Learning Torah is needed

I could vaguely see this, but someone coming into the city (of the former USSR) where I am right now pin pointed the problem: "Punk-keit". That is in this city there is a kind of idealization of the punk. The young criminal thug. This must account for the fact that the Russians always seem to look down on this area and think of it as second rate.

This reminds me that when a person has a "yetzer hara" (an evil inclination), he does not think of that thing that he desires as being wrong. In this city, theft is certainly not considered a bad thing. I think it shows how much learning Torah is needed for people to get an idea of the difference between right and wrong. In particular Musar (Mediaeval Ethics) is necessary because it deals with the areas of Torah that are most needed. One place you can see this is in the Reshash {Rav Shalom Sharabi} where he brings this idea that the actual soul is one's character traits, while Torah and mitzvot are the clothing and food of the soul.

That is to say: if one lacks good character, he does not even have a holy soul. Then all the Torah and mitzvot do nothing. This is a reason most Jews in Europe were aware that the most essential lesson of Torah is "to be a mench" (decent human being .)

a unity between physicality and spirituality. Not just a connection but a kind of ground of being in which they are one and identical.

There is such a thing as a unity between physicality and spirituality. Not just a connection but a  kind of ground of being in which they are one and identical. That was the kind of thing I saw and felt between my parents and also it existed between me and my wife. That is not the same thing as two different things being connected but a place in which they are one and the same. [ Like the aspect of wave or particle of an electron before you measure it. ] This is also similar to the way Hegel is looking for a ground of unity between Notion and Being.

When I faced very difficult times

When I faced very difficult times, I made up my mind to tell the truth at all cost. telling the truth I feel has created a kind of force field around me. It does not make me impervious to harm, but I do think it has helped.


[I might have chosen not to speak lashon hara /gossip and also to learn Torah,  but at the time these were the things that made the most sense to me.]

Bava Sali had guarding his eyes as a prime principle, and I was aware of this at the time, but again I needed to find some principle  I could hold onto that I thought would help. I was not looking for just any random religious principle, but rather something I thought if I would hold fast onto it, could help me through my troubles. The most promising things in that direction were these two ideas of faith and truth.

[Today I would add learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, and Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] but then I was looking for something more basic.]


So now that I feel I am also in a difficult period, my thoughts are still to look for the set of basic principles to hold onto that should work. The main ones still I think should the truth telling at all cost. I was trying to work on trust in God without effort but now I feel I overdid that. I might have stayed in a bad situation thinking that if God wanted me to leave He would make it happen. That I think now was a mistake in judgment.  But the things that are still clear I think to continue to hold onto. That is to be careful about lashon hara [not to slander or say anything bad about anyone unless under extreme necessity.] To try to spend as much time as possible learning the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, the Vilna Shas, and Physics.

What I hope is that if I can hold onto these important things, maybe I will awaken to further things I need to do.

[You might note that I have not included metaphysics as  a prime obligation for myself.  ]

U-11 C Major

"What is the good life?"

The most important question one can ask is, "What is the good life?" A life of self indulgence and worldly power or a life of Divine service? To me it seems not everyone has the opportunity to ask this question but I felt in high school that this was the most important question facing me

The answer to this question for me was to go to two authentic Lithuanian kinds of yeshiva in NY. That is: my answer was to devote my life to learning and keeping Torah.
Later, I discovered that there are many people that in external appearance do exactly this, but in fact are not living the good life, but rather lives of self indulgence and lust for worldly power. So the answer to this question is more subtle than I had thought at the time. Especially when I got a chance to see the religious world in its totality, it became clear to me that none of them are living the good life -none are wise or compassionate or brave or have any kind of valor. Religious fanaticism  does not equal the good life. In fact, just the opposite.

The truth is I had a good view of the good life when I was living with my parents. Philip and Leila Rosenblum (Rosten). More or less that means a life of being "a mensch" that is to act "right" in every situation.

