11.2.16
Pantheism is not Torah
This doctrine, "God is everything" did not originate with the Besht. It is true that the verse of the Torah ["You were shown to know that The Lord is God, there are no gods besides Him."] is explained to support this belief. But the practice and goal of union with the God that created all and permeates all and is All appears in the Upanishads [the final sections of the four Vedas written 1000-500 B.C.E.]
The first one to make Yoga into a coherent unified system was Patanjali [circa 200 B.C.E. during the time of the Second Temple].
"Yoga" means "union", i.e. union of the finite transitory self with the infinite "Atman" or "Brahman" [eternal infinite self].
In Yoga-Vedanta philosophy there is one true God that is invisible, imminent, transcendent that created everything. The name the Hindus give to this God is Brahman.
All creation is composed of the substance of Brahman.
[] This is not traditional Torah. In the theology of the First authorities (Rishonim - Medieval sages), God is everywhere but separate. The world and God are not one. The world is not made of Divine Substance. It is made from nothing.
Creation ex-nihlo is the view and philosophy and emphasis of the Torah as explained by the Rambam and other Rishonim [authorities of Torah of the Middle Ages].
Modern day Breslov is an attempt to beat Hindu Yoga-Vedanta at their own game. It is not Torah.
Conclusion
Changing the essence and meaning of Torah as defined by the Rambam and the Geonim bothers me.
(note 1) This is described in detail by the Ari. At first, the light of God was everywhere. So there was no place for creation. So he contracted his light and made an empty space like a sphere. [There was also a point of light left in the center of the space.] He then sent His light down through one opening and the light went down a bit and then started curving around and became the first sub sphere (called Keter) in the larger sphere. This happened ten times.
(note 2) In this doctrine (panenthism) God also transcends the World, and so is not equal to the world. Rather, he contains it.
See for example: Lekutim Yekarim from Pinchas of Koretz Parshat Veetchanan: "There is nothing in the world but the Holy One Blessed be He." (This is a later book. It is not from the original books of R. Pinchas.)
Ben Porat [page 126] from R. Yaakov Yoseph brings one story from the Besht that he said "There is no place empty of God." Later the same story in Heichal Bracha (from Kamarna) got expanded into him saying, "There is no existence besides him."
(note 3) He said that the sepherot of Azilut (Emanation) are Godliness. After that i.e. the sepherot of creation, formation, and the physical universe are not Godliness. (Eitz Chayim Heichal 1, Shar 3, chapter 3).[The Zohar says in Emanation alone, the vessels and light are Godliness. After Emanation just the light is Godliness not the vessels.]
This is independent of the "Contraction" question. But concerning the contraction the Arizal wrote, "He contracted Himself." (Eitz Chayim 1:2:2; 1:2:3; 1:2:4) [Not "his light".]
Books cult under the excommunication of the Gra defend the doctrine of panentheism, by going to the zimzum. But in fact it does not help much. Even if it was not complete, things still don't have to be Godliness.]
The appeal of this doctrine is entertainment emotional value, not truth value.
The appeal of this doctrine is entertainment emotional value, not truth value.
Most findings about the environment start with the words "We have found that such and such is true." When you read the paper you find they made a computer model and that this model predicts their conclusion. Computer models very often tell people what they want to hear, and depend on the factors that you put into them.
See this masterpiece by Dr Stern
And this also
Besides his points there, I also found an amazing thing. That computer models can miss infinities. They can graph a simple curve that corresponds to a certain equation that looks superficially like that equation. But these are numerical methods. Thus there can be infinities in that equation that the computer simply misses, and thus the graph is completely wrong.
But even so I think solar power is a good idea. I don't like being too dependent on the grid.
See this masterpiece by Dr Stern
And this also
Besides his points there, I also found an amazing thing. That computer models can miss infinities. They can graph a simple curve that corresponds to a certain equation that looks superficially like that equation. But these are numerical methods. Thus there can be infinities in that equation that the computer simply misses, and thus the graph is completely wrong.
But even so I think solar power is a good idea. I don't like being too dependent on the grid.
10.2.16
- I do not mean to sit by the side lines as Western civilization is in a life of death or struggle for its very soul. The reason I do not write about this directly is because I write anyway that people ought to learn Torah. What is after all the basis of Western civilization? Respect for private property, freedom individualism, rule of law, not rule of connections, or ideology. All things in Torah. [That is limited authority to government and leaders. Just like the Constitution.]
But you do need the kind of synthesis of these values found in the Constitution of the USA.
There are lots of tribalistic, superstitious, zero-sum mindset hasidic communities that live only off of charity that supposedly follow Torah. Obviously something is wrong with them
But hasidim look to America and say: "There it is! Everything we want, everything we need, everything we've yearned for all these years! Why can they have it, but not we?"
So mired are they in their mindset that they can't comprehend the answer. Therein lies the greatest tragedy.
They are teenage boys: overflowing with energy, fundamentally undisciplined, prisoners of drives not yet brought under control. The USA is a beautiful older woman: lush, alluring, worldly wise, deeply sensual. We are everything they yearn for and dream they might one day have...if only they could grow up.
The growing up part is not optional.
Despite appearances, it's really only a tiny minority of our people who dissent from the fundamentals that make American society as dynamic, and giddily exuberant as it is. Nearly all Americans believe in the same core concepts: individual rights, private property, the free market, and the supremacy of law over connections, causes, or opinions. We build prisons to house the rest.
Torah, Physics, Metaphysics
The secrets of Torah called מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה I would like to suggest are learning Physics and Meta-Physics. And therefore worth spending time on. And I would also like to suggest how to spend time on them.
(1) As proof of my first contention I can simply refer to the Rambam who says this openly in the Guide for the Perplexed. To believe it is hard because you need אמונת חכמים belief in the wise. But if you have belief that the Rambam was wise then this is already established. A second proof will be my previews essays that show the Kabalah is a synthesis of Pre Socratics. It more fits the context of Medieval Alchemy than being insightful into the actual nature of things.
