas Leibniz and Spinoza were like the bud and blossom that eventually develop into the full fruit.


I see religious truth to be along the same lines.

For example in Christianity the issue about the Trinity is in a process of development as one can see in this blog https://trinities.org/blog/.
That is to say it is becoming more clear as time goes on that Jesus was attached to God in the sense that the commandment says to love and fear God and to be attached to him. That does not mean he was God. See also the book on Sonship by Professor Moshe Idel.

However this is not to say that the Trinity is all that much off. In fact we find lots of saints that are considered divine. The name of the Ari on his grave is האלקי ר' יצחק לוריא אשכנזי.. The Divine R, Isaac Luria. Lots of saints are thought to be souls of Atzilut Emanation. See the whole discussion in teh main book of Rav Nahman of Breslov the LeM vol 2 about tzadik who is בחינת בן ר'' אליעזר וצדיק שהוא בחינת עבד כמו ר' יהושע

page 13 of Bava Kama

There is something going on in Tosphot on page 13 of Bava Kama that I am finding hard to understand. Why does he bring up the issue of whether the ox does full damage or half in his question on Rashi. I was puzzling about this until I saw the second edition of the Maharsha. Still the issue is unclear to me.

The basic issue is this. On page 13 the case is a peace offering gores another animal. The law is the owner of the animal can not say I want the parts of the animal that are not brought as a sacrifice. They both have to share equally. The Gemara asks who is this going like. If to the sages then it is simple.
ר' אבא אמר שלמים שנגחו גובים מן הבשר ולא מן האימורים היינו החלקים שעולים על המזבח. הגמרא שואלת לפי מי זה? אם לפי החכמים אז הוא פשוט.. מה הדין של החכמים? הוא אם שור דחף בהמה לבור-בעל השור משלם ולא בעל הבור. ולפי רש''י הכוונה היא שבעל השור משלם את הכל אם הוא מועד וחצי אם הוא תם. תוספות שואלים אם כן מה הדמיון למצב של שלמים שנגח ששם גם האימורים הם חלק מן השור? תוספות מוסיפים בתוך שאלתם על רש''י שבשלב הזה של הגמרא אוחזים שכל חלק מן השלמים עשו כל הנזק. שאם לא כן וכל חלק הזיק רק לפי חלקו אז  הניזק יכול לומר שמגיע לו רק הבשר ולא האימורים. אבל לי נראה שזה תלוי בדין של ברירה. ואם זה תלוי בברירה אז מה משנה אם כל חלק עשה כל הנזק או רק הזיק לפי חלקו?


What is the case of the sages? It is when a ox pushes another animal into a pit. and the sages say the owner of the ox pays, not the owner of the pit.  Rashi explains the sages that they mean if the ox is tam [never gored before] then the owner of the ox pays a full half and if it is muad [it gored before] he pays full.
Tosphot asks if so then the owner of the pit has no portion in the damage and so what is the parallel to the case of the peace offering?
But then Tosphot adds that Rashi must be holding at this point in the case of the ox and the pit that the sages are holding the ox does full damage. Why because otherwise why would the owner of the ox pay full damages. But also the Maharsha add a further reason. That is the if the sages hold the ox did half damages then when we get back to the case of the peace offering there would be a good reason for the owner of the animal that was damaged to claim only the half of the ox that does not go on the altar is the part that did the damages.

The thing about this that I find difficult is the question is this not then a case of brera?[choosing a portion after the fact. ]

learning Torah

I noticed today in the book of Rav Nahman from Breslov a few interesting ideas.

The idea that he introduces is that by learning Torah with energy one merits to grace in such a way that ones requests are answered whether from heaven of from people.

The way learning Torah with energy is explained in the commentary on Rav Nahman [Parparot LeKhahma] to be the idea of learning Torah with "Hatmada" constantly and with effort.

When in my life things were going better and I was successful this particular lesson did not make much sense to me. Things were going my way and my prayers were being answered.

However nowadays when things stopped going my way and I have no grace in the eyes of God [in such a sense that my prayers are answered] nor of people it makes a lot more sense.

However I do not see it all that possible to reinsert myself into the Lithuanian yeshiva world where in fact Torah is learned with energy and hatmada (constantly)

This is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. The idea is there is a cause of damage that is sufficient in itself to cause the damage. But another person adds to it. Is he also obligated. This is like a case of fire that is burning hot enough to destroy a stack of hay but someone throws an extra stick in. Is he also obligated for his addition?

If you have a pit in a public domain that is ten hand breaths deep and someone adds to it another hand-breath is that obligated for damages? This is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam.

[See the Rosh in Bava Kama, chapter 2. And the Shiltai HaGiborim on the Rif].

It seems to me that this might depend on the argument between the Sages and R. Natan in Bava Kama 53. Over there we have acase an ox pushed another ox into a pit. the sages say the owner of the ox is obligated not the owner of the pit. R. Natan said in the case of an ox that never gored before the owner of the ox is required a 1/4 and the owner of the pit is obligated in1/2. In the case of an ox that has already gored two times before each pays 1/2. It seems to me that the Rambam here is going like the sages.

The idea is there is a cause of damage that is sufficient in itself to cause the damage. But another person adds to it. Is he also obligated. This is like a case of fire that is burning hot enough to destroy a stack of hay but someone throws an extra stick in. Is he also obligated for his addition?



[There is an argument between Tosphot and Rashi about what the sages actually hold --but I simply have not had a chance to take a good look at their argument yet. As I mentioned my life has been total chaos for a over a year.]