[The Litvak (Lithuanian) kinds of yeshivas to me seem to approach this ideal closely. That is at least they seem to see this idea of balance as a goal. They learn and keep Torah and serve in the IDF and also work and tend to not use Torah as  a means to make money. To me it seems they are on the right path as closely as possible though individual people there still have free will.]

Prophecy.

I am not at all skeptical about Prophecy. Not at all. This is based largely on Kant who divides reality into two realms, (1) the dinge an sich (things in themselves), things not as they are perceived but as they are) and (2) phenomenal reality. But I also believe like Hegel that there is a ground of unity between these two realms. [That is also hinted to in Maimonides in the Guide Volume 2 ch 19.] Where you see this in Hegel  in a few places but I think the clearest statement in that way is in his treatment of Kant in his lectures.



Where you see this ground of unity between these two realms in the Rambam is this statement: "If the matter of the spheres is one and the same, in virtue of what thing has any sphere been so particularized as to receive a nature other than the nature of any other sphere? . . . There must of necessity be something that particularizes."

[Volume II is where the Rambam defends Creation Ex Nihilo/ Something from Nothing at great length and it is very worthwhile to make a thorough study of those chapters.]

I believe that chapter in the Guide has confused commentators for a long time because of lack of knowledge of Hegel. This means they were not aware of what the Rambam was getting at. ]

That Yemenite fellow that translated the Guide from the original wrote great comments and he was aware of the Rambam's usage of concepts from Aristotle. But that particular chapter II:19 I think has confused people because the Rambam is certainly thinking beyond Aristotle.

[Besides that the Guide is hard because it is hard to translate into understandable form. It needs someone like Reb Chaim Soloveitchik to begin the work of getting it to be understandable. This is the same as the Mishne Torah.]  The way to do this is to see not just the background of the Rambam [from where he comes] in Neo Platonic thought but also to have some idea of where he is trying to go.  I see in fact the Guide of the Rambam as being a very essential part of Torah. Without it, people get lost.


In case it is not clear what I am saying: with Kant you  need a ground of validity for knowledge, both a priori and also a posteriori. With Hegel there is a ground of unity between them. But further there is a ground of unity between existing things and knowledge. So what I am saying is that I think the Rambam already hinted to this idea from Hegel.
 [Reb Nachman was very unhappy with the Guide of the Rambam and with all due respect to Reb Nachman, I feel he can not override the Rambam. And to me it seems rather silly to imagine he can cancel something the Rambam obviously thought long and hard about. I have great faith in Reb Nachman's ideas and visions, but not when he disagrees with the Rambam.]

Two critiques on the religious world: worship of people they consider supermen, and magic.

Two critiques on the religious world: worship of  people they consider supermen, and magic. Mitzvot  are thought of and treated as ways to manipulate the fates and nature. They are thought of as ways to harness spiritual forces.  This is characteristic of pagan religions but not of Torah. Worship of human beings in the view of the Torah is a monstrosity. Yet this is so pervasive in the religious world that there is no where to go to avoid it.

In Torah, mitzvot have no automatic powers. They do not coerce reality. Nor does the Torah celebrate events in the lives of tzadikim [sadikim].
In Torah, the work of God is not God himself. Creation is Ex Nihilo, not from Himself. Nor do people become G-d, (Heaven forbid)!

What small gods the religious world has! Are the gods of the religious world able to create a butterfly? What sad and useless gods they have. What a small cosmos they occupy. Is there really nothing above these pitiful beings that the religious world worships?

The fact that the Torah is straight Monotheism and Creation Ex Nihilo I have been aware of for a long time and it surprises me that almost  no one in the religious world is aware of these two basic simple facts. But to become aware of these facts took me  along time. Even though it Straight Monotheism and Creation Ex Nihilo was clear to me before I went to yeshiva, but the problem is the sitra achra [the dark side] is attracted to holiness and thus tries to weasel itself into authentic Litvak Yeshivas. It is almost as if the religious world spends extra time and effort on rituals in order to disguise what they are doing.

Another small problem is when they need your money they are your best friends. When they see you have no money (and/or no rich parents), things change dramatically.