Translate

Powered By Blogger

15.11.15

If I would have to reduce my parent's idea of a proper education into one phrase I would say it would be: "Torah and vocation and survival skills."

My Dad was born to Jewish immigrants from Poland right after World War I.  There is a story behind this. In Poltusk, Poland, there was a Jewish family, the Rosenblums. The father was Altar Rosenblum. One of his boys left the old country and immigrated to  to NY and started a bakery on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He was  married to a Jewish girl from another Polish village. His younger brother, Yaakov, came to join him. When Yaakov arrived it was suggested that he marry the sister of the wife of the first brother. So they sent for Rivka. When she came, Yaakov and she got married. Their second son was Philip. He was sent to public school along with his older brother Alex and younger sister Ruth. He had a choice to go into doing the violin professionally, or to go the Michigan State University for Mechanical Engineering. He chose the latter. He also applied to Cal Tech and was accepted. (California Institute of Technology). That was the top university in the USA for technology at the time. MIT was second. But Philip's parents were poor immigrants so he decided to go to Michigan instead since it was $100 less expensive. By the time he graduated from Michigan his parents could also pay for Cal Tech so he went there for his master's degree.

Then World War II started. So he volunteered for the USA Air Force. He was sent to France to set up an Air Force base for the Allied airplanes. Because of his experience in engineering, he was able to sent up a system where people that knew nothing about planes would be trained in fixing just one small part of  a plane. So when damaged and planes would arrive he had a system in which he had a whole team that each member knew just one portion of the plane and they could get almost any plane up and back into action with a few hours. His main obligations were for a group of B-29 Bombers. He was the captain of the group. (In Air Force terminology that means  flight commander- the leader of a pack of B-29 bombers going into battle.)
After the war, he met my mother, Leila Freeman. She was also from a family of immigrants from Poland. (Dorthy Solomon and Isaac Freeman were her parents.) They lived in NJ. Philip met her on a beach. He was with a group of  friends, and someone suggested that they go over  say hello to the group of girls that was at the beach at the same time.

He worked at the time for the USA Army at Fort Monmouth NJ. That is where he invented a kind of camera that could focus Infra Red rays into a coherent image. And that is when he had a article written about him in Life Magazine.

They had three boys. I am the middle. My first memories are from public school in Newport Beach California where they had moved. Philip had been recruited by  again to build a camera for the highly secret U-2 project. So he flew off to Area 51 every week. Later he was asked to join the SDI project at the height of the Cold War  (Star Wars). So we moved to Beverly Hills which was in commuting distance from TRW where his laboratory was located.

The main thing that I was hoping to get to was the main thing in this narrative was family vacations, skiing, sailing, and going to the beach every weekend. This was their way of parenting. We just would spend time together as a family. And they never argued. There was an amazing love and aura of peace and wholeness about them.  Their main principle was to be  a "mensch"--a decent human being.
We  believed in Torah--the Oral and Written Law of Moses. [That means to say that we went to a very good Reform Temple in Hollywood, but we placed much more emphasis on Torah that the official Reform doctrine.] But I should mention that we were not religious fanatics. And my parents also thought that it is not good to be a crazed, religious fanatic.  Learning Torah and keeping Torah is important. But their idea of what it means to learn and keep Torah was  based on how their were taught by their parents who were simple working Jews from Eastern European Shtettles. And that was very far away from religious fanaticism.

Their approach was balance. And that is an approach that I try to keep to.

I was philosophically inclined and as a teenager I would talk to my mother about my ideas when I got home from school. I also showed interest in Physics and my parents encouraged me in this direction. All my years in High school I had a college textbook of Collage Physics that I read from time to time. But I have no talent in that direction.  I tried to explain this to my Mom  I said that I thought I would try to go into the violin thing. She said, "If so then you have to spend at least 6 hours a day practicing." But even a lot of practice had a "law of limited returns" for me. So I was not good at anything I tried my hand at.  At some point I got interested in learning Torah more than what had been in our home and wanted to go to yeshiva. My parents were against this. And time showed that they were right. There are two kinds of Torah learning. One is what is called לשמה for its own sake. That means one does not make money from it or get other kinds social benefits. The other kind is for social benefit and money. They thought that yeshivas were mainly about the later--that is to use Torah for some alternative benefit. And this they thought was wrong.
To some degree they are right. But as for the two yeshivas were I learned I think that both places were very much into learning Torah for its own sake.

