The method of Torah--reading fast and going on.

The method of Torah--reading fast and going on. And the basic idea I had seen in a Musar book called Orchot Tzadikim {also Biynan Olam} about the importance of learning Torah and in the book.
What I am thinking is that I would like to have a separate session for fast learning and slow and in depth learning. And this is in fat what is done in every Lithuanian yeshiva. The morning is for the slow and in depth type and the afternoon for the fast type.

Now I wanted to describe what fast learning in a Torah sense means. The ideal way is to have a set of the basic books next to you in a pile. Tenach, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Arizal. And have a place marker in every book. And do a page of Tenach [read the words out loud or in a whisper and go on. No repeats. Put in your place marker after one page and close the book until tomorrow. Then do the same with the Mishna. Go through a few chapters of Mishna every day. The Talmud. Try to do about seven pages per day. And then with the Ari-- [Isaac Luria]. On the second reading you add a commentary.

I have some familiarity with Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshivas which stem from the path of the Gra and the Aderet Eliyahu yeshiva which goes with the actual path of the Gra in Jerusalem.
And then there are study halls on the name of the Gra. All seem very good to me, but I see one advantage to having an actual yeshiva named after the Gra--it tends to exclude cults.
This is the type of institution I would like to see world wide-- Yeshivat HaGra.
But I would also add the study of ethics [Musar].


And I was never in a actual yeshiva of the Gra though I associated with Rav Zilverman for years who is the rosh yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu.

What we really need to some kind of certification on a yeshiva "cult free" just like they have "preservatives free" labels on food.


The pollution of the Torah world by  cults  has already corroded the credibility real Torah scholars. Yet  those who learn and keep  Torah are not sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy. 

 It difficult for those involved in the assessment and promotion of true Torah scholars to discern value from junk.

When something at the core of Torah begins to rot, the smell of corruption quickly spreads to all areas.  

If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

I have wondered for a while what strategic interest Russia has in the Ukraine?

I think I discovered the answer. The most successful part of the Russian space industry and military production was in the Ukraine.  Even though the place where the Russians send stuff into space in in the east of Russia [Kazakhstan] but major part of production for the rockets has been done in the Ukraine. There are hundreds or more parts of helicopters and weapons and rockets that are manufactured in the regions bordering on the two breakaway republics. It is not just one area but a whole strip of land. 

That is Dnipropetrovsk, Karkiv, Zaprozia--that whole semi circle left (west) of the perimeter of the two breakaway republics.
That means that Russia has an interest in getting back these areas. Or at least having this area of the Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
[Also it just so happens that Russia can't build the super aircraft carrier they were planing on without the Ukraine. There is no dry dock. This all goes to show that Russia has to do serious rebooting of their industry unless they can get back the Ukraine.]  The reason the weapons and space industry was divided up in this way was Stalin. As was explained to me (by a grandson of his) that by dividing up these major industries in this way he was assured that the USSR could not break up--because if it did, then each part would have factories that produced only one part of a car or an airplane which was useless without the other parts.
In any case, this was no problem until recently. The Ukraine simply made the parts, and sent them off to Russia. This has stopped recently, and this is the reason Russia is now looking to redo its military and space production industries. 

In any case, it would seem the Russians feel they are just taking back what belongs to them. I think it is understandable that the Ukrainains don't feel the same way.
Certainly most of the infrastructure of the Ukraine was built by Russians. This really is one people. 
Or maybe just let those two republics go over to Russia? Why fight about borders that have been fluid anyway over the centuries? If they want to be part of Russia, fine let them!

Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.

The Zohar brings the verse ''towards evening" to discuss when the beginning of the rule of the erev rav [the mixed multitude] over the Jewish people would begin. And according to the way the Gra understands it it is referring to 1990 A.D. or about 15 years ago. [This Gra is on Tikunai Chadashim on the Hazohar page 34  by the standard numbering on the verse about Isaac going to mediate in the field which the Tikunim interprets as meaning to get rid of the mixed multitude.]
"Evening" in Hebrew is the same word as  "the mixed (multitude)."