(2) The way to learn depends on age. But it is universal that the first moments when you get up in the morning are the most essential. Thus I say to boil ground coffee together with ground tea leaves as one. Drink this with Chalva or something and then learn for as long as this gets you. Then what I think helps learning after that is sit-ups and push-ups. This kind of exercise helps to continue learning. It is much better than jogging which causes one to not be able to learn afterwards.
[In NY they tend to drip hot water onto coffee and I don't think that is as effective as boiling it directly in a pot. Also my mother in law Rita Finn said to let it boil for 30 seconds. Or what I do since I don't have a watch I cover the pan and wait until the steam comes out furiously. I also do squat and stand as I wait. Try about 10 at first. That is something I saw on Russian TV and it makes sense to me even though they did not teach that to me in high school.]]
(3) If you learn the Ari as a great commentary on Torah and great synthesis of medieval thought then by all means do it. But avoid all later people that supposedly were explaining the Ari. I first of all consider it amazingly stupid for people to claim they were on the level or higher than the Ari. Especially since they are usually highly deluded schizophrenic manics as a rule. Next all mystic writings after the Ari all are from the Sitra Achra as a rule. [I mean Kelipa Noga as the Gra said.} That is their revelations are to put it bluntly are simply not true. But they are poplar because of entertainment value and emotional value. Not truth value.
Ten Sepherot.
Ten Sepherot. This is the most famous concept in Kabalah. (note 1) Plato was the first person on record to ask for a rational explanation of the wandering of the planets [in the book, Timaeus, circa 350 B.C.E.]. To give an approximate answer, Plato sketched a model of a spherical earth in the center of a vast, rotating sphere containing fixed stars (note 3). Inside of this celestial sphere were concentric spheres, like an onion, each carrying one of the planets. Then he asked for a precise mathematical explanation of the reason for the wandering of the planets. His disciple, Eudoxus came up with the mathematical details to complete geometric model.
This model was still accepted in the days of Aristotle (384 -322 B.C.E. about a hundred years before the miracle of Hanukkah in 165 BCE). He put this onion model into his writings and from then on was widely known and accepted.
But a better model was discovered by Apollonius (262-190 B.C.E.) of wheels and smaller wheels (epicycles) revolving on the larger ones. But the spheres remained as a picture of the location of the planets though they were not used any longer to explain the motion of the planets. [Their problem was they could not explain why the planets get brighter and dimmer.]
By the time of R. Shimon Bar Yochi (about 500 years after Plato) the spheres were well known. The Almagest (published by Ptolemy in 150 C.E.) is a mathematical extremely well detailed account of the motions of the stars and planets. It consists of 13 books. The first one contains an outline of the spheres. The Almagest was translated from the Greek into Latin in 1160. "On The Spheres" by Johannes Sacroboso published in 1220 (30 years before Moshe De Leon 1250-1305) was a standard university text and described the spheres. (You can still see the onion picture in many textbooks that describe ancient astronomy. See the picture attached. The mechanical wheel model of the Solar System is still found in some museums.) [The Ten Spheres are the spheres of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Celestial Sphere of the stars, the Crystal Sphere and the Primum Mobile. Outside of all that is the habitation of God. (note 2)]
Medieval Aristotelians (Alfarbi and Avicenna) believed The One created the First intelligence and that intelligence is aware of the duality and so created a third thing. This process continues until you get ten intelligences and nine spheres.
The Kabalah took this conceptual scheme and extended the spheres to the spiritual realms also. In the Eitz Chayim, the spherot of igulim are spiritual spheres. "Sepherot" is not Hebrew. It is an adaptation of the word "sphere". (note 4)
The question arises what would have happened if we had lived in a solar system of five planets? Would there have been five sepherot?
[] The wheels. Kabalistic books say the "Higher Intellect" is what makes the "galgalim" (lit. "wheels") go around.[See Plotinus that says the One emanates the Mind and the Mind controls Nature/Soul.
During the Middle Ages the motion of the planets was accounted for by their being attached to large wheels in the heavens that went around.
(note 6)
[] The condensation process of the Kabalah in the Ari is a modified form of Anaximander's [611-547 B.C.E.] theory of creation: that an empty space formed in the middle of the original primordial unlimited stuff of the universe; the warm stuff moved outward and the cold sank inward (that made the empty space)- the reunion of the two created life.
The Greek Philosophers after him modified his ideas in different ways but the same principle still seems to apply to them. First there was an original Primordial unlimited, unchangeable substance. Then somehow it was separated into different things. Then those opposite things came together to create life. Anaxagoras and Empedocles modified this idea to get gradiated levels coming down from the first undifferentiated substance. Thus with Empedocles you get four elements.
The kabalah extended the idea of the condensation process into the spiritual realm.
[] Four elements. Mentioned often in Kabalah. The first one to suggest these as the essential elements was Empedocles. [Born 492 B.C.E.,--the beginning of the Second Temple period.] (It is true that the Kabalah also uses this. But R. Shimon bar Yochai lived 600 years after Empedocles.) (note 5)
You could say Empedocles heard it from some Jew. But it was not pulled out of thin air. It came after a long process of thought and argument and debate starting with Thales of Miletus [640 B.C.E.(during the period of the First Temple)] who declared water to be the basis of all matter. Next came Anaximander who wrote that all matter comes from an primordial stuff called "the unlimited" , -- an (apeiron) ether. (Brought in LM 2:67)
Anaximenes took this idea and said the first substance is air which can be modified into fire, water and earth. Heraclites assumed the original substance was fire. This corresponded with his basic idea that the most basic essence of everything is change. Empedocles then came and said here are actually four basic original substances: fire, air, water and earth, built up by two working principles or forces -- Love as the cause of union and Hate as that of separation.
Maybe then too you could say they all got it from the Jews -- but the Jews of that period wrote nothing on science, music, art, and philosophy. There were no writings on principles of existence, space, time, matter, substance or science. There is no evidence that anyone was interested in these subjects. (note 8)
The world was looked upon as God- saturated. God could intervene in all aspects of the world ,- in particular human life. The natural order was looked at as something to change, not understand. I don't think they thought natural order is Divine. Maybe they did in the First Temple period as the Rambam says but any writings of that nature have been lost.
[] Ether (Iyuli) . Aristotle conceived the Iyuli to account for the fact that the heavenly spheres don't seem to follow the same laws as air, fire, water, earth.