They also had a concern about making an honest living and not depending on charity. Plus the whole idea of being in yeshiva and learning only Torah implied a kind of lack of balance or fanaticism that they disapproved of.  Later on I began to appreciate their point of view.  But this was all my own fault. Neither yeshiva in NY was saying anything about being fanatic. My first Rosh yeshiva (Rav Friefeld) told me to spend half a day going to university. (And Reb Shmuel Berenbaum also had nothing against university if it for making a living. That is what he told me openly word for word.) And the second place {The Mir in  NY} also was simply concentrating on learning Torah but no one said it could be used as means to make  a living.

My Dad had a major principle, i.e.,  to be self sufficient.


I think if I had known about the way of learning of the Talmud in Tractate Shabat page 63A of saying the words and going on-- I probably could have gone into Physics. The trouble I think was I did not have method of learning by which I could understand. I discovered that that even if I don't get it at first it gets absorbed by osmosis.

I think I had a spiritual connection with my parents. This is something you see in the Ari and I definitely felt it.

This is all the bare outline. There is more to tell about our trips to go skiing and sailing but perhaps I will leave that to another time since it seems like almost a new topic.

More details:
1) My Dad left TRW before the scandal about the Russian spy emerged. {That was the event in which the KGB found found a janitor inside of TRW who was able to steal the plans for the SDI project.} My Dad's reason for leaving was that there were many very talented engineers being trained by USA universities in more modern technologies and that they were going to be hired and that he was going to be fired. So he left before that could happen. The scandal about the Russia spy emerged afterwards and then TRW went under.
2) Then my Dad tried his hand at different projects. He made improvements in our home in Beverly Hills and sold it at a profit. And began to do the same with other real estate properties. And he invested heavily in the Stock Market and never took the advice of any stock broker. He said, "The fastest way to lose money on the stock market is to take the advice of stock brokers." He investigated every company he invested in. His business abilities were inherited by my brothers.

3) My mother got sick and died right after I went to yeshiva. This was a terrible blow to my father and us brothers. It is very hard to describe my mother. Mainly she took her responsibilities towards her husband and her children with the highest degree of serious that any human being can summon. And this included her loyalty and love towards her own parents and sisters.
That means she spent all of her time raising her children properly, cleaning house, getting us to school and then after school violin and piano lessons and working herself on part time jobs  like typing as secretary. It was on the way to a violin lesson when she told me how she wanted to be buried--in  plain pine box. She never had the chance to get old but she did ask me and my brothers never to put her in an old age home. This she said every  time when that I or my brothers asked her what we could do for her in gratitude of all she was doing for us.
She and my Dad had a horror about being dependent on other people's favors. Self sufficiency was their prime directive.
The idea of self sufficiency came up in many situations. For just one example I was not allowed to use teh ski lift until I could walk up the mountain on my own two feet and ski down. And that is exactly what I did. Only then was I allowed to go up on the ski lift. Another example was the slide rule. You can do calculation instantly with the slide rule. But my Dad did not let me use it until I could do the same kind of calculations by hand. That is to say my brothers and I were taught to be self sufficient. That was the reason also that we were sent to join the boy scouts in order to learn outdoor skills. But again I should mention my parents had a very abundant quantity and quality of common sense. They would never send us to the boy scouts today and would be horrified even if we would want to go on our own.

If I would have to reduce their idea of a proper education into one phrase I would say it would be: "Torah and vocation and survival skills."

14.11.15

The modern world can't confront Islam. It [Islam]does not fit into any category that people can understand. In the modern world we are used to cherishing freedom of religion. And Islam is a religion. It goes against everything the West accepts as basic fundamental rights to try to dictate to others that their religion is bad. The easiest thing is to blame Israel. That at least has the advantage of being something people can understand and relate to.

What else could the world do? Call it a political system? It is not that [though it has political goals].

The problem is not so much how to confront Islam, but rather an identity crisis of the West itself.
People don't know who they are anymore. In Christendom people knew who they were. Christians. And in the USA for about 200 years people knew who they were and what they stood for. Freedom and Democracy for all. Jews knew who they were. And Communists also.
None of this applies anymore. Americans are embarrassed of their heritage. Christendom is such an obsolete concept I can't even remember how to spell it.