For he understands 1240 to be the sixth thousand year period. 1740 to be dawn. And the middle of the day is 1990.  That is when the mixed multitude would gain control over the Jewish people. This explains at least to me the problem with cults that have infiltrated and taken control.

Cults have the ironic aspect of fish bait. It tastes good to the fish until it feels the hook. But by that time it is too late. Cults are like classic O' Henry story. The unexpected ending. Or maybe more like Edgar Allen Poe.

What ever you do, don't go near one for Passover, if you value your family, and wife and children. They are not openly hostile  because they need donations. They are as friendly as fish bait.

There is no more Noah's Ark.

I have tried to make my own home or apartment wherever I have been into a kind of Noah's Ark. It just does not seem to work. The kelipot somehow get in.
I urge everyone to leave the cults--Jewish or otherwise. Go home. Find a job. Live like a mench, not  a slave to some charismatic leader. Cults are organized in layers. Everyone can join but only the initiated know the real agenda. Everyone else are just pawns.

And if you are wondering if what you are in is a cult then take my word for it; it is. The facade will eventually evaporate leaving you with the emperor's clothes.

[For authentic Jewish experience learn Torah. That is have in your home an Old Testament and the basic set of the Oral Law, the two Talmuds (Bavli and Yerushalmi), Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta and Midrash Raba. Don't go near the cults--even to learn Torah. Better to go to the beach or make a barbecue than to a cult.] The Divestment from Israel movement is just a direct result of our problem of not divesting in cults in our midst.

Appendix
1) The comment of the Gra is not on the Tikunai HaZohar. That is after the printing and publication of the Zohar and Tikunai Hazohar there was a fellow that found some more writings from the same source material. He printed them and called them Zohar Hadash and Tikunim Hadashim. That was right before Spanish Jewry were kicked out. Nowadays all four books are fairly standard.
That is Zohar, Tikunai HaZohar, Tikunim Hadashim, Zohar Chadash.
 I used to go straight to Isaac Luria and Moshe Kordovaro. [I also spent a lot of time on the Nahar Shalom by the Reshash, Shalom Sharabi  and prayed with the Sidur of the Reshash. First the small one. Then after a few years someone told me that in Mea Shearim someone had printed the large sidur of the Reshash, so I got that --it was very inexpensive. I should mention that the large one is considered more accurate. Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one has mistakes. In any case I highly recommend the large sidur of the Reshash both for learning and praying. I don't learn this at this point but it is an important part of education. If you do have time for the whole body of literature then I think that at least the Eitz Chaim of the Ari should be learned.

I suggested to my learning partner this same idea I wrote on my blog that cults are the modern idolatry.
And he mentioned a surprising support to this idea from Nachmanides. For we know strictly speaking there are very few ways of being liable for idolatry. Sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing, service according to it way, and accepting it as ones god. So, in any case, there has to be some kind of physical object. But with the Ramban [Nachmanides] it looks like the definition of idolatry gets expanded to any being besides God, even non corporeal beings. He mentioned that when Nachmanides writes about this it seems amazingly relevant to today's issues.

At any rate, the idea that he is referring to is the idea of "Face." לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני "You shall have no other gods before me" [lit.,"before my face"].
That is the interface that God chooses to reveal himself to the world. Anything else is idolatry.
So I urge people to avoid cults, not just because of the damage that they do, but also because it might be a sin...[Enough said.]


Appendix:
1) My learning partner has been looking at the Nachmanides for several years and the more he looks at him the more impressed he is. There is a translation by a fellow named Chavel. Though I don't look at the Ramban at all whenever I hear something from him I am very impressed.
2) The 'Rambam and Ramban' are both actually saying the same thing: worship or praise to any being besides God is a problem. But the thing that impresses my learning partner is the coherent system of the Ramban. It  is how he shows the whole Five Books of Moses are one logical, coherent, rigorously exact system.

