It is possible to learn through the entire Oral Law

It is possible to learn through the entire Oral Law in a fairly easy way. First you need a clear idea of what is the Oral Law, that is the two Talmuds (Babylonian and Yerushalmi), the Tosephta, the Sifri and Sifra. One needs confidence in the idea that one needs in learning only to say the words and automatically he will understand.  And even if he does not understand right away he will understand when he reviews the material a second and a third time.

It is important not to get distracted from this so that at least once in your life you will have completed the entire Shas  [Talmud] with Rashi, Tosphot and the Maharsha. And the Yerushalmi with the Pnei Moshe and the other commentaries on the page, the Tosephta with the Chazon Yechezkeil, and the Sifri and Sifra.


Learning by just saying the words means the ideas are registered in the frontal lobe and then transferred later the the other parts of the brain where they become incorporated. You do not need to force concentration. As the Sages said in Shabat and Avodah Zara "Always one should read the words out load and go on even though he forgets and even though he does not even know what he is saying." Musar also brought this. See Shar HaTorah in the book The Paths of the Righteous where the author goes into great length about this.

[There is also a need for review and in depth learning. I think half time for fast learning and half time for review.] 

Sanhedrin 62a

Rav Zakai said if one does idolatry in four separate ways he bring four separate sin offerings. [This is a she goat only. It is different from a normal sin offering which usually can be a sheep or a goat. And it comes for 42 types of sin.]

Rabbi Yochanan said one for all.

Rabbi Aba said this depends on an argument between sages of the Mishna. 

R Natan said fire comes to divide, R. Josi said it comes to say it is only a prohibition.
R Aba suggests that they would have the same argument with the word "bowing" when it comes to idolatry in Deuteronomy 17. "And he will go and serve and bow." וילך ויעבוד וישתחווה



And Rav Joseph said no. Because we find R Josi also says on Shabat that there is division of work.

I wanted here to bring up three issues. 

1) Rav Joseph effectively refuted R. Aba by simply showing that the sages of the Mishna agree that on the Sabbath day there is division of work. At that point it makes no difference why they hold it.
Why bring up the fact that R Josi can learn division of services from bowing?
2) The Gemara towards the  end suggest the verse and he will do one of them to tell us division of work by idolatry. but then pushes off that idea says these verse are not written by idolatry. Where the these verses? There is only one!
3) Abyee brought all this to prove his point that serving an idol from fear of love is liable.
Thus: "This serving idols accidentally is what? Did he bow to a house of idols thinking it is a synagogue. then his heart is towards heaven.
So that can't be the case. Rather he bowed to a statute not knowing that it is an idol. If he accepted it as his god then he did it on purpose. If not then it is nothing."
The question here is why is this nothing? Why is it any different from lighting a furnace on Shabat? He lights the furnace because he thought it is not Shabat or he did not know it is forbidden. that is an accident. so here too he bows to the idol but he does not know it is an idol. It is an accident. Why is it nothing?
Now this is my possible answer for this last question:
Lets look at two pieces of fat that are in front of a person. He thinks they are permitted fat but one is (chelev) non permitted fat. And he eats the non permitted fat. Then someone comes and tell him what he ate was (chelev) non permitted fat. he has to bring a sin offering. But he did not know anything?! The pleasure takes the place of knowledge.
So what I think is that by idolatry he does not know anything and he has no pleasure and so it is only a mitasekמתעסק  and not enough intention to make it an accident