I would like to deal with this problem in more depth but suffice it to say the modern world is facing problems that it can't understand and does not even have the conceptual categories to define the problem.
This is bad news. Once this happened before. The old world had passed away in World War I. The kings and old categories were gone. In that vacuum grew Nazism and Communism.

My solution to this dilemma is simple. Learn Torah. I mean the Oral and Written Law of Moses.


I can imagine that some people might not like this. It is strong medicine. But it is about the only thing I can think of that would give Western Civilization a chance to get back on its feet.

The world is shedding old categories, and entering a new phase. In  restless sea one needs a map. But not any map will do. The Law written on Two Tablets of Stone is what the world needs. [There is more to the Five Books of Moses than that but that is the essence. And the essence of Torah is what people need.



















The Musar (Ethics) movement has a connection with Kant.

The Musar (Ethics) movement has a connection with Kant.
The problem that Musar ((Ethics)) was meant to address was the disconnect between obligations between man and his fellow and and obligation between Man and God.  The idea of Israel Salanter was that by learning mediaeval books of ethics one tends to correct this disconnect.
Kant was also concerned with the problem of radical evil. He thought there are only two principles. One decides to act in accord with objective morality, and then he is totally good. Or he or she decides act only for self interest, and then he or she is totally evil. {This would mean that one decides to act only in the interest of the group he or she is a part of, that is also totally evil. This explain what is wrong with Islam--in that personal morality is not important. The spread of Islam by the sword is the major thing.} Kant in an uncharacteristic way saw a solution to this dilemma. His solution was surprisingly close to that of Israel Salanter, i.e. to be part of a community that the requirement for membership is commitment to objective morality. That is a Musar Movement.

But any movement  can be hijacked sadly. Still the basic approach of Musar I think is right, and it is important to find people of like mind. [If I had been smart, I would either have stayed in the Mir Yeshiva in NY which was a Musar Yeshiva, or even in Israel after I made aliyah, I could have gone to the Lithuanian yeshiva of Rav Fievelson the the Old City of Safed --but sadly enough I did not have to foresight to see how important Musar is.]

In Tana De'Vei Eliyahu: God said to Elijah,  the prophet, "I will let you know some of my traits. Sometimes you have people that have not a drop of Torah or good deeds in them, and yet when they turn to me and are involved very much in praying to me, then I pay attention to them, as it says in the verse 'He turns to the prayer of the empty one.'"

1.) Tana De'Vei Eliyahu  is one of the standard Midrashim. It has similar status and authority as the Midrash Raba and Tanchuma.

2.) The idea of "private conversation"is first that it is private. It is in a place where no one else is around. Also it is not from  any prayer book. It is ones own words that one says to God.

3.) I should mention that this is the only kind of prayer I feel has any  validity. The standard prayers I think are a waste of time. If one is learning Torah then he is not obligated in the standard prayers. That is a regular Halacha in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. If one is involved in learning a vocation the time that is most important is right when he gets up in the morning. To spend that time running to shul to half heatedly say words he does not mean and then to start his studies means he will not get very far. This is why in fact people that do this can't do anything well. This is because all their efforts and energy is not going into real prayer and not going into their work either.

4.)  prepare a pack lunch and go into the forest every day all day long to talk with God. I actually tried this for  a few years in Safed. I don't this anymore. But I still feel that when things are confusing for me that there is no other address to go to but to God directly.






13.11.15

A Song for God   h55  [h55 in midi] This might need some editing. I am not sure. It seems a little short.

q64 [q64 in midi]  j100  [j100 midi]
Today in an ironic way is the yartzeit [day they died] of both my father and Reb Aaron Kotler. [Kislev 2 on the Hebrew calendar]. My father did not want me going to yeshiva. He believed in the Oral and Written Torah but that was not the issue. He thought learning Torah is a great thing. The reason he did not want me going to yeshiva was he thought all yeshivas are rabbinical schools or they use the Torah to make money.


To Reb Aaron the most important thing in the world was to make yeshivas.

The result of his efforts was the Lakewood yeshiva in NJ and several kollels in different American cities. One, for example, in Los Angeles. I was there at the beginning of the kollel of Lakewood in LA. They asked me to go to people I knew in Beverly Hills to ask for money for them. Why? Because it is a mitzvah to learn Torah. {That is they were saying since they learn Torah people ought to give them money. We will learn in short order that that is not really what they think. Rather they want people's money, and have found a way to con them to give it to them. A there are always people around to oblige them. A sucker is born every minute.}


This is a hard issue to  resolve. On one hand I never intended to use the holy Torah for money and I thought the type of yeshiva I was going to was really trying hard to learn Torah for its own sake and not for money.