But this brings me to a wider question about paths that people choose in life. And I confess I think any path that makes one a better person in an common sense objective way is a good path. And I realize that you have paths that are objectively bad, and make most people involved with them into really bad people, and yet some people on the same path turn out to be good.

This subject does deserve lots of attention. And in my personal life I give it all my attention. But this is delicate. You can't just choose a good path, and think that will make you good.

My recommendation is for people to think to judge themselves on all their deeds all the time and don't just accept a path and after that forget about evaluating it.
Judge yourself on all you do so that in the higher court of law [up there] they won't judge you.

The world situation is hard to understand, but at least in your own personal life there are decisions you can make to live better. And Passover is the best time to break free of the cults that have tricked you and others. Cults are the modern iteration of what the Torah forbids as idolatry.  

In many Jewish homes you could find, besides the Old Testament, some book that would describe Judaism in a plain way. One such book I recall was the Duties of the Heart [by Ibn Pekuda] which is considered part of the set of Musar [Ethics] books. The Reform Shul we went to [Temple Israel of Hollywood] had the Star of Redemption by Rosenzweig. [I tried to read it with no luck.]My mother gave me a book called The Ten Commandments which was a good introduction.I wanted to suggest here the books of of Shimshon Raphael Hirsch which I think gives a little more detail. [He tends to emphasize Torah with work.]Also the books of Avraham Kook [like the Lights of Repentance] I think are good as an introduction and an orientation.[He does think settling in Israel is a good thing;-- which is clearly the approach of the Torah.] I should mention that in my first yeshiva [Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway. Reb Shelomo Friefeld's place] they did not believe in orientation at all. They threw me into the raging sea of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot, [Talmud] the second I walked in the door. Sink or swim. And I tend to agree with this later approach. But I have come to see that some people are working or in university, and so need some kind of orientation.And at some point myself felt some need for Musar. My first yeshiva did not learn Musar [Ethics] at all. That was a good degree of my motivation for going to the Mirrer Yeshiva which is a Musar yeshiva. The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides was written for this express purpose of orientation for people, and so was the book by Saadia Geon, the Emunot VeDeot, but I found them both to be difficult. But both are written by the greatest sages since the time of the Talmud, so both are worthwhile looking at. I would recommend avoiding books written by cults that tend to be mental traps. And you don't need me to explain to you what a cult is. You can tell at one glance. Mainly they will present themselves as teaching some mysticism. There are groups who have insane doctrines that are not Torah, but try to convince others that they are legitimate. I can't even begin to describe how damaging these groups are. And I recommend doing everything possible to stay as far away from them as from a ticking time bomb. Even more so, I would like to see them disappear because of the damage they cause to the unsuspecting. The problem is that infiltrators come in and pollute, dilute, and destroy the message of the Torah. A pox on all religious and political fanatics. Also it would be better to find useful methods for discovering the truth, rather than finding the ability to argue. The kind of teaching that how people how to find arguments can led to a serious malfunction of a person moral and mental facilities. Religious and or political fanatics are not much better. One ought to concentrate on finding truth rather that finding arguments for points of view.

I am just dirt under the feet of the Rambam. But I have to call it like I see it.

The new moon would seem to be the time to make rosh chodesh. This is at least the opinion of Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10 along with how Rashi explains the opinion of Rava and Rav Ashi. That is I am saying Rosh Chodesh does not depend on when the new moon is seen but when it actually is. This is how I have celebrated the festivals for a few years. And it makes a difference in how you set the dates. From what I can tell this puts Passover this year on April 3. This is counting from when the actual second of the new moon occurs.
Th Rambam would obviously disagree with this. But this is how the Gemara in Sanhedrin looks to me. The Rambam is probably based on the Gemara in Rosh HaShanah which clearly goes with the idea that when the new moon can be seen is what determines Rosh Chodesh. And even in Sanhedrin the Tosphot does not go with the opinion that the second of the molad determines it. So the only thing that makes my opinion interesting here is the fact that there is no Sanhedrin to sanctify the new moon and Hillel II never did so either. The fact is the Talmud never claims that he did and this is a big omission.  And there are dates during the period of the geonim which are not like the present day calender showing this calender was not known even by the geonim themselves.
The idea of basing ones view of halacha on the Talmud mainly comes from the halacha authorities themselves. For example when the Shach and Taz disagree with the Shulchan Aruch as they do most of the time, they always base themselves on the Talmud. This is the universal approach of every single halacha authority from the Rif until the achronim like the Chazon Ish.  The place this is stated openly is by  Chaim from Voloshin.