רב זכאי אמר זיבח וקיטר וניסך והשתחווה בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת. ורבי יוחנן אמר הוא חייב אחת. רבי אבא אמר שזה תלוי במחלוקת תנאים. רבי נתן אמר אש בא לחלק, ורבי יוסי אמר ללאו יצאה. רבי אבא אומר שיש פה אותה מחלוקת לגבי השתחווייה-וילך ויעבוד וישתחווה. רב יוסף אמר שיכול להיות שרבי יוסי יאמר פה שיש חילוק עבודות כמו שאמר בשבת מפסוק אחר-ועשה אחת מהנה. ורב יוסף הוסיף לומר שרבי יוסי יכול ללמוד חילוק עבודות גם כן מהשתחווייה. שאלה אחת רב יוסף שיבר את טענת רבי אבא על ידי זה שהראה שרבי יוסי אוחז מחילוק מלאכות בשבת. למה היה צריך לומר מאיפה היה יכול ללמוד את זה?שאלה שנייה.הגמרא מציעה אולי אפשר ללמוד חילוק עבודות מן הפסוק ועשה אחת מהנה. והיא דוחה את זה ואומרת שהני קראי לא נכתבו לגבי עבודה זרה. יש רק פסוק אחד. מה כוונת הגמרא "הפסוקים האלו"?
שאלה שלישית. אביי הביא את הסוגיא הזאת לראיה לשיטתו שהעובד עבודת כוכבים מאהבה ומיראה חייב. וכך הוא אמר,שגגת עבודת כוכבים היכי דמי(איך היא)? אם השתחווה לבית עבודה זרה וחשב שהוא בית הכנסת, אז ליבו לשמיים.אלא שהשתחווה לאנדרטא שהיה נעבד. אם קבלו עליו כאלוה אז מזיד הוא. אם לא קבלו אז לא כלום הוא. לנה זה אינו כלום. מה החילוק בין זה ושבת? בשבת אם אחד הדליק מדורה כדי לעשות פחמים ושכח ששבת היום או את המלאכה , אז זה שוגג. זה אינו לא כלום. ואי אפשר לומר ששבת הוא שוגג בגלל שהוא שכח, ופה הוא לא ידע שהאנדרטא נעבד.  הסיבה לכך היא זאת. יש שתי חתיכות לפניו שהוא חושב שהן שומן. אכל אחת. ואז בא אחד ושאל איפה החלב (בצירי)? והתברר שמה שאכל היה חלב. אז הוא חייב קרבן שהנאה במקום כוונה עומדת.ולכן רואים שגם המצב הזה נחשב לשגגה. זה שהנאה נחשבת לכוונה זה רק לעשות שהאכילה אינה נחשבת למתעסק, אלא לשוגג. אבל אולי ששבת היא שוגג בגלל שהוא שכח וגם אין הנאה, והאכילה שוגג בגלל ההנאה. ולכן עבודה זרה אינה כלום בגלל שלא ידע שום דבר וגם אין הנאה

"One was Abraham." [That is an actual verse.]That means Abraham served God only by the fact that he thought he was alone, and he did not look at anyone that tried to dissuade him. And similarly no one can come to the service of God without this aspect of thinking he or she is alone and to to not pay any attention to anyone who tries to hold them back.

Trust in God and learn Torah

  In the world of Torah there are two kinds of trust. One with effort and one without. So the story of King Asa is interpreted according to which opinion you go with. (King Asa went to doctors and was punished. There is a question: What did he do wrong? ) If you go with Navardok and the Gra, then the sin of Asa was to go to doctors. Period. If you hold with the Chovot Levavot [Obligations of the Heart-the first Musar book] and the Ramban (Nachmanides), then the sin was to go to doctors without trusting in God also.
[Incidentally, Reb Nachman did not hold from doctors at all. That is not related to the issue of trust. It is just that he thought doctors, only do damage. Some people have pointed out the state of medicine in his days was basically medieval, in which case it is certainly true that whatever doctor did only did damage. But is it so obvious that today things are all that different?]

  The confusing thing is Navardok (Joseph Yozel Horvitz) brings some statement by the Ramban that is supposed to be going like the Gra. And no one knows where it is. There is one Ramban (that my learning partner mentioned to me in an unrelated vein) about the name El Shadai which seems to suggest this.

  My opinion about this is that trust in God is applicable to transcendence. It is the world of the thing in itself that, if you use logic to understand it, it generates contradictions. It is classical Kant.[And Hegel agrees with this. But Hegel still believes that reason can get to the Ding An Sich by a dialectical process. And you have to say that King David was of the opinion when he told Solomon his son, דע את אלהי אביך ועבדהו "know the God of your father an serve him." Clearly King David and the Rambam were in agreement with Hegel.]