On the other hand I learned the hard way that my father was right. I was for some years in Israel after learning at the Mir in NY. After a period in Israel my wife and I decided to return to California. When we got to LA the people in the Lakewood Kollel told my wife to divorce me because I was learning Torah.
Thereby giving me direct proof that my father was right all along. But not just that but since then I have seen many others proofs to my father's position.
So what we have from this is in fact it is a great thing to learn and keep Torah and the more effort one puts into this the better. But we also learn that there are people that claim to be learning Torah and claim that it is  a mitzvah to give them money. One should avoid these types as much as possible. They are extremely dangerous. And they give  a bad name to Torah. After people experience religious teachers, no wonder they are turned off from Torah. Who would not be? It is up to people that care about Torah to remedy this situation and do what ever is possible to stop this scam.

[No offence to Reb Aaron. He should not be held responsible for all the jerks that came out of his yeshiva. He was after all only intending for the sake of Heaven. But by the same token we could say why blame communism for the millions that Stalin murdered? Or why blame Nazism for what Hitler did in the name of Nazism? Maybe it was a few jerks that did not understand Nazism?]

So what I think is that we already know that kollels are against the Torah. If the Torah itself says this is forbidden and people choice not to listen and pretend that what they are doing is Torah then why blame the Holy Torah? 

 Once people think they are God's gift to mankind the trouble begins. [I should mention my critique here is not against Reform or Conservative groups whom I have generally found to be upright. Not am I criticizing people that learn Torah for its own sake as should be. And many people like that are around in Israel and in NY yeshivas. One bad batch does not spoil everyone else.

What I suggest is we can admire greatness. But we need vision to recognize greatness. In my father and mother were real greatness. The kind of greatness that lives according to Torah --not just learns it.

That is what I suggest is that my father was a more accurate representation of how the Torah wants people to live. The more so called "strict" approaches I think are not accurate and also wrong.





Not all cults are created equal. Some cults are great for keeping people out of worse cults.
And if this is all that would be good about some cult  that would be enough but sometimes a cult even has positive value.  "tzadik"s are often some delusional leader who has enough magnetism to delude others.


The best scenario I can see is not to join any of the cults. But even if one does that is not always a bad thing. I was for example a  part of Rav Shick's {Moharosh} group for about 6 years and I think I got positive benefit out of it. But if I had been smart I would have just stuck with the basic Litvak Mir Yeshiva --straight Judaism approach-- .

12.11.15

Songs of thanksto God for his Kindnesses on me and also for the things that were from his judgments.

The major concern of the Torah  is in commandments between man and his fellow man. I get this idea from a few places. The Chafetz Chaim, Rav Shalom Sharabi, and some of the disciple of Israel Salanter like the Alter of Slobadka, and Rabbainu Yerucham of the Mir.

In the Alter of Slobadka you can see this in I think the first or second chapter of the book of his collected writings.
The Chafetz Chaim said this on the verse והלכת בדרכיו ותשמור מצוותיו. First walk in his ways (which we know that means "Just like  he compassionate so too must you be compassionate.") and then keep his mitzvot.

Shalom Sharabi gives a deep explanation of this in his book the נהר שלום:  We know the Torah and mitzvot are compared to clothing and bread and wine. The Torah is drink and food of the soul. The mitzvot are the clothing of the soul. So then what is the soul? It is one character traits--the מידות. And that is the meaning of the  verse חסרון לא יוכל להמנות what is lacking can't be filled. We can do repentance on lack of Torah and miztvot. But we can't repent on the lack of a good character trait because that is like the soul is lacking a limb. It can't be replaced.

This was the idea of Israel Salanter [the Musar Movement]--that Torah has these two aspects and I think he saw that too many people sacrifice one aspect for the sake of the other.