Sanhedrin 63a The Tosphot at  the top of the page.

My learning partner noticed that the Rashi in front of Tosphot is significantly different than our Rashi. And he was suggesting that if Tosphot had had our Rashi his questions on Rashi might disappear. I tried to convince him that there is one possible way to look at Rashi to make him make sense but he did not like it. But what I suggested that if this is the case then perhaps Rashi would in fact agree with Rabbainu Tam and everything will be good.

So it seems to me right now to try to explain RT  (Rabbainu Tam) and maybe Rashi at some further date.
Rabbi Ami says if one sacrifices, burns, or pours in front of an idol (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) he is liable only one sin offering (a she goat).
Abyee explains Rabbi Ami that his idea comes from the verse not to serve other gods--it put all services into one group.


Rabbi Zakei one page back [62a] said the same thing but added bowing according to our Gemara.

RT thinks that the word bowing appears in the statement of Rabbi Zakei but not in the statement of Rabbi Ami. And this makes sense because we have a verse in the Ten Commandments that says not to do service and not to bow to other gods. So what we have is  a verse that puts all service into one category and then takes bowing and pulls it out. So it makes sense to say that all three inner services [the three that were done in the Temple in Jerusalem] are considered as one and bowing would be separate. After all the verse itself separates them. In what way would bowing be separate? In that it has its own sin offering. So if one does all four kinds of service (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) to an idol, then he would be required to bring two female goats to the Temple in Jerusalem.
And Rabbi Zakei would have said that in that case he would bring only one goat. And that would be why Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Zakei "Get out of here!" Because Rabbi Yochanan  certainly considers all four services to be separate. But he would be happy to concede that, "Do not serve other gods" could conceivably put all three services together;-  but not bowing. It is the fact that Rabbi Zakei put in "bowing" that made Rabbi Yochanan upset.
[We already know that Rabbi Yochanan separate all four services from one page back and he learns it from bowing. For bowing was in the category of serve and yet was mentioned separately and we have a general principle that whatever was in a category and yet came out of the category to be mentioned separately comes to teach something about the whole category.
There are no new ideas here. I am just saying over the end of Tosphot where he explains Rabbainu Tam. To deal with the beginning of Tosphot I am not sure how to do right now. I had a way of explaining it a little bit but my learning partner did not like it much.

Here is this basic idea in Hebrew.

סנהדרין סג. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק לא תעבדם. הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. ר. תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של ר. זכי לא במשפטו של ר. אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם.  הפסוק אסר כול מין עבודה  והוציא השתטחות להזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו מסתבר למה ר. יוחנן אמר לר. זכאי פוק תני לברא שיש סברה לומר שלשת  עבודות פנימיות אחת אבל לא השתטחות


If you are curious to what is the argument between my learning partner and me is that Tosphot is understanding Rashi to mean that of bowing has come out of service then it can come only for two things--to divide or as a mere prohibition like fire on the Sabbath day.
So with Rabbi Ami we see it is not coming to divide so it must be for a mere prohibition. To me this makes sense. We have at least one example of something that gets the death penalty [murder] but that does not bring a sin offering. To my partner, this makes no sense or as he puts it "It is untenable." He actually have some harsher language for this idea, but I would rather not mention it in public.


Appendix:
Just to let you know the problem here that I mentioned at the beginning about Rashi:
The version of Rashi that the author of Tosphot had in front of him  says that the word bowing does not appear by R Ami and therefore does not appear in the statement of Rabbi Zakei. (Tosphot is going to be bothered with this because if so then what was Rabbi Yochanan bothered with?) But that particular Rashi tries to defend this idea with saying that since bowing is not a service and it can't be coming to divide, therefore it must be coming for a mere prohibition.  Those are the words in Rashi that my learning partner, David, and I are arguing about. I say it can mean there is no sin offering even though there is the death penalty. And David says that is untenable.