I think there are different levels of "dinge an sich's." That is plural "things in themselves" as Kant originally conceived of them. Not just Schopenhauer's singular "thing in itself" which is the "Will." But we don't want the aspect of the "thing in itself" of regular objects to be the same as Schopenhauer's either. We want at every level from (1) all form and no numinous content all the way up to (2) no form and all numinous content to have different levels of transcendence. What we would get from that is the essence of trust that is transcendent, but not the same degree of transcendence as God himself. And that would go a long way to solve this dilemma between the Gra and the Chovot Levavot.

And I think this is clear. Only the individual can feel if the present situation he is in requires action according to the Torah or not. If the Torah itself requires action, then clearly trust is not a reason not to act. But sometimes logic or reason requires action, but not the Torah; and then it is best not to act but to trust.
 To see for yourself  get the book Madragat HaAdam and look up the "Gate of Trust." Or more accurately let me say: look up the Gra he brings  there on the book of Proverbs ch. 3 where it says, "Trust in God with all your heart, and do not depend on your intelligence."

At any rate, the basic idea of the Madragat haAdam [Joseph Horvitz of Navardok is trust in God and learn Torah. It has nothing to do with institutions. In this day and age, I think learning at home is much better than any synagogue. The best thing, of course, is if one has an authentic Litvak yeshiva in the area, but I have never seen or heard of anything like that except in Bnei Brak and in NY and Rav Zilverman's Yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem that goes by the path of the Gra.

my suggestion is to learn and to finish the Oral and Written Law first and then do learn the Ari. Now the Babylonian Talmud I would like people to finish with Tosphot and the Maharsha doing it fast. Say the words and go on.

(Look up the actual statements of the Gra in his commentaries and not just collected sayings of his. You will see a big difference between what people claim and what he in fact said and wrote)


There were things that cooled me off to the Kabalah. And I wanted to go into some of these things here while I have the chance. After all have a public forum is an awesome responsibility.

First of all the Zohar and the Ari and the Remak all build on the paradigm of the Middle Ages, a paradigm based on the Pre-Socratics.
Of course, just a brief comparison between the Ari and the Pre Socratics will be enough to show that the Ari went infinitely beyond the available paradigm. Still it is a bit disconcerting.
But then the issue of the authorship of the Zohar also began to bother me.
And one day I saw what the Rambam wrote in one of his letters: "Just like one must not add or subtract to or from the Written Torah, so he can't add or subtract from the Oral Torah. And I began to think that in spite of how insightful the Kabalah is, it still is not in the category of the Oral and Written Law. The Zohar by all accounts was only revealed in 1260. the Oral and written law were known and accepted long before that. That is the Old Testament, the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, Tosephta, Sifri, and Sifra.  That is the sum total of the accepted oral explanation of the written law. And the Rambam says you must not add or subtract. But people can and do write later on explanations of that basic body of texts. The Rambam did so himself.
And the Ari did also. But that does not mean that that is higher, or can replace of Oral or Written Law.
I know this sounds harsh. But what I am suggesting is that Kabalah is dessert. It is not the main meal. And my mother never let me eat dessert before I had finished my plate. And I think the same logic would apply here.

So my suggestion is to learn and to finish the Oral and Written Law first and then do learn the Ari.
Now the Babylonian Talmud I would like people to finish with Tosphot and the Maharsha doing it fast. Say the words and go on.
But just to make it clear that is not the only thing on my agenda here. And I definitely have an agenda.  All morality needs a numinous core. The next things on my agenda is Math and Physics, ---learning them the same way as I mentioned above about Talmud. Say the words and go on. Simple as "Pi". And that I base on the Rambam. But I admit when the Rambam says  "Physics" he is talking about a wider category of natural science than modern physics. He at least means what we would call modern Chemistry. Maybe engineering also.  But it does not seem to me that he was thinking of Biology. If he had wanted to include that subject matter in the Mishna Torah or the Guide he could have, but he refrained. [He had the books of Aristotle that had that material along with the medical books of the Middle Ages.] So we have a fairly good idea of what he thought was an important part of a Torah education--the Oral and Written Law, Physics and Math.