I think that my father and mother were better at the between man and one's fellow man than anyone I have heard of. But they did not talk about it. And they did did not advertise it. Nor did they preach it. They just did it and by their actions showed me an example of human greatness that I have not seen surpassed or even heard of anyone that has done better.  Thought when it comes to other aspects of Torah I have great respect for people that were able to learn and and pray. But as far as keeping the  Torah as a whole--not just some parts and ignore the rest-I think my parents were beyond anything I have heard of or seen. 
The Rambam and Creation Ex Nihilo; I have mentioned a few times the basic characteristics of Monotheism as understood by Maimonides.See also: the son of the Rambam for more details about this. God is One to the Rambam means not a composite. Not made of parts. [Not substance and form. God is not of this world, and worldly characteristics do not apply to HIM. Also--this world is not made of his substance since he has no substance.]אלוהים אחד לרמב"ם פירושו שאינו מורכב. אינו עשוי מחלקים. [לא חומר וצורה. אלוהים אינו מהעולם הזה, ותכונות עולמיות אינן חלות עליו. כמו כן - העולם הזה אינו עשוי ממהותו מכיוון שאין לו חומר

11.11.15

Ideas in Bava Metzia-I made new corrections--in grammar etc.

Ideas in Talmud This has a new section at the end where I had a debate with my learning partner about  a Rambam
There are two aspects of Torah--the between man and his fellow man part and the between man and God. My parents excelled at the former. And I admit this is hard balance to keep. Some people - mainly Reform and conservative Jews are  mainly interested in the aspect of Torah that is between man and his fellow man. And they are right about that. That is the most essential aspect of Torah.

The problem is that part does not cancel the other part. And that is where the troubles begin. Some people notice that in fact there are plenty of things that the Torah requires of us that are strictly between man and God. E.g. the whole Temple service which takes up  a good part of the book of Leviticus, Shabat, etc.

The trouble is that when people start to notice these other parts of Torah,  the between man and his fellow man parts tend to disappear.

 I don't think there is any good solution to this problem because men are programmed to be able to concentrate of only a very small set of principles in their daily lives. 613 principles are just too much.
So people try to distill the essence of Torah and package it. And they don't usually get it right at all.
The approach that was tried by Israel Salanter seem was intended to address this problem. That is he looked at the books from the Middle Ages that addressed both of these aspects of Torah and he saw that they were in fact very effective in helping a very great tzadik, Shmuel from Salant, to reach the kind of balance that the Torah intends.

So the Musar approach I think I would have to agree with.--with one addition. That is books of השקפה also from the Middle Ages. That is the Rambam, and the other thinkers that were interested in defining the basic world view of Torah.  But if there is much today that reflects this I doubt. To some degree the Religious Zionists have this approach but only approximately. While they do try to find this balanced approach still, I am not sure if they have reached it. The Mir Yeshiva and the normal straight Lithuanian yeshivas where I learned also seemed to be close to it, but not exactly. But these last two approaches seem to be about the closest I can imagine to striking this balance.


[The Religious Zionists are right that the Torah is very interested in getting Jews to Israel. That is the reason the Red Sea was split and it also is the subject of prophecies of all the prophets. The normal Litvak yeshivas however are lot better when it comes to learning Torah. But the fact that one group emphasizes one good trait and the other emphasizes  another good trait is no reason to complain about either group.






In Kant we find  a kind of "apperception" perception that sees oneself . From this we know the unity of consciousness. It is the same faculty of synthesis by which we know universals {synthetic a priori.}  This forms the basis of the transcendental deduction. (note 1) So now we can understand the Rambam about knowing God, who is the thing in itself, the ding an sich. That is knowing God is a kind of knowing that we know things in themselves. That is why it is called knowing. It is the faculty by which we know unconditioned realities.





Let's call this apperception. It can't be the thing which recognizes universals as we know the Rambam holds God has no universals. So it is the kind of knowledge by which we know our inner self. And that implies a strong connection. We have more than an emotional connection with ourselves; we are ourselves. So this connection with God is more than an emotional connection. It means a kind of oneness with God, as if we and God were one.

[I know I am borrowing from Schopenhauer. ]

In any case what we have here is good use of the faculty that Kant says gives us direct knowledge of the existence of the ding an sich, but not its characteristics. So when Maimonides tells us we can know that God exists he can be understood in this Kantian type of way.

And this resolves a conflict about Maimonides. There are people that think the Rambam limited reason. {"Rather in the Guide and elsewhere in his ethical writings, Maimonides goes to great pains to deny that human beings have any innate metaphysical, and especially, moral intuitions." Mark R. Sunwall.} There are others who pointed out the proofs of God's existence as showing that the Rambam did not limit reason. Well as far as God's existence is concerned we can use Kant's idea of a perception to show he did think reason puts us in direct contact with the ding an sich.