David thinks that there might be some way to get the Two Rashis to correspond, the one in front of us does in fact say that to R Ami bowing is not coming to divide. And he says bowing does come out of the three services. This might very well be as Tosphot understands him to be saying that then bowing comes to tell us a prohibition alone. Or not. It could be like Rabbainu Tam also.

In any case we got into a discussion about what is in the category of serve before you take out bowing? He suggested serve according to its way and the three inner services. I suggested maybe on serve according to its way and sacrifice and the other two come from the fact that sacrifice was mentioned separately. This gets into a whole discussion of how to apply the 13 principles of the Braita we say in shacharit.

In straight Litvak (Lithuanian) yeshivas there is a period devoted to halacha. Jewish law.

And I have an idea of how to go about halacha. I was confused about this issue for some time for the same reasons that most people have problems about halacha.

  But I think I have come to a kind of solution or resolution of the matter that I would like to share.
I suggest starting with the Tur and Beit Joseph. And then the regular Shulchan Aruch written by the Beit Yoseph with the commentaries on the page. Then, if you have time, the Aruch HaShulchan- which I think is very great Halacha book.

  I wanted to mention why my idea is important. The idea here is that the Shulchan Aruch was never written to a represent a decision. It was written as a short reminder of what Joseph Karo wrote in the Tur. And the Beit Joseph on the Tur was also does not represent the actual opinion of the Beit Yoseph. He wrote in his introduction that he would not be writing his actual opinion but instead would say over the ideas of the rishonim and conclude with telling people what the majority opinion between the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh was. This was his idea of a feasible compromise but not his actual opinion of the halacha. The Mishna Torah itself needs the background of Talmud as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the Mishna Torah that it  is what one should learn after finishing the Old Testament. "One needs no book between reading the Old Testament and this book." But the actual authority resides in the Talmud Bavli and he writes that that is the final court of law--not his book but the actual decisions of the Talmud. When questioned about his decisions by the wise men of Luniel, he never claimed divine spirit but rather showed how his decision flowed naturally from the treatment of the Talmud. And he admitted a mistake when confronted with it as brought in his letters.

I can't see much good in  cults. To me they seem negative. Not just are they enemies of Israel but the worship of human beings instead of the worship of God seems to me to be trickery.

I mean if they want to worship some human beings then fine, let them. But why try to trick people and claim that they are following Torah. To me it seems like fraud.

I hope this does not count as anything negative towards any true tzadik. For true tzaddikim [saints] are important. But in general  tzadikim are not true tzaddikim. It might all have started out well with the Baal Shem Tov but it did not take long to deteriorate.  

The Gra saw it is kelipat Noga the kelipa of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is in modern terms the intermediate zone. Mainly  tzadikim get caught up in this zone which they interpret as enlightenment. This realm gives them powers and miracles. But it is all seduction to give them power to seduce others and pull them in. 
In fact this all boils down to the argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban' about idolatry. To the 'Rambam there is nothing there. The Torah forbids it because it is dumb. To the Ramban' there is something there--very powerful forces. But the Torah forbids this because it is wrong. And furthermore the Ramban's approach is not dependent on whether those forces are good or evil. He divides idolatry into different parts. Worship of forces of evil. Worship of angels. Worship of humans. But all still come under the prohibition.  

How to understand the Torah. Most people reading the Torah are not Jewish.
So how does one with limited background understand Torah? Simple. Sefer Hachinuch, and the Horev from Shimshon Refael Hirsch. Also Rav Kook, if you can find his books.
These three people give a good idea of what the Old Testament is about in an accurate way that is not watered down, and yet understandable. And they deal directly with the question of "How to live according to the Torah?" and show this from the Torah itself.
They also are far from cultist doctrines that are so much a part of the world of the insane religious world  today.