The problem is this. Matter if left alone comes to a stop. All matter. All matter that is except the heavenly spheres. So they can't be made of ordinary matter. And they need to be strong enough to hold the stars in place. So the spheres must be made of a perfectly transparent, Fifth element Iyuli [ether].
Now I have thought for years that the Aether that is mentioned by kabalists and RN could be said to refer to some relevant concept like quantum foam. But here I am only giving one source from where the concept came from.
Perhaps you can say Kabalah referred to some advanced concept and Aristotle to some primitive concept. But Aristotle seems to have anticipated the modern approach. He rejects empty space completely. This seems corroborated by modern physics. What we call empty space definitely has a deep mathematical structure to it. (Do the classical scattering experiment of quantum mechanics but put a solenoid nearby and you will see this. Space itself changes its structure.) Space is filled with quantum foam or something like it.
[] Kabalah books mention Matter and Form equals Body and Soul .
The first one to suggest that all things consist of matter and form was Aristotle (Metaphysics book 7). Together they equal substance. This idea came as an answer to a question that had bothered philosophers for hundreds of years, i.e. what exists? We see physical things change. What part or aspect of physical things is it that has essential existence? (Matter itself can't be said to have existence as a basic part of its essence because it can be destroyed and changed. Since existence must be, therefore any given piece of matter that might not be can't be said to have essential existence. There must be something that possesses existence itself. Or maybe not. Maybe everything changes. That is the question the Greeks were trying to answer.) Some said only fire exists. Others said water. Empedocles said four things: fire, air, water, earth.
Aristotle answered matter and form. From this idea, he came out with a system that looks very much like the four worlds of the Kabalah. For Aristotle saw the universe as being between two extremes - pure Form with no matter and pure Matter with no form. Matter is pure potential. Form is pure Action. The process going from potential into action is in four stages (by four causes: material cause - "out of which", efficient cause - "by which", formal cause- "essence", and final cause-"for what purpose".)
Plotinus suggested that Matter and Form equal Body and Soul. (The Six Enneads. Ennead 1. written in Rome 260 C.E. - during the period of the Amoraim.)
[] Kabalah books say ones entire portion in the next world depend on "Acquired Intelligence" [LM vol. 1 chapter 25]. "What is left over from a person after his death is his acquired intelligence. That is- that by which he knows everything a human being can know (in one thought)."
The First person to suggest that virtue and wisdom are mutually dependent was Socrates.
The first one to suggest potentiality and actuality as basic components of nature and the mind in particular was Aristotle. ["Physics" and "On Generation" pg. 319b-320a] This also was not pulled out of a hat like a magic trick. It was the sum result of a complicated long train of thought. Aristotle asked how we conceive things. He used his idea of actuality and potentiality to answer this question. He said there is potential intelligence. It is passive. But there is also an Active Intelligence that sets up categories in the world to make it conceivable. Without it, it would be impossible to understand anything. The idea that one's portion in the next world depends gaining this intelligence is from the Rambam (More Nevuchim 3:27). This is a very radical opinion and disagrees with normative Judaism that says ones portion in the next world depends on doing good deeds. \(note 7) (It is not from the ancient Greeks.)
So the Rambam himself has a source for this; -- Socrates. In the opinion of Socrates Knowledge equals virtue. The Rambam made a simple deduction. If knowledge is virtue and one's portion in the next world depends on virtue then one's portion depends on knowledge. I think the reason is Knowing God's will gives a vessel or God's will to come on one and take hold of him and his life.
RN seems to contradict this later in the stories and in many other places in the LM but in Vol 1:25 it is what he says.
I am not aware of any place Socrates might have said one's portion in the next world depends on knowledge. Plato certainly believed being attached and included in the One is the sum total and goal of all virtue, but did he make it dependent on knowledge like Socrates did? I don't know. If not then the idea of the Rambam is his own or Ibn Rushd's.
The implication is that few people can come to the level of knowing everything that a human being can know. Therefore few people can even hope for any portion in the next world unless one is connected to a true tzadik who does have this knowledge.
One needs to come to and be one entity with the Mind of God or be connected with a true saint who is so connected.
(RN does say to learn the Shulchan Aruch which starts with a quotation from the More Nevuchim in the Rema so don't be surprised if he quotes from it in the Lekutai Moharan.)
[] RN says the human soul has certain powers Power of growth [LM 1:154] and power of imagination [LM 1:25] and others. These were originally conceived by Aristotle. He placed great importance on the type of soul something possesses. He said plants have a vegetative soul which has only power of growth. An animal has a vegetative and a sensitive soul that can feel and imagine and that is responsible for movement. Humans have the first two and also a rational soul. [Aristotle was the first to make a distinction between the rational soul from the feeling soul (except for Alcmacon). Also, he was the first to attribute powers to the soul, not parts. People had known that people can see and talk but no one had ascribed those abilities to the soul.]
All the Medieval Jewish thinkers (Rishonim) that I am aware of accepted this system. But it is not mentioned in the Talmud as far as I remember.
[] Theory of Thunder. RN says hot vapor goes into a cloud and splits it (LM Vol 1 68:8). This is based on Anaximenedes that the cloud is under pressure like a balloon and you need only to prick it for it to split. RN might have seen this idea in Aristotle. (Meteorology Book II.) But again the remarkable thing about RN is though his terminology is archaic; it is a modification of the Greek idea that corresponds to modern science. For, in fact, there is hot vapor that goes into the cloud from the ground (i.e. electricity) and splits it.
[] Kabalah books say "Vision is the result of the power of vision from the eye hitting the object and then returning."[LM 13:4]
Plato's theory of vision is thus: There are three types of fire or light. One is daylight from the sun. Second is the light issuing from the eye. It is a current of light or fire. Third is the color of the object. It is "a flame streaming off from every body having particles proportional to those of the visual current so as to yield sensation "when the two meet".
RN does not use the idea of light or fire but substitutes in its place an idea from Aristotle "the power of sight".