When I saw in the Rambam this remarkable statement לא הצם והמתפלל הוא הנרצה אלא היודעו I was struck with it power. {It is not the one who prays and fasts who is desirable to God but rather the one that knows God.}

To understand this statement I think one needs the anonymous commentary on the first four chapters of the Rambam's משנה תורה Mishne Torah. He asks one verse says do the mizvot in order to love and fear God. Another one says love and fear God in order to do the mitzvot. This is a contradiction. Answer: There are two kinds of Love and Fear. For example there is fear of God's punishment and there is awe of God's greatness. So one verse tells us to have the  lower love and fear in order to do the mitzvot and the other verse tells us do the mitzvot in order to come to the higher love and fear.
Thu the mitzvot have a purpose. They are not the goals in themselves. And the purpose is this kind of love and fear.
So it seems to me that what we  call דביקות "devekut" [attachment with God] is at least some component of what The Torah requires of us.

(note 1) Synthesis is required to explain the mineness and togetherness of one’s mental states, and by linking synthesis to the application of the categories, Kant argues we could not have the experience of the mineness and togetherness of our mental states without applying the categories. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy



10.11.15

The problem I generally see is too much confidence in mystical knowledge.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism vs. Mysticism  

While I think that there is a kind of knowledge that is not from reason and not from empirical observation, still that does not seem to be carte blanche  permission to assume all mystic experiences are a valid source of information. And even if it was, it would only apply to ones own experience. You would not be able to depend on someone else mystical experiences as a source of information for yourself on how to live your life.
There is a kind of sneaky attempt to get people to believe in the mystic experiences of other people by calling it אמונת חכמים faith in the wise. They pick some charismatic insane teacher with mystic delusions and decide to call him wise.


We don't have prophecy anymore. And in any case prophecy seems to be a source of information separate of mystical experience.   Furthermore there is such a thing as סוף הוראה the end of the period when it is possible to make a halachic decision.
This may not seem like a big deal to most people. But from where I come from what I see a lot is people that are depending of the mystic experiences of some loving, lunatic leader deny the other areas of information. To them the only source of valid knowledge is the mystical experiences of their beloved leader.
Though they will use pragmatic reasoning in their daily lives but as for any major decision they will go only with the mystical experiences of their leader.


Why this came up is that I don't think knowledge of morality comes from mystic experience. There are some principles of morality that I think we know by reason. דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה. Others we need Torah to reveal to us. And to understand Torah we depend on the Sages of the Mishna.  We no longer have prophecy and mystic experiences can't cancel the Law of Moses, nor alter its meaning.
Sadly by means of Kabalah learning that is exactly what people do do. Yet people are looking for spiritual wholeness. Where can you find that except by mystical experience?
Though there are substitutes, they do not seem  numinous unless you endow them with numinous meaning and content.

I any case I had a few issues to bring up about this. One is the Rambam. לא הצם והמתפלל הוא הנרצה אלא היודעו. "Not he who fasts and prays is acceptable to God, but rather one who knows Him."   The kind of knowledge of God that the Rambam is talking about is explained in other places in the Guide. It is a kind of knowledge that comes by learning Torah Physics and Metaphysics. He is not talking about mystic knowledge.


The problem I generally see is too much confidence in mystical knowledge. This leads members of cults to all kinds of terrible sins.
  It is not that there is no mystical knowledge. Just that there seems to be too much confidence in other people's mystical knowledge  and that one is supposed to be convinced that they are "tzadikim" and that is supposed to overrule the basic common sense  explanation of the Torah  and common sense in other areas.

 The idea of authority is something we all use. We believe our Physics textbooks without doing every experiment and calculation ourselves. But mystic knowledge can't override the basic explanation of the Written and Oral Law.  When people think their leader has mystical knowledge that can override common sense morality that is when they get into problems.
And I think this was the problem the Gra was addressing when he signed the excommunication. I think he thought that over confidence in mystic knowledge was held to override the Oral and Written Law and he wanted to put a stop to this phenomenon (with zero success as far as I can tell).