1) Trust in God is a confusing issue. The story with king Asa  seems to imply that his sin was to go the the doctors alone without trust. But it seems that Navardok--that is Joseph Horvitz- would say any kind of action directed towards getting ones needs met is not good. And he would say saying to oneself or others that one is trusting is just fooling oneself. It is self deception. He would say one should serve God and then God will find some way to help him.
 2) The Tenach says Asa was punished because he went to the doctors for help instead of to God.  2 Chronicles 16:12
 3) This is a well known controversy, between the Chovot Levavot and the Gra.
4) My impression is that it is not clear that trust relates to action. To me it seems clear one can be working all day and be trusting in God and one can be sitting and learning Torah and not be. That is there is not an strong tie between action and trust. However if one is trusting then it is reasonable to ask why work?
5) The way this idea of trust was understood at the Mir was to do what one must whether in mitzvahs or in secular pursuits which are required by the Torah--e.g working for a living. But not to be doing even that for any reason but that the Torah requires it. The way it understood it it was close to Navardok but not exactly.
The idea was no matter what--what is decreed on a person will come automatically. But by doing God's will in ones life has the potential of averting a bad a decree. And if it is decreed that one should have things he needs then these things will come no matter what.
I know this is hard to understand but that was the basic unspoken attitude.

6) I suggest looking at the Madrgat HaAdam  and the Chovot Levavot and tell me if you can make any more sense out of it that this.
The Gra's opinion seems to be based on an Agadah. That is significant because the Gra said all the secrets of the Torah are hidden inside the Agadah.

)

It seems to me that Islam is idolatry.

This is an idea about idolatry and  then a little bit at the end about my idea of Islam.
But I should make it clear that this is only my tirade against Islam, not against Arabs or Iranians. It is their evil murderous religion that is the problem. Not the people.



Introduction: We all know that idolatry is forbidden. The question is if one serves an idol in more than one of the four services [burning, sacrifice, pouring, bowing]. Does he bring a sin offering for each service? [The sin offering for doing idolatry is in the book of Numbers 15. ]
R. Zakei said no, and R Yochanan said yes.
(Sanhedrin 62a)

R. Aba wanted to say this depends on an argument between R. Natan and R. Yosi. (R Yochanan like R. Yosi that all the acts are just one act. )
R. Natan asked why is "fire"(לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת) mentioned concerning the Sabbath day? Are not 39 types of work forbidden? (That is: any type of work that was done to build the tabernacle in the desert before Israel entered into the Land of Israel is called ''work'' in the Torah. This is because the Torah says not to do the work of building the tabernacle on Sabbath. It is a simple deduction that therefore the types of work that went into building the tabernacle would be considered work by the Torah. If they are not considered work when it comes to the Sabbath then why would the Torah forbid doing them on the Sabbath? So now we have a simple and easy measure of what is considered work on the Sabbath.)
R. Natan  answered, it is to divide. (That means to say that if one forgets about several types of work and does them on the Sabbath day, then he brings a sin offering for each type of work.)
How does he know this? It is because of a general principle that anything that was inside of a category and then was mentioned specifically comes to tell us something about the entire category.

R. Josi says the reason fire was mentioned by itself to tell us it is only a prohibition. [That means to say doing work on Shabat is one of the most severe sins in the Torah. If done on purpose it gets the death penalty, if done in front of two witnesses, and also a warning was issued right before he did it and he acknowledged the warning. That is, to get a death penalty in the Torah, one really has to be trying hard to get it.] If the sin was done by accident then he brings a sin offering (a she goat or she sheep.) One can't bring a sin offering for playing cards on the Sabbath.  Sins are well defined in the Torah. We find some people don't like what the Torah considers a sin and thus they try to redefine what a sin is.  But that is not the Torah approach.
At any rate, the idea of R. Yosi here is that fire is only a normal prohibition, not the death penalty.

My question here is on R Yosi. Does not he agree with the principle that what ever was in a category and has gone out to be mentioned specifically come to teach us about the entire category?
[I could have said my question in a second but in case some people might be looking at this blog that do no know much gemara I thought to give a brief introduction to my question.]
Now I wanted to mention that this is not the first time this kind of thing has come up. We find the same thing about bowing to an idol. There too the Gemara says it comes to teach about itself alone. But there I don't ask my question because though it is true "bowing" was in a general category of idolatry, still there is another verse that also come out--the verse about sacrifice. And if "bowing" was to teach us about idolatry, then "sacrifice" would not have had to be mentioned. So instead we say "sacrifice" tells us about the whole category--to forbid all types of service that were done in the temple in Jerusalem and then we are stuck with "bowing" that can't tell us anything except about itself. So I am not bothered with "bowing." It is only about "fire" that I am asking this question.