[] The peak of knowledge is to know that we don't know. (LM Volume 2 chapter 83). This is directly from Socrates [The Apology 23a-b]. For Socrates went to the oracle of Delphi. She told him he is the wisest of all men. He did not understand because he knew that he knew nothing. So he returned to Athens and went over to someone reputed to be an expert in some field. After a little bit of questioning he discovered that expert really knew nothing. He did this same process over and over again until he finally understood the oracle. She meant he is the wisest of all me because everyone else thought they knew something,--but he knew that he knew nothing. Then he understood that that is what the oracle meant--the greatest knowledge is not to know. If you know nothing that is more than someone who knows wrong things. Minus one is less than zero.
He also explained that he is wise because he knows human wisdom is nothing compared to Divine Wisdom.
[] Five differences between Divine and human knowledge. (LM 1:53, More Nevuchim 3:20).
There is a quantum leap from Creator to created. This is the place where it looks to me that the Rambam wishes to bridge between his own Aristotelian point of view and Plato. I think he must have thought that somehow he had resolved the conflict between them by means of insights from the Torah. I think this is how Avraham Abulafia understood him also when he claimed that the More Nevuchim contained the secret of the redemption.
[] RN says (LM 1:25) souls are all one over the other and each a garment for the other. This a clear hint to the Reshash (Shalom Sharabi) that holiness is above. But in the future Z&N will be the same height as father and mother which will be the same height as Arich etc. The spiritual levels will all be internal.
[] All souls in their root above are one. Plotinus Enead 4:5 LM vol 1 ch 265
[] All souls are on a gradiated scale of perfection like a ladder. Aristotle said all creatures are on a graded scale of perfection: the "scale naturae" i.e. the great chain of being.
[] Background noise aside, R. Nachman accepted the science of the Ancient Greeks. I think this may show a great insight into the nature of things.
[] To tie oneself to the wisdom in everything is from Natan from Gaza. This is not the same thing as seeing the wisdom of God in all things which the rishonim bring from Saadia Gaon and the Rambam.
[] The centrality of the Tzadik similarly comes from Natan from Gaza. You have to see this in the three books of Natan from Gaza. They were not printed but are available in microfilm
(note 1) The Ten Spherot are explained in the Zohar (published 1280 C.E.), the Sefer Yezirah and the Bahir (published in the eleventh century C.E. in France.)
(note 2) While it is true that there could have been a tradition from Sinai about the Ten Spherot that Eudoxus heard and applied to the stars.
(note 3) This model had apparently been suggested by Parmenides. Aet 2;1 Dox 827 "Parmenides taught that there were crowns encircling one another in close succession.." He goes on to paint this scheme. Except he does not place the earth at the center. Neither do the Pythagoreans.
(note 4) Ptolemy had only eight spheres. The celestial sphere is the eighth. I once saw a book that said there was added a Sphere in the Middle Ages because of he precession of the north pole. But I don't see how that could be right. Ptolemy himself knew about the movement of the North Pole (It was discovered by Hipparchus in about 130 B.C.E.) and he did not add any sphere because of it. Another astronomer during the Middle Ages suggested "trepidation" but not another sphere. As far as I know the ninth sphere, "the crystal sphere", was added in response to the verse about "waters above the firmament" in Genesis. The Tenth was the Primum Mobile. (The ninth was sometimes not counted.)
It seems to me that Kabalah tries to formulate its spiritual insights in the models and conceptions of physical reality that were available at the time. not hat it was saying physical reality was in this way.
(note 5) It is true that the Kabalah also uses the idea of four elements. But even after Moshe De Leon said he had an ancient hidden manuscript from R Shimon, no one but him saw it. He simply sold copies of it page by page. This is very different from the way the Gemara or other books come down to us. Of course, it could have been written by revelation of the soul of Shimon Bar Yochai as Nachman [of Uman] himself commented about many parts of it. (This was not uncommon during the Middle Ages. Brit Menuchah was written the same way.) But even if it had been written by R. Shimon, he lived 600 years after Empedocles.) This is not the place to discuss the Zohar but at least for the record, it seems to me that the Torah gives a prerequisite for a prophet - predict a positive event. The Zohar did this,--revival of the dead in the year of the massacre of Jews in the Ukraine (1648-1649). The Gemara also (Avodah Zara pg 9) also did so. It predicts the Messiah before the year 470 C.E. Now none of this is a problem if you don't assume they are Divine. The Gemara does not say it is the word of God, nor does the Zohar. But if one says they are, then there is a serious problem.
[See testimony of Isaac of Akko in Sefer Ha'Yuchsim.]
Standards were different at that time. One could say Moshe De'Leon simply took poetic license which was not unusual at the time.
(note 6) R. Natan understood R. Nachman to mean the wheels are real. See LM vol 1 ch 61. That chapter was said by RN but written by R. Natan. There it is clear that the wheels are not orbits. The Divine Intelligence makes the wheels go around and on them are attached the planets. It seems R. Natan believed in the "wheels" as he reported R. Nachman to have said the earth does not move. After all, in the wheels model of the solar system, the earth is at the center.
As a side note, -- the earth does move. You can see this from the way your cell phone works. The satellite that makes it work is in stationary orbit around the earth (i.e. stationary above the ground). The way it got there was by sending it up at an angle. So as it moves around in its orbit and the earth moves under it it seems stationary. If the Earth did not move only sending it up straight would make it stationary. But then it would fall down.
It is more likely that RN said you can take the earth as a stationary frame of reference. That is not the same thing as saying that it does not move. The difference is saying it does not move means there is one stationary frame of reference and it is the earth.
(note 7) LM 1:25 literal translation: "The only part remaining of a man after he dies is the acquired intelligence."
The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva says that one portion in the next world depends on deeds and wisdom. Wisdom he says in the first chapter of the Eight Chapters is synonymous with knowing the nature of unchanging things, i.e. metaphysics.
(note 8) (Certainly people had known there is fire, water etc. But no one had thought they were the essential elements. Now it is hard to understand how one can say earth or fire is an essential element. Perhaps there are four essential sub atomic particles that can't be broken or changed but are they earth, water etc.?