The first step towards understanding Torah is to run away from anything that smells like a cult where people are long practiced at falsifying Torah. Things that smell like cults as a rule are cults.[And I am unhappy with cults. Jewish or not. My recommendation is to get rid of them with as much force as necessary. I could make a list but I am sure no one needs one. What is a cult is only too abundantly clear,]

"Scripture alone" and or individual interpretation is not  a principle in understanding Torah.  

In the Christian world this, in fact, was a principle. The only authority for the radical reformers was scripture, sola scriptura, scripture only. Then they start realizing that different people can interpret scripture differently. They were very familiar with medieval Christian ways of interpreting scripture to have several different meanings and layers of meanings. And so they say, well the predominant guide of scripture isn't going to be just scripture; it's going to be one particular meaning of scripture. And that's sensus literalis.

Now it's rather debatable what they meant by "the literal sense" because some of these reformers said that the literal sense of scripture could even be a prophetic sense, so they still said that the literal sense of scripture could be in a Psalm when the Psalm says, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" Well they knew that the text if you're interested in an ancient text would be referring to the Davidic King, but they also said that Psalm also could refer to Jesus, even in its literal sense. The literal sense that they were talking about in the Reformation was not necessarily what we would call the historical critical sense. It was what they took it to be the most fundamental plain sense meaning of the text. So that was the literal sense. Then again they realized the more they did this that Protestant churches started splitting all over the place. Presbyterians and Calvinists split off from the Lutherans, the Anabaptists split off from the Reformation. And then you have a rise of so many Protestant movements that the idea that scripture alone could settle debates and give you a foundation started becoming questionable.

There is a lot to talk about here but the advantage of Rav Kook and Rav Shimshon Hirsch is there is a basic idea that the laws of the Torah were meant to be obeyed. That is a good step in understanding Torah. And they don't read into it what they want. No eisegesis.

On the other hand there still has not come any book that deals with the problem of cults in a Jewish context. The reason being that the insane religious world  as it exists today is a large cult with lots of sub cults within. Many of these sub cults in the insane religious world  are utterly and clinically insane. even though they have vast sums of money with which to scam people.


  Furthermore most are enemies of Israel.

Appendix:

(1) To understand Torah in a more detailed way if you have finished the books of the Old Testament, Shimshon Refael Hirsch, and Rav Kook. then it is time to do the Oral Law.
That means to do a 1/2 page of Talmud in order every day with Rashi and Tosphot. [This should take no more than ten minutes per day.] You should just say the words and go on. If you don't understand at first, don't worry because eventually you will understand when you review the material again. And if  there remain some things you don't understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above and beyond everything else.
And what you don't understand in this world you will merit to understand in the next world.
Then at that point you should start the Jerusalem Talmud. After that then the Sifra, Sifi, Tosefta and Midrashim. In this way you will have finished the entire Oral Law after a couple of years. All in an easy simple way that leaves you time for your other important activities. [And in fact, if you could expand on your learning Torah time, that might be recommended as Torah is above everything.]
(2) The idea in this essay is how to understand Torah. I am not dealing here with how to answer questions on Torah after you have understood it.  Reason perceives universals. Universals as applied to the human realm are moral values. But desire for social acceptance and other things makes that people ignore reason when it comes to moral values. So we need some kind of non intuitive immediate knowledge in order to maintain any kind of moral standard. That is what Torah is.
But to defend Torah in more detail I think would take a larger process than  a short essay. And to do so I would have to trace my own thought in this matter over  several years.
Mainly I came to Torah by means of two things. One is I was raised Jewish. But of course that is not enough. I was also something I saw in my parent's home that impressed me. Some kind of wholesomeness and love and purity. Something amazing. And then there was a certain amount of philosophical reading outside my regular courses in school. Buddhism, Dante, Spinoza, Plato, Karl Marx, Sartre, Camus, Herman Hesse and the little known 1001 Chinese philosophies.  After all that there was something about Torah.  