At any rate my learning partner suggest that perhaps the reason R Yosi uses the "fire" for itself alone is he had nothing else he could do with it. He already had division of work from the verse in Leviticus 4:2. And he thought that this is the reason why even "bowing" is used for itself alone;-- because after we have "sacrifice" (זובח לאלהים יחרם) coming to tell us division of services, then we can't use "bowing" for anything else.
Actually I think that I get 0.5 credit for this idea. Because my learning partner suggest this is the reason we use bowing for itself alone. But I think it was I that decided we could use the same reason for fire. (I am not 100% sure that it was I but I remember arguing this way. So I think it was I that came up with it.)
Even so it seems to me to be a cop out. After all if it was in the category then it did not need to be mentioned.So what in the world could it possibly means "It comes to teach about itself?"At least about bowing it makes some sense because we can have an act of idolatry that does not get the death penalty. so maybe we did need to hear this about bowing. But fire? Why mention it? To tell us it is a mere prohibition. Fine so tell us that about the entire category!!!
_________________________________________________________________



My impression is that idolatry has more to do with numinosity than with statues. This I saw a  few times in Rashi where he defines "accepting another god as ones god" as meaning intending it for godliness. מכוויין לאלהות
For this reason, it seems to me that Islam is idolatry because they are not intending the God of Israel. While on the other hand we see Christians going through a mediator, still their intension is to the God of Israel. I means to focus on what is the source of numinosity. And that source is determinate.

Even though I have not worked it out completely I think we can see that idolatry has two parts to it. One is serve towards a idol and the other is accepting the godliness or spiritual power from any being besides God.
I must have written about this before. But Let me just say that the Gemara does not deal with the idea of a mediator at all. On the contrary. When Abyee is brining his proof that  one that does idolatry from fear or love without accepting the godliness of the idol he brings the idea that when one bows to a house of idols and thinks it is a synagogue that he is not liable because his heart is towards heaven. And a statute also--he says if he does not accept its godliness it is nothing. So Abyee and Rava are definitely thinking about accepting of godliness as one factor here.  I mean to say that accepting the godliness of some person or object to Abyee is obviously liable. It is just that he says more cases are also liable. But since the very god of Islam is not the god of Israel and the numinous aspect of it is clearly different than the God of Israel that means the god of Islam is a false god.
That means we would have to treat Muslims as idolaters and not accord to them freedom of religion until they curse the god of Islam.

I should mention that we don't want to expand the definition of idolatry to anything we don't like. You have to remember that idolatry is something  that requires the death penalty. It is an act that if done in front of two witnesses get the electric chair. So we don't want to make up our own definitions. This is something the Torah says to the court that they must give the death penalty for. It is not an option to forgive.
For example let's say you love your wife. And perhaps sadly enough maybe you love her more than God.
Maybe she means more to you than going to heaven. Maybe being married and having children is the total meaning of your life. That is not idolatry.  Idolatry has to be an act of worshiping some god other than God by one of the four acts, sacrifice, bowing, pouring, burning. There has to be the kind of numinousity involved with it that is involved in religious worship.

Now of course worship of a human being can be idolatry. But it is not the same thing as love. It has to be the kind of worship that people do to actual physical idols

Trust in God without any effort.

 Trust in God without any effort. From where does this come? Navardok (Joseph Yozel Horvitz) claims this comes from the Ramban [Nachmanides]. But no one seems to know from which Ramban. My learning partner today mentioned a certain Ramban on a totally different subject that might be related. The idea is the the name of God in the Torah "El Shadai" tells us that there is a level of Divine intervention that goes beyond the way of nature. I did not mention this to him but it did occur to me that this might be what Navardok was all about. That is when one trust in God then God sends his help even beyond the way of nature.
This he also brings from the Gra in a somewhat more explicit statement and from the Chovot Levavot also.