Appendix:
The basic layout of the Ari is this:
In the Arizal (Isaac Luria) we have this basic pattern. At first the infinite light of God was everywhere and so there was no place for creation. Then there was a צמצום in the middle of the light to make a place for the future creation of all the worlds.When it was first made that place was empty and perfectly spherical.
And there was left a dot of light in the center of that empty space. Then there was drawn into the empty space a קו "line" of light that went down a little bit and then started going around to make kind of sub layer just underneath the infinity light that surrounded it. It was formed like a tennis ball. Empty inside but perfectly spherical. That was the sepherah of כתר of אדם קדמון. The sepherah of Crown of the archetype of Man. The Ari at this point will continue this process. [note 1 and note 2]
After the first sepherah of Adam Kadmon the ray of light went down a little more and then expanded into the next layer or ball of light of Wisdom. After that it went down more to make בינה understanding. Thus this process continued until the middle dot in the middle of the חלל הפנוי empty space which now is no longer empty.
These are all from the light of the name of G-d ב''ן that is the lowest level. That means the name of Yod Ke Vav Ke but with each letter spelled out. יוד הה וו הה.
After that came a new level of light from the name מ''ה which is also the name of G-d spelled out but with each letter also spelled out. [As if we we say "Aleph" instead of "A"]. Thus the name "45" is יוד הא ואו הא.
This new ray of light also came down from the exact same spot as the first one. But this time became of form of a man, as in the above diagram. This form is called ספירות דיושר. The feet here did not reach to the center dot but only until the bottom of the area which in the future will be called Emanation.
Each sepherah is like a pipeline. It is a vessel for flowing water. The vessel has an inner part and an outer part and contains the water (light) and there is also outer water (light).
Then after this process was completed, then light came out from the ears, nose, mouth and then eyes of Adam Kadmon. עקודים ברודים נקודים. This is how the Ari, Isaac Luria explains a verse about Jacob's sheep that were stripped spotted and dotted.
Each of these outer lights [which should not be confused with the אור מקיף of Adam Kadmon] formed worlds outside of Adam Kadmon. When the light from the eyes reaches below the belly the process know as שבירת הכלים breaking of the vessels began because of reasons explained by the Ari .
As we can see all of these processes were hinted at by the Pre Socratics and Origen. That does not make this invalid. It just is a point to consider. The Ari as all mystics understood the world through the framework that was available at the time. Clearly Yaakov Abuchatzaira held from the Ari. My own advice about all this is to learn Torah-the Oral and Written Law and then the Ari.
(note 1 But I should mention that the Ari is basing himself on Mediaeval mystics who disagreed about this process. Some held the ten sepherot were like a onion, spheres one inside the other. Others held they were in the form of a man. We will see that the Ari intends to bring balance to this by saying each was right and there are two different areas of spheres. (note 2 In any case you can see already the connection with my previous essay that this process was suggested by the Pre Soctratics and the Ari was building a kind of synthesis between the idea and concepts of ancient philosophy (whose ideas were written down and known during the Middle Ages) and the Medieval kabalists.)
(note 2) The reason this is so shocking is that plenty of people think they have nothing to learn others. That the Ari learnt some important ideas from Greek Philosophers is upsetting. It puts out of balance their conception of their being in the center of the universe.
9.2.16
I hold from two kinds of learning fast and in depth. I think the fast kind should be like it says in the Talmud Shabat 63a one should "just say the words and go on." This was done at the Mir yeshiva in NY in the second session of the day.
Now, I admit that since the people that read this blog might not be ready for the fast kind of learning that my comments might seems not relevant to them. They might not even know enough Hebrew for this to work well. In any case, I want to write down for the record what this kind of fast learning means and also show how it can be used for Physics.
So here it is: People in the Mir in the afternoon said over the Gemara, Rashi, and some of the Tosphot and then went on. They did not stumble around on every little point they did not understand. In that way people could cover a lot of material. I saw Reb Shmuel Berenabum do this in the afternoons, and he would cover anywhere from 15 to twenty pages in this way. You might be like me and be on a learning level that this does not make sense to you today. But you still need to be aware of this so that when it comes a day when you are able to do this you know what to do. This applies to Physics and Math also. Now why are both of these subjects important? Mainly because of the Ibn Pakuda [the author of the first Musar book the Obligations of the Heart] and other rishonim. My parents also held very highly from both of these though my Dad was more into inventing stuff for the USA army and space program. In any case, the fast session in Physics is also as above. לעולם לגרס אנש עא''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר say the words even though you forget and even though you don't know what you are saying. This is from the Talmud in Shabat 63a and also Avoda Zara but I forget the page number. I heard from Stephen Forest, a Physics professor in Munich, that this is in fact how one very good physics professor he knows did his learning. This should not take the place of learning depth of as I do repeating each paragraph twice an going on. That however counts as in depth learning and is not the same as the fast session.
So here it is: People in the Mir in the afternoon said over the Gemara, Rashi, and some of the Tosphot and then went on. They did not stumble around on every little point they did not understand. In that way people could cover a lot of material. I saw Reb Shmuel Berenabum do this in the afternoons, and he would cover anywhere from 15 to twenty pages in this way. You might be like me and be on a learning level that this does not make sense to you today. But you still need to be aware of this so that when it comes a day when you are able to do this you know what to do. This applies to Physics and Math also. Now why are both of these subjects important? Mainly because of the Ibn Pakuda [the author of the first Musar book the Obligations of the Heart] and other rishonim. My parents also held very highly from both of these though my Dad was more into inventing stuff for the USA army and space program. In any case, the fast session in Physics is also as above. לעולם לגרס אנש עא''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר say the words even though you forget and even though you don't know what you are saying. This is from the Talmud in Shabat 63a and also Avoda Zara but I forget the page number. I heard from Stephen Forest, a Physics professor in Munich, that this is in fact how one very good physics professor he knows did his learning. This should not take the place of learning depth of as I do repeating each paragraph twice an going on. That however counts as in depth learning and is not the same as the fast session.
Schelling
I had a high school teacher who hated it when I compared two presidents. He wrote to me the most virulent criticism I had ever heard up until that day. [He still gave me a good grade for some reason I did not know.] Later my rosh yeshiva launched a much more public crusade against me. But not for the same kind of thing. In any case,, ever since then, I have been wary of comparing thinkers. But I can't help it sometimes. But on the same hand, I realize I might just be looking at something on a superficial level. So take this as suggestion for research, not as a conclusion.