White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

If there is  a kind of hatred towards Wasps, is it justified? In any case in America there seems to be a  visceral bias against White Anglo Saxon Protestants.
Is this justified? To me it seems not. While I can hope that everyone would just keep the Written and Oral Law, I don't think harboring  a grudge against people that are at least trying to keep Torah to the  best of their understanding is very good.
I find an attitude towards Wasps that is hostile and toward Muslims as friendly to be strange. The way I see it Muslims are sweet and wonderful until that second that they decide to lock out the captain and crash the airplane, with all passengers on board. Muslims are ticking time bombs.

There is an obligation to finish all the Torah.

There is an obligation to finish all the Torah. This you can see in a few statements from the Talmud and the Gra brings them down. You might have noticed them all brought in books of Musar. The idea is when a person gets to the next world, God asks him, "Did you you learn The Old Testament? Did you learn Mishna?" If he says "Yes" he is then asked, "Did you learn Gemara?" And it gets up to the "Work of the Chariot."
It is not a hard statement of the Talmud to find because it is brought in lots of books of Musar. But the implications are almost universally ignored. It means you really have to have gone through the entire Old Testament, Talmud Yerushalimi,  and the Halachic and Agadic Midrashim. [Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Midrash Raba.]
I heard Rav Shick from Yavniel say once that without the path of learning of Sichot Haran 76 it is impossible to do this. [Lithuanians Jews in fact do this. Rav Kinyevski from Ponovitch finishes this material every year.]
He said he has students learning by him that have learned and finished rishonim that most people have never even heard of like Sefer Haegoz. He had one student I remember that used to finish the Talmud every month.
[Lithuanians Jews in fact do this. Rav Kinyevski from Ponovitch finishes this material every year.]

Since according to this statement of the Sages the obligation includes the work of Creation which to the Rambam means Physics  I decided to do the same with Physics. That is to go through the basic material. Even though there are great books out there I took Joos's Theoretical Physics and then Quantum Theory,  Quantum Field Theory, and a couple of  books on String Theory. And I tried the same with Math.That was a little harder. But I tried to at least go through Algebraic Topology by Allen Hatcher.

Trust in God as it was translated at the Mir yeshiva in Brooklyn

Trust in God as it was translated at the Mir yeshiva in Brooklyn meant to learn Torah and not to worry about what will come in the future.
Or to be more explicate it meant as a unmarried student just to learn Torah according to the regular four year program at the yeshiva.

The idea was that after one would be married somehow things would work out if one trusts in God.
[The concept of God here is more than the First Cause. It is the First cause that made Nature, but sometimes interacts with  the world in a way above Nature. Also there are intermediate realms, like a moral plane that interacts with the world.]


Now according to the view of the Torah, we have two kinds of trust: One of the Duties of the Heart חובות לבבות that is trust with effort. That is to do what is necessary but also to trust that God will make things work out in the way that he wants.

The other kind is of the Gra that one needs no effort and in fact it is better not to do any effort to get things, but to put everything into God's hands. [This idea is attributed to the Ramban also by Israel Salanter.]


[When I  saw the Torah being used a   means to make money, I got turned off.
But that is just abuse of a high ideal--and a good ideal. People should learn Torah and trust in God. Abusus non tollit usum. Abuse does not cancel use.

Steven Dutch:
Whether religion or unbelief have been sources of good or evil are absolutely irrelevant to anything. The only issue of any significance is whether a position is true. If it's also good, that's a side benefit. I would like nothing better than to find ways around the speed of light and the laws of thermodynamics, but they are still true even if I don't like how they affect things I'd like to do. If something is true but evil, then that's something we have to deal with. Is it at all possible that the Universe was not designed by Walt Disney? Is it possible that our current prejudices  ... may be more based on sentimentality than reason?