Danny Frederick [https://philpapers.org/rec/FRETCE-3] says that there is a theory of Berkeley about justification for government that comes from the fact that without government there would be really terrible consequences.

path of my father

I would like to present the path of my father.[Philip Rosenblum (Rosten)] For me it is kind of hard to define but if I give a little background on how I was raised that might make it a bit clearer.

The main thing about it was balance. So learning Torah in the way of the Litvaks --the Gra and Rav Shach is certainly a part of that. Authentic Torah. But it was more along the lines of a balance of values.
His parents came over from Poland right around WWI. His father Yaakov Rosenblum was invited to the USA by his older brother who was married to a girl from Poland. [Not the same city.] When yaakov got to the USA his brother suggested that they send for the sister of the brother's wife so she could marry Yaakov. "She would like you" the brother and his wife said. So Rivka, my grandmother came over also to the USA and married Yaakov.
So My Dad and his brother and sister all went to public school while ,my grandfather worked in a bakery in lower Manhattan.

My Dad went to Cal Tech [the California Institute of Technology] and he liked it. It was not his way to emphasize any particular advice of path to me or my brothers but clearly he like the idea of technology and classical music. So my brothers and I all went to public school but in order to learn Torah we went to Temple Israel in Hollywood.  But I want to add that my parents also wanted me and my brothers to go to the boy scouts. But somehow that simply did not stick with any of us. But that was one area that my father definitely emphasized to the nth degree--to be self reliant.

I continued my education in Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY and after that i majored in Physics at NYU.
So you see there is a kind of aspect of balance in the path of my dad that is hard to define. He also I must add volunteered for the USAF during WWII and was sent to the European Theater of action. He became a captain in the USAF.

So what you mainly see from this is that his path was more or less to be  "a mensch". [Which is how my mom put it.]

But there was something much more that that. He had that undefinable quality that you see in navy seals--never give up. Commitment, Integrity, Loyalty. Things that you can not learn from a textbook.

Henry the fifth simply kidnapped the Pope

Henry the fifth simply kidnapped the Pope until he agreed with the position of Henry that the king has the right to appoint bishops over his areas.

In any case the situation today with the Catholic church does seem problematic. I would say that in fact there has been a kind of evolution. In fact I have been looking at Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Etter, Semour [Azusa Street], Ameiee Semple McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman. And it does look that there has been a kind of evolutionary process.

Litvak Yeshiva world.

I admit I did not do very well in the Litvak Yeshiva world. I did not have the kind of staying power that some people have to stick with learning the Oral and Written Law --at all cost. At some point, I got distracted --you might say. I got involved with Breslov. In so far as that means to listen to the amazing advice of Rav Nahman from Breslov, that is a great thing. But the tendency is for it to distract from plain simple learning Gemara. Or at least that seems to have been the effect it had on me. Later when I actually got to Uman and was able to learn with David Bronson, the interest in Gemara started up again. But I can not claim to be any kind of Litvak type of person. The reason my blog is labeled after Rav Shach and the Gra is I see them as ideals I would like to strive for,-- but do not claim to be anywhere near their amazing levels.

I ought to add that no matter how much one is devoted to learning straight Tora in the Litvak way, it is needed to marry a girl that also holds from this as a life goal. It does not help much if you are devoted to learning and your wife is constantly criticizing this and asking for more money.

This kind of situation is inherently unstable.


[Still I do not want to sound critical of Rav Nahman who was a great tzadik. Just because I understood his advice and approach in the wrong way does not mean that it is mistaken. As Steven Dutch wrote that he can not conceive of any system that can not be corrupted.'

"There is no perfect system

I am completely unable to conceive of any legal or social system that can’t be subverted or abused. People who crave power or status will gravitate toward whatever confers those rewards. And they will always discover ways to get the rewards without paying their dues."

https://stevedutch.net/Pseudosc/Dutchrules.htm



 [Anyway, ideas are true or false because of how they correspond to reality, not how their believers do.](https://stevedutch.net/Pseudosc/10DumRel.htm)

objections to Christianity

I have concluded that Christians do not know the objections to Christianity. Nor possible answers.

The objections are many but at least a major one is that of idolatry. Is it in fact idolatry? Clearly this was the objection that the Trinity came to answer. This is why the alternative view of Arianism was rejected. [Even though it is clear from the NT itself that Jesus did not consider himself to be God.]

So the questions have to be divided into different groups. Is the Trinity or any of the various approaches to the trinity correct? And then let's say that none of them are correct. Then what is the right view?

Mt view about this is that the Trinity is not correct. I do not see anything that indicates that it is true or that Jesus held that way at all. [A person can be דבוק attached to God without being God. You see this in the verses which say that one must be attached to God. The actual quotation I forget but basically it says "Thou shalt fear God and love Him and be attached to Him." ולדבקה בו]

But does this in itself make the whole thing no good? I doubt that. There are examples of people that are considered to be from the world of Emanation that is brought in the Remak and Rav Isaac Luria. And it is well know that souls from the world of Emanation are considered to be on the level of "son" as opposed to souls from Creation which are on the level of servants.

As for the idea that God can wrap and cloth himself in a physical body is dealt with in the Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin about the Barber that gave Sennacherib a haircut. The Gemara there says openly that that was God himself and that if it would not be openly stated in the verse it would be impossible to say. [So if it would only mean it as a allegory then it would be possible to say. so the Gemara means that the verse is literal. That God himself came down as a Barber and gave Sennacherib a haircut.

It is also curious the visceral reaction people have towards Christianity. But this seems to be a different subject. Since the intense hatred most people have towards Christianity does not seem related to the actual objections but rather comes from a deep sited irrational l hatred. But this is not a subject that I understand very well. Mainly I think it is relate to what Michael Huemer writes about why people have irrational political beliefs. [Group identity is a major factor.]