I would like to compare Schelling with Plotinus, and also suggest that he perhaps consciously was redefining Plotinius to fit into a kind of Kantian system. [That is Reason is no longer inside of us. It is rather something outside of us that we sometimes have access to. And there is a ground of Reason. I can't help but think he must have been inspired by Plotinus to come up with his modification of Kant.]
To Schelling reason is not totalizing and self-grounding, but an opening to that which cannot be thought.
And from this- we can understand the Rambam's idea of learning Physics and Meta-Physics as an opening to what comes beyond that. This is a theme which is brought up in books of Musar from the Middle Ages, like the חובות לבבות, מעלות המידות
There is sometimes you intellectually realize something is wrong with a group you are involved with but you don't have the where with all to leave. Or it is not all that clear in the first place. What can bridge between intellectual awareness and action?
I think a kind of shock treatment is needed. A kind of wake up call. People are for good reason reluctant to leave something they got benefit out of,- even when they start to see problems.
[A good hint is when most people that know the subject fairly think the group you are involved with is a fridge nut house group. Maybe then it is time to pack your bags.]
My suggestion is: Even when you know there is a gap between what you know is right and your actions- to still keep on learning Torah and Musar, so that when the wake up call comes, you have the intellectual ability to leave something that you knew all along was not good, and you knew you were just making excuses for it.
So I again am making an argument for learning Torah. This is something I got from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in N.Y. When he was asked about almost any human problems, from all kinds of people, his answer was always to "learn Torah." He felt the Torah had the ability to guide people towards the truth that they needed in their own lives. Just for clarity: The idea was to learn the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. I mean to say his definition of "Torah" was very much like the Rambam's statement "Just like there is no תוספת nor גירעון in the Written Torah, so is there no תוספת nor גירעון in the Oral Law."[You can not add to the Tenach, so you can't add to the traditional books of Oral Law. People can write books to explain the Oral Law, but they do not constitute the Oral Law in themselves. So the only real, authentic Oral Law is the books we received from the Talmud Period. Everything else is commentary which can be wrong.
There might be other examples of groups that have things that are wrong. However an example is the idea of מסית ומדיח that is one who entices others to do idolatry. That is you might have a group which has lots of good advice for you and has helped you and also the leader has done great miracles, but as part of the group there is worship of the leader. We know from the Torah that idolatry is forbidden so when worship of the leader is an essential element of the group then trying to bring others into it has a category of מסית ומדיח and we find the Dark Side often gives people miracles in order to give them the ability to entice others. This is common and also common knowledge.
The fact that lots of people believe in a cult does not provide evidence for truth value. "Some markets work well, but the market for ideas doesn't. Why not? Because ideas have massive externalities. The market for pollution works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your pollution. The market for ideas, similarly, works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your irrationality. The people who pay the price for the lies are not those who control the movement.
Truth doesn't largely win out in a well-functioning market for ideas, because people primarily seek not truth, but comfort and entertainment. Look at the market for religion. No matter what your religious views, it's hard to claim truth prevails, because even the generously-defined market leader has less than half the market. The same goes for political ideas." Brian Caplan
I think a kind of shock treatment is needed. A kind of wake up call. People are for good reason reluctant to leave something they got benefit out of,- even when they start to see problems.
[A good hint is when most people that know the subject fairly think the group you are involved with is a fridge nut house group. Maybe then it is time to pack your bags.]
My suggestion is: Even when you know there is a gap between what you know is right and your actions- to still keep on learning Torah and Musar, so that when the wake up call comes, you have the intellectual ability to leave something that you knew all along was not good, and you knew you were just making excuses for it.
So I again am making an argument for learning Torah. This is something I got from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in N.Y. When he was asked about almost any human problems, from all kinds of people, his answer was always to "learn Torah." He felt the Torah had the ability to guide people towards the truth that they needed in their own lives. Just for clarity: The idea was to learn the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. I mean to say his definition of "Torah" was very much like the Rambam's statement "Just like there is no תוספת nor גירעון in the Written Torah, so is there no תוספת nor גירעון in the Oral Law."[You can not add to the Tenach, so you can't add to the traditional books of Oral Law. People can write books to explain the Oral Law, but they do not constitute the Oral Law in themselves. So the only real, authentic Oral Law is the books we received from the Talmud Period. Everything else is commentary which can be wrong.
There might be other examples of groups that have things that are wrong. However an example is the idea of מסית ומדיח that is one who entices others to do idolatry. That is you might have a group which has lots of good advice for you and has helped you and also the leader has done great miracles, but as part of the group there is worship of the leader. We know from the Torah that idolatry is forbidden so when worship of the leader is an essential element of the group then trying to bring others into it has a category of מסית ומדיח and we find the Dark Side often gives people miracles in order to give them the ability to entice others. This is common and also common knowledge.
The fact that lots of people believe in a cult does not provide evidence for truth value. "Some markets work well, but the market for ideas doesn't. Why not? Because ideas have massive externalities. The market for pollution works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your pollution. The market for ideas, similarly, works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your irrationality. The people who pay the price for the lies are not those who control the movement.