I should write a whole new essay on this because I have not  even gotten to the issues that are bothering me which are the Rambam's idea of knowledge of God. What can this means?
Does it mean the Infinite Light? That seems unlikely. After all the Sefer Yetzira itself calls it אור נברא Created Light. This is because the Sefer Yetzira is trying as it should to preserve Divine simplicity.
Or is it Devekut? Or mystical experience of God's light? I clearly need to deal with this at some future date.





songs for God

Sex in the Five books of Moses is not symmetrical. A woman can be married to only one man. A man can be married to many women.  ניאוף  adultery is when a man has sex with a woman who is married to another man. That gets the death penalty. It is in two lists in Leviticus  that go though the עריות.
Sex outside of marriage is  not ניאוף-adultery. It comes under the category of פילגש concubinage.

There were a good number of people in the Old Testament that had concubines. One well known such person was Calev ben Yefuna (the friend of Joshua, the disciple of Moses). [כלב בן יפונה ] He was not considered a sinner because he had a few wives and few concubines. In the Five Books of Moses he is praised with a kind of praise that is not applied to anyone  else in the Torah, וימלא אחרי השם "He was filled with God." People might not think this is good but they cant call it "sin" in Biblical terms. And when pastors do so they are just displaying their lack of education.

I forget where the list of Calev's wives and  girl friends was. I think it should be in Chronicles one where it lists the people from the tribe of Yehuda that came into Israel. One of them was Calev because Moshe told him and his buddy Joshua that they would merit to enter the land of Israel.
There  are lots of sins in the Bible but typically they have nothing to do with what pastors call sin. And what pastors call commandments are often highly sinful.

If you want to know what the Bible calls a sin just open a Five Books Of Moses and take a look at when it says, "God spoke to Moses saying speak unto the children of Israel say unto them thou shalt not do such and such a thing. and if you do so this and this is the punishment." There are lots of examples. You might say that if God says not to do something that has to count as a sin. There are of course no pastors in the world which do this simple process. It is really not complicated. But instead they have to fish around for other things to call sins.

On the other hand I can see why people just don't jump to the Five Books of Moses. They are afraid of groups that claim to be following these laws. And that is justifiable.  people that claim to be teaching Torah are mainly "Torah scholars that are demons תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאים . So that leaves anyone that wants to keep the Law of Moses in a bind. There is no where to go learn how in a practical sense to keep the Torah. If the people that claim to be teaching it are demons, that limits the options.
In real life, we encounter people that are supposedly teaching Torah that are  demons. I think I have probably met quite a few of them.

In any case, what you could do is to simply learn the Five Books of Moses on your own, and then just go through the Mishna and Talmud on your own to discover how to keep the law in a practical sense. That is what I do. If there was  an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva near me I would go there but that is not an option for me now.

9.11.15

Learning Musar [works of ethics of the Middle Ages  like The Duties of the Heart helps to gain physical and mental health. That is what Isaac Blazer said. He was a disciple of Israel Salanter and we can trust that he knew what he was taking about. 
But this takes  a lot of faith in the wise to believe this. There are plenty of world views out there that claim that fear of God is not even a worthwhile goal. And among people that agree that fear of God and good character traits are worthwhile goals there are many opinions that learning Musar does not help and that there are better ways. From what I have seen all  of these alternative claims are false. {And many of the alternative approaches are negative and harmful.} That is based on my experience and observation.
So while learning Musar has limited capacity, at least it does something positive. It may not work magic but we can trust Israel Salanter and Issac Blazer that it has positive benefits. And it benefits far outweigh the benefits I have seen from alternative paths.

The difference between the Musar Movement and I is that I think people should spend an equal amount of time on Medieval books of Philosophy like The Guide for the Perplexed,  and Saadia Gaon's אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines). This is because I don't think good character is independent of a good world view. I think rather that good character depends on a good world view.

There will be noticed some areas in which the world view of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides are not in accord with the Kabalah. This speaks more to the detraction of kabalah as a source of information than the reverse. Mystics can be very helpful with their insights but can't change the world view of Torah. Knowledge gained by mystic experience remains mystic.
The major philosophers of the Middle Ages with the approach of the Talmud and Torah are Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Maimonides's son Avraham, Ibn Gavirol, Isaac Abravenal,
Yehudah Abravenal . If one does not know at least what they say it hard to imagine that anything he says on the topic of Jewish world view could be valid or interesting. If one has done the homework then his views can be interesting but not before.
I should mention I hold from the natural law approach of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides-so I respect any system that I feel is striving for natural law. But I have no tolerance for systems that I think are tilting people towards evil.




Songs for the glory of God