The actual statement of the Gra is based on a story in the Talmud. Raba Bar Bar Chana did not know what the verse means "Throw in God your burden and he will take care of you." the verse uses this strange word יהבך.
One day he was lifting his burden and a strange walked over and said to him give me your burden יהבך and I will lift it for you.
The Gra said that it is not the idea that the stranger knew the meaning of the word. Rather Raba did not understand what trust is supposed to be. Is one supposed to trust in God but still do effort, or is one supposed to trust in God with no effort. He thought surely one should do effort. But then he saw that one it is decreed that help will come to a person then that help will come no matter what. Even to the degree that people will ask to help you.
 My suggestion is that there is an aspect of ontological undecidability about this. For certainly we are supposed to do our job in this world. If we can show that the Torah requires us to work then that would be what we are supposed to do without any relation to the question of having our needs met. And certainly it is easy to show the Torah does require us to work. As the sages said as a covenant was established for Torah so was a covenant established for work. כמו  שיש ברית כרותה על התורה כמו כן יש ברית כרותה על המלאכה
And what one finds is people do use the Torah to make money -which is forbidden- and then hide behind the claim that they are trusting.
So there is some hidden aspect to this whole question.
I wanted to add the fact that the Gra saw this in an Agadah {stories in the Talmud or outside the Talmud like in Midrash Raba} is significant because the Gra held the deepest secrets of the Torah are contained in the Agadah.
Appendix:
 I wanted to add that being prepared and learning survival skills is a regular part of what one should learn. It is like Torah itself that one does because one is required to do it--not for benefit in this or the next world. Survival skills and self reliance are simply a part of "the way of the world" (Derech Eretz) that comes before Torah.

Elijah from Vilnius

The Vilna Geon, Eliyahu from Vilna, had an idea about Kabalah and also concerning the state of the world today. He said good and evil are mixed together. For this reason he warned about practical Kabalah.
But you see this in a lot of areas. The example that occurred to me today in with  a great thinker in analytic philosophy, Quine. He came up with this great idea of "alpha -1". That is the first uncountable infinity minus 1. I forget where this idea came up but it is a very important tool. But that was in a subject he was good at. When it comes to other areas of Kantian thought he had some ideas that were not so great.

When you dig you find great thinkers that had their share of really bad ideas. And this goes against the grain of human beings. W all want to find some nice package deal. But we can't. Every great person we find ends up having as many bad and sometimes really destructive ideas as tremendous great and beneficial ideas.

to finish Shas [Talmud]

1) A not so well known idea  is to finish Shas [Talmud]. To be qualified to have an opinion about anything in Torah, he first need to have finished Shas. That means to have gone once through the Babylonian Talmud in its original language. But this idea of finishing Shas came up so much in  NY, that I forget the entire context. Yet  I was very frustrated by the fact they they took sometimes a full two weeks to go through a single page of Gemara. Yet years later I began to see why they took so much time on one page. Because today it seems to me that unless one learns what it means "to learn" (Gemara) when one is at the ripe age of eighteen, then he will never learn it. I have tried to explain to people what it means to be able to learn but I feel like a dog barking up the wrong tree. Even on this blog I have a whole essay but I don't think I have explained it properly. It is not knowing a lot of Gemara. And it is not knowing a lot of commentaries. It is like playing the violin. I can't explain what it is but I can teach it and I can tell if someone knows what it is or not.

That being said I want to say that there is a point to finishing Shas also. Or what I would rather say --to finishing the Oral Law That is to finish Shas with Tosphot and the Maharsha,  the Yerushalmi, the Sifra and Sifri and the Tosephta.
 Most of the people that I knew that could learn were in NY . I think a good number of them did in fact finish the Talmud. Reb Shmuel Berenabum definitely did. But the main way they did this was by devoting the afternoon to fact learning. In Israel it was hard to tell who really could learn or not.It is not like the violin that you can hear. One thing seems certain -- that Rav Elazar Shach of Ponovicth could definitely learn. You just need to see his book the Avi Ezri.

So what I am suggesting to people is that no matter how much or little time you have to learn, I think you should divide it into two parts. One a fast session. Say the words and go on. If you don't understand at first eventually it will sink in. and the other is an in depth session.


2) You can already tell however that there is more to say than what I have written. I also meant to point out to laymen what it means to learn Torah and what it means to be an expert in Torah. This is something everyone needs to know. It means to have finished Shas and to have a basic grasp of what one has learned.
It is not to be called rabbi or have ordination from some fraud. In fact today anyone called rabbi is almost guaranteed to be a fraud. People that learn Torah for its own sake never get ordination and consider it to be a scam.

3) Also the Gra has an idea that to learn Kabalah it is first necessary to have finished Shas. 
So on one hand he is not against Kabalah. But on the other hand he does have this idea that one needs some kind of spiritual preparation for it. Otherwise it is damaging. The Ari himself has such an idea. and he says one that learns kabalah without knowing Shas and Poskim [Medieval halacha authorities]--it kills him spiritually.[That statement of the Ari is not well known because it does not appear in the introduction to the Eitz Haim but rather in the three books of the Ari on the very end of Deuteronomy.]

I was barely able to get thorough any of this in my first few years in Mir Yeshiva and Shar Yashuv. Since then I have made little progress. I was only due to the grace of God that he sent to me an amazing learning partner, David Bronson, with whom I did a drop more of learning and then wrote my two books of Bava Metzia and Shas. But I am sad that I do not seem to be able to make any more progress.

My suggestion is to learn Torah and to combine Torah with trust in God

I think the world is in great danger.  Some of the issues are known to people because of the threats of war.
But I think the lack of a consensus about what human beings are about and ought to be about is also at the root of these problems.

My suggestion is to learn Torah and  to combine Torah with trust in God.

But trust in God does not mean that you assume things will work out the way you want.
As far as that goes I think along the lines of God, Job, and Schopenhauer. I want to seperate the problem of Theodicy from the subject of trust. The idea of trust in this context is what Joseph Yozel Horvitz said in his book the Madragat HaAdam. "One does not need any cause. Rather what is decreed on a person will come without any cause at all." [What is decreed will happen. If you want something that you think has not been decreed then you could do something like learn Torah or so something you think will affect the heavenly court. But working for it physically is unlikely to affect the decisions of the heavenly court.]
 The Gra said that one that learns Torah from a person that is learning for money, that is damaging to him, and he will lose all the Torah he learns, and also all the Torah he has already learned.

One thing Schopenhauer was right about that Freud picked up, the centrality of sex.

One thing Schopenhauer was right about that Freud picked up, the centrality of sex.
So I wanted to relate a story of  that relates to this. There was a girl (the daughter of a good king) that some evil king desired. And with the amount of resources at the bidding of a king he was able to convince her to be his wife.
Then he had a dream that she would kill him. He did not know what to do. To keep her at his side was too dangerous. To send her away was even more dangerous. To kill her he did not want to do after all the effort he had spent on getting her. In the meantime the love between them got cold. And she too began to hate him. She ran away. He sent people to search for her and she was found by a palace of water. Everything there was made of water, the roof and furniture, etc. She could not go in because clearly anyone going into this palace would drown. The king came with his army to capture her. When she saw this she decided to risk going into the palace even the risk of drowning. When the king saw this at that point he was so frustrated he said they should shoot her rather than let her escape. And he and his army ran after her, and they were all drowned.
She had been hit by ten arrows smeared with poison. But she managed to get into the inner part of the palace and there she laid, sick and wounded.
And who can heal her? Only one who can get into the palace, and take out the arrows and sing the right songs that bring healing.

And that is the reason after one has done something wrong sexually he or she should go to  a natural body of water and say these ten psalms from Biblical book of Psalms 16, 32,41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150. These psalms contain the ten songs that can heal the daughter of the good king.

The idea here is that everything people do has significance. That is to say materialism is wrong. There are aspects of the world that are not material. Plato called them universals. An example is the number two. This is not something you can bump into as you walk down the street. Nevertheless  it exists. Yellow is another example of a universal. We know yellow exists, because yellow is a color. The truth that yellow is a color depends on yellow existing. Therefore yellow exists. Morality is also a universal like yellow. Even though it is not material. And sexuality is the center of all human relationships. If anything humans do has a moral sub-layer to it it most certainly is sex.

1) I wanted to bring the argument between Rashi and Tosphot about "learning Torah lishma."
(Let me just clarify. "Learning Torah lishma" means not for an side purpose. It is learning Torah for its own sake. It is opposed to learning Torah either for money or honor.)

The issue that comes up between Rashi and Tosphot is the statement, "Forever one should do a mitzvah even not for its own sake, because from that one will come to do it for its own sake." That is opposed to the other statement, "When one learns Torah not for its own sake, it is better he should have been aborted. "
Rashi makes a difference between learning for honor and learning to argue.

Tosphot (and clearly the Rambam and the son of the Rambam in his Musar book) reject this distinction.
But I wanted to say that just because someone is accepting charity to learn Torah does not mean they are learning for money.
They might very well love the Torah, and not be able to find any way of learning it without that context.

Tosphot in Brachot accepts the distinction of Rashi, and then rejects it later in Pesachim. Tosphot hold that leaning Torah for honor, money or to argue is all the same. And one who learns Torah in such a fashion it is better they had been aborted. The Gra hold with this second answer of Tosphot. He holds that when it says, "It is better to learn not lishmah, because then one will come to lishma" it means  not everything in  set of "not lishma." Rather it means, one who learns not lishma--that is he lacks the lishma. So the case is he is learning "stam," with no intention.
That is to the Gra with no intention at all  is OK, but if it is for money it is better he had not been created.




It makes sense to put the Rambam here together with the Gra because then what the Rambam says  in Pirkei Avot chapter 4 Mishna 5  will go together well with this. [Not that the Rambam brings this for a proof, but rather it seems to parallel his opinion there.] [See the book of musar written by the son of the Rambam where he actually says exactly like Tosphot in Pesachim]

I sometimes see things in Hegel that impress me and sometimes not.

  I sometimes see things in Hegel that impress me and sometimes not. One of the things that I noticed recently was his triadic system. Normally I would just dismiss this as mere speculation. Then it occurred to me that he assumes this triadic system as being a part of the metaphysical nature of the world. And that is what we see in triangulated categories.

  You get one triangle of categories--the normal result of diagram chasing- and then you bring it to the next level up. It is a system remarkably like Hegel.


  You have to understand Hegel, Schopenhauer in relation to Kant as people understand Aristotle in the context of Plato.


  Schopenhauer also had an insight that becomes clear in the light of physics.
In the world as will and representation he considered the will as the cause of everything--the thing in itself. this is inaccessible to us. but the world is the representation of this will, the dinge an sich. we do find the world as a hologram. I am sure Plato would be pleased .
[The holographic  aspect of the world is what Plato meant by the story of the cave.
See String Theory--in which a black hole and the universe is a hologram.
The idea comes from the idea that information is not lost. Information is turning out to be the most fundamental unit of Physics. And where is that information? It is in the Divine mind [see Plotinus]. The universe is expanding in a way that indicates it is being fed space, and that the event horizon of the universe beyond is is not possible to observe. And that that horizon itself is a holographic projection of what lies beyond it.]


[I don't mean this literally. The string theory hologram is horizontal. Plato's is vertical]

talking with God--as opposed to praying to God.


Serving God is to pack a lunch and get oneself hiking gear and go off into the wildness for an entire day and talk with God the whole day.

 And this has nothing to do with meditation.

The question on this comes from Tana Deve Eliyahu vol. I chapter 9.  Hezekiah the king prayed to God that his capital city Jerusalem should be saved from Sennacherib.The prophet got a message from God. and went to the king. he said it is the custom of the world that when one talks to someone greater than himself that he is filled with fear and you talk with God like he was your friend?





דביקות and devekut is the purpose of the mitzvot. [See Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 20] Even though it is also counted as one of the number of mitzvahs, but also it is explicit in the Torah that it is the purpose of the mitzvot. Same as the Rambam did not count living in Israel as a mitzvah because it is the teleological purpose of the mitzvot. And the mitzvah of attachment is different from the actual emotion of being attached to God. The mitzvah is to be attached to a Torah scholar. To patronize his store, and to marry to him your daughter. etc. That is not the same thing as when the Torah says to do the mitzvahs in order to be attached to God.
Talking with God as you go about your daily business is better after all than not talking with him. Talking with him is being attached with Him, and not talking with him is not being attached with Him. Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 20  says do the mitzvahs in order to get to Deveikut (Attachment with God).