Truth doesn't largely win out in a well-functioning market for ideas, because people primarily seek not truth, but comfort and entertainment. Look at the market for religion. No matter what your religious views, it's hard to claim truth prevails, because even the generously-defined market leader has less than half the market. The same goes for political ideas." Brian Caplan
8.2.16
Songs for the Glory of God the Creator [music for orchestra]
l89 [l89 midi]
j16 a flat major [j16 in midi] That nice sound in the middle is a piano with a flute.
q100 [q100 in midi] This I am sure needs editing but have no idea how and a lot of it was written under duress. I beaten in the Mikveh by some deranged person. In an upset mood it is hard to concentrate.
q100 version 2 [q100 version 2 in midi] This I think is a little better. One of the problems with the first version was no modulation in the beginning and thus no way to recapitulate. So this version corrects that flaw I hope half decently. [I think after that upsetting incident I was not thinking that modulation was a good idea. Now after thinking about it it seems it probably is.]
exodus4 [exodus 4 in midi]
j16 a flat major [j16 in midi] That nice sound in the middle is a piano with a flute.
q100 [q100 in midi] This I am sure needs editing but have no idea how and a lot of it was written under duress. I beaten in the Mikveh by some deranged person. In an upset mood it is hard to concentrate.
q100 version 2 [q100 version 2 in midi] This I think is a little better. One of the problems with the first version was no modulation in the beginning and thus no way to recapitulate. So this version corrects that flaw I hope half decently. [I think after that upsetting incident I was not thinking that modulation was a good idea. Now after thinking about it it seems it probably is.]
exodus4 [exodus 4 in midi]
Bava Metzia 98a
Ideas in Bava Metzia new edition [Also see: Ideas in Shas]
(I do not claim my book here is great. Any of my teachers could have written books on all of Shas a million times better. Reb Shmuel Berenbaum could give a Shiur Klali on the spot on any place in Shas--and he did so any time he was asked to. People taped his classes towards th end of his life but as far as I know they did not write things down. And Naphtali Yeager also is easily as great. I am just putting out for the public my own meager ideas. If you want a really great book on Gemara gets Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. Nowadays the Mirrer in NY has Rav Nelkenbaum who also is an amazing Talmid Chacham.]
I don't have access to any גמרא right now, but from what I remember רבי חייא בר אבא holds is we do not say עירוב פרשיות and from what I recall in בבא קמא ק''ז that means he holds we need כפירה along with טענת נאנס and רבי חייא בר יוסף says we don't need כפירה
רב חייא בר אבא מחזיק בשיטה שלא אומרים עירוב פרשיות בבבא קמא ק''ז. זה אומר שהוא מחזיק שצריכים כפירה יחד עם טענת נאנס. ורב חייא בר יוסף אומר שאנחנו לא צריכים כפירה עם טענת אונס כדי שתהיה שבועה
Or I could perhaps (God willing) write a new paragraph why Rashi can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in Bava Kama was explaining the opinion of Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph and the Gemara in Shavout is going like the other opinion.
The reason is this: That would make things worse to Rashi.
Rava says if there is such a thing as a "migo" (he could have said) then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If Rashi would try to say this is like Rabbi Chiya Bar Aba that would not help anything, because to R. Chiya Bar Aba there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as Tosphot points out either the case of נאנס was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder the question on Rashi is that according to Rabbi Chiya bar Joseph Rashi holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So Rava's question would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is in fact נשבע
However I did have another point in that paragraph that Rashi can't answer that anyway because Rava in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.
______________________________________________________________________________
Or I could perhaps God willing write a new paragraph why רש''י can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in בבא קמא was explaining the opinion of רב חייא בר יוסף and the גמרא in שבועות is going like the other opinion של רב חייא בר אבא
The reason is this: That would make things worse to רש''י.
רבא says if there is such a thing as a מיגו he could have said then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If רש''י would try to say this is like רב חייא בר אבא that would not help anything, because to רב חייא בר אבא there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as תוספות points out either the case of נאנס was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder, the question on רש''י is that according to רב חייא בר יוסף it is the case that רש''י holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So the question of רבא would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is נשבע
However that רש''י can't answer that anyway because רבא in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.
למה רש ''י לא יכול לענות כאן שהוא בבבא קמא הסביר את דעתו של רב חייא בר יוסף ואת גמרא בשבועות הולכת כמו חוות דעת אחרת של רב חייא בר אבא הסיבה לכך היא זו: זה היה עושה את הדברים גרועים לרש''י. רבא אומר אם יש דבר כזה, מיגו (שהיה יכול לומר), אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים מכיוון ששומר תמיד יכול לומר "לא היו דברים מעולם". אם רש''י ינסה להגיד את זה הוא כמו רב חייא בר אבא, זה לא יעזור שום דבר, כי לרב חייא בר אבא אף פעם אין שבועה ללא "לא היו דברים מעולם." אז כמו תוספות מציינות גם במקרה של "נאנס" הייתה גם בהמה של הכפירה וגם אחת של הודאה. ואם שלא היה חיה של כפירה, לא היה שבועה מלכתחילה. רק תזכורת, השאלה על רש''י שלפי רש''י רב חייא בר יוסף מחזיק יש שבועה עבור נאנס אלא גם כפירה. אז לפי זה השאלה של רבא לא הייתה היגיונית. טענה לא היה דברים מעולם הוא כן נשבע. ועוד סיבה כי רש''י לא יכול לענות את זה בכל מקרה, כי רבא למעשה מחזיק בשיטת עירוב פרשיות בסנהדרין ב' ע''ב. הגם ששם הפירוש של זה קצת שונה.
(I do not claim my book here is great. Any of my teachers could have written books on all of Shas a million times better. Reb Shmuel Berenbaum could give a Shiur Klali on the spot on any place in Shas--and he did so any time he was asked to. People taped his classes towards th end of his life but as far as I know they did not write things down. And Naphtali Yeager also is easily as great. I am just putting out for the public my own meager ideas. If you want a really great book on Gemara gets Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. Nowadays the Mirrer in NY has Rav Nelkenbaum who also is an amazing Talmid Chacham.]
I don't have access to any גמרא right now, but from what I remember רבי חייא בר אבא holds is we do not say עירוב פרשיות and from what I recall in בבא קמא ק''ז that means he holds we need כפירה along with טענת נאנס and רבי חייא בר יוסף says we don't need כפירה
רב חייא בר אבא מחזיק בשיטה שלא אומרים עירוב פרשיות בבבא קמא ק''ז. זה אומר שהוא מחזיק שצריכים כפירה יחד עם טענת נאנס. ורב חייא בר יוסף אומר שאנחנו לא צריכים כפירה עם טענת אונס כדי שתהיה שבועה
Or I could perhaps (God willing) write a new paragraph why Rashi can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in Bava Kama was explaining the opinion of Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph and the Gemara in Shavout is going like the other opinion.
The reason is this: That would make things worse to Rashi.