And another idea from Steven Dutch which I think applies to Judaism: A lot of people will misunderstand the religion and stress trivial issues, ignore or downplay significant ones, or garble concepts. In extreme cases people who disagree with the established religion will attempt to redirect it into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely. The Gnostics of the early Christian era who cast Persian mystery religions in Christian terms are a good example. Many people will use the religion to rationalize other motives; they will use it as a pretext for prejudice, or dominating others, or lashing out at authority.
Some will adhere to the established religion out of inertia. They feel a need for some kind of spiritual activity, and the established religion is the best (or only) game in town. Some will adhere to the established religion out of fear. They may not really believe in the established religion, but are afraid of misfortune or damnation if they abandon it. Some will adhere to the established religion primarily as a means of securing good fortune, as a security blanket, or as a means of easing guilt feelings. Often they will select elements of the religion for emphasis and ignore other elements.
 Many will adhere to the established religion for social acceptance. They may like participating in special occasions, or may value the religion as a symbol of national or group identity. Some will adhere to the established religion for cynical reasons. They may secretly disbelieve everything about the religion but go through the motions for personal advantage, reputation, or social standing or, in really intolerant societies, merely to stay out of trouble.
Once a religion becomes really established, the religion itself can be a route to power, prestige, and privilege. Not only will some people adhere to the religion for cynical reasons, they will become entrenched at its very center.

   All the above Professor Dutch says is dishonest. The only honest approaches are these: Some will sincerely believe in the established religion, will critically evaluate its teachings, and will attempt seriously to model their lives on its tenets. Some will decide they do not believe in the religion at all. If the society is reasonably open, they may either become nonreligious or convert to something else. In intolerant societies, they may go through the motions of belief merely to stay out of trouble. Some will reject the religion to the point of revolt and active opposition. Some will adhere to the established religion out of sincere conviction but will disagree with important tenets. They will attempt to recast the religion in more personally palatable terms, or possibly work to redirect the religion itself into more agreeable lines. The changes may be real reforms or merely redefinition into something more palatable.

Appendix: "Trust in God" was a major issue at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. The reason for this in part was that it was a Musar Yeshiva. That means a yeshiva that introduced Ethics (Musar) into part of the daily sessions of learning.  "Ethics" here does not mean worldview issue or what is called hashkafa. It means simple books about ethical behaviour. Now part of the reason I think this was important at the Mir is that the students there were not learning Yore Deah for ordination. The entire yeshiva was learning Torah  because one is supposed to learn Torah. So people needed a kind of justification for what they were doing. 
Later on I noticed that this emphasis on trust in God was much less in other places. Sometimes it was completely absent. But at the Mir it was definitely a part of what was going on  and that affected my own worldview since then. [Just to prove my point there was a whole shelf at the yeshiva (in the Musar section) of about 15 volumes of the מדרגת  האדם  The Sum of Man the book by Joseph Yozel Horwitz. The major theme there is trust in God.

It should be noted that the trust in God at the Mir Yeshiva in NY was in order to learn Torah. That is the idea was you trust in God so that you will not have obstacles towards learning Torah.  It is directed towards removing obstacles from learning. The Gra has this in the opposite way. He says the entire purpose of Torah is to come to trust in God.

Reform Judaism

There are positions of Reform Judaism that I disagree with. Judaism is really about Torah. The Oral and Written Torah.
(Judaism is not equal to  liberal politics. Everything in Left wing politics is against Israel and the Torah.  Democrats are definitely the worst enemies of Israel since the Nazis.)

But idolatry  has become part and parcel of the insane religious world .
So my position is that we all need to keep Torah, but that no one is really doing it.
The closest I have seen is in Lithuanian kind of yeshivas. The best of them is Ponovitch. And in fact the best of all Torah books has come out of Ponovitch, the Avi Ezri on the Rambam and the Kehilat Yaakov.

While the Litvak world is not perfect, I saw enough horrifying stuff in the rest of the insane religious world  to make me feel the insane religious world  is been absorbed into the Sitra Achra. I know I am not the only one who has experienced this but I also know people would rather no discuss their unpleasant experiences. I any case I have to tell and warn people of the truth. I expect no one will listen but at least I have fulfilled my obligation to warn people to stay away from a  bad thing.