Rava says if there is such a thing as a "migo" (he could have said) then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If Rashi would try to say this is like Rabbi Chiya Bar Aba that would not help anything, because to R. Chiya Bar Aba there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as Tosphot points out either the case of נאנס was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder the question on Rashi is that according to Rabbi Chiya bar Joseph Rashi holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So Rava's question would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is in fact נשבע
However I did have another point in that paragraph that Rashi can't answer that anyway because Rava in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.
______________________________________________________________________________
Or I could perhaps God willing write a new paragraph why רש''י can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in בבא קמא was explaining the opinion of רב חייא בר יוסף and the גמרא in שבועות is going like the other opinion של רב חייא בר אבא
The reason is this: That would make things worse to רש''י.
רבא says if there is such a thing as a מיגו he could have said then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If רש''י would try to say this is like רב חייא בר אבא that would not help anything, because to רב חייא בר אבא there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as תוספות points out either the case of נאנס was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder, the question on רש''י is that according to רב חייא בר יוסף it is the case that רש''י holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So the question of רבא would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is נשבע
However that רש''י can't answer that anyway because רבא in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.
I will marry only a bachur who has learned in a Lithuanian Yeshiva
When I first got to yeshiva in Far Rockaway I discovered the magic method of review.
I was in a kind of dilemma because I wanted to make progress and the yeshiva was spending about a week of more on each page of Gemara. And I wanted to go faster. But going too fast left me without understanding at all. So I discovered this method of one review per paragraph.
This probably worked because of the unique kind of learning that I was doing. The Soncino Talmud had a great translation that was divided into paragraphs. So I could take the Gemara with Rashi and say over the equivalent of one paragraph. Then I would say word for word the English Translation of Soncino. And all that time I would have not understood anything. Then I would review the Gemara again in its original Aramaic and it would become clear on this second reading.
This combines two things that you have in the Gemara. One is the idea of גרסה (Girsa) that is just saying the words and gong on. The other is the importance of review. The tension between these two ideas gave me the impetus to do this middle ground method.
This probably worked because of the unique kind of learning that I was doing. The Soncino Talmud had a great translation that was divided into paragraphs. So I could take the Gemara with Rashi and say over the equivalent of one paragraph. Then I would say word for word the English Translation of Soncino. And all that time I would have not understood anything. Then I would review the Gemara again in its original Aramaic and it would become clear on this second reading.
This combines two things that you have in the Gemara. One is the idea of גרסה (Girsa) that is just saying the words and gong on. The other is the importance of review. The tension between these two ideas gave me the impetus to do this middle ground method.
What this means in terms of hard kinds of learning like Field Theory is to do the same kind of thing. Say each paragraph twice and go on.
[It is not as if I discovered all this on my own. Rabbi Freifeld and his son were always talking about the importance of "Review, Review, Review, ..." A book of Musar called אורחות צדיקים talked about going fast and also review. [I was given that book by Simcha Wassermann when I used to hang out in his yeshiva in Los Angeles. He was the one to advice me to go to Shar Yashuv. He was by the way the son of Elchanan Wassermann the author of the Kovetz Shiurim] So it was the tension between these two opposites that caused me to come up with this middle approach. [Read the paragraph twice and go on.] (Schelling held all progressions in human history happens in this way.)
I should mention that this method was disapproved of in both yeshivas. It was just my private way of trying to get somewhere in Gemara. Obviously Reb Naphtali Yeager [the Rosh Yeshiva in Far Rockaway] was into learning in depth, and the deeper the better. A week on one page of Gemara was already considered way too fast. And later at the Mir in NY, people were involved in just preparing for the Rosh yeshiva's class at 12:15. This type of learning that I was doing just was not done. All I am saying is this: for guy like me that was struggling to catch up to everyone else, this method helped me. Clearly no one needed it in the Mir except for me. They were already light-years ahead of me.
And at the Mir in the afternoon they were already going faster than me also because the afternoon was meant for faster learning. That meant there to say over the basic Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot and get the basic idea and go on. [If I had a learning situation I would do this also. But I am kind of in exile.]
7.2.16
A wise Arab person makes some good points in this nice video
He makes a good points that people gained by emulating greatness. I think that is how the Renaissance spread to Europe from Florence.
I think that Germany was once way behind England and France. It was like the rent a car firm in the USA that was second. They came up with the motto, "We are second but we try harder." And certainly this was how Russia came to have great scientists and a great space program. It was by emulating greatness and sometime surpassing it` it.
I think that Germany was once way behind England and France. It was like the rent a car firm in the USA that was second. They came up with the motto, "We are second but we try harder." And certainly this was how Russia came to have great scientists and a great space program. It was by emulating greatness and sometime surpassing it` it.
6.2.16
the Intermediate zone
The problem with false messiahs seems to be a recurring phenomenon. I would even dare to suggest that this problem becomes anew in every generation. That is sometimes the false messiah has more guts to announce his delusions and sometimes it is less public. The way to understand this is with the Archetypes of Jung. That is the Intermediate zone so much takes over a person that they lose their own sense of self and become absorbed into the false messiah archetype. That is they really believe it. And because the Intermediate zone gives miracles and Ruach HaKodesh" it all seems real to the followers. And then they go about reinterpreting the Torah to agree with the revelations of their charismatic leader. [This is relevant to this blog that is so rightly named after the Gra who tried to warn people about the false messiahs in his days and even put an excommunication on them that was ignored and still is. I should mention that teaching heresy in the name of the Torah was the actual reasoning of the Gra, not the problem with delusions.]
The problem is even after they die they don't go away. And then things just get worse. We find for example,-- that Natan from Gaza became much more influential after the Shatz [Shabatai Tzvi] was exposed. I can't prove this if you have not read his basic books, but for those who are aware of Natan from Gaza's doctrines they can find them in all books of the religious world today that deal with "Hashkafa" world view issues. If you did not know better, by putting them side by side with books that are learned widely in the religious world you would say that they simply copied over his ideas--sometimes word for word. Go out and check this yourself. It is easy to verify. [If you have the stomach for this kind of research.]
It is better if you trust me on this. I am not happy I had to learn all of the above the hard way. And once and person goes into this stuff it is like wrestling in the mud. One gets dirty. I know this fellow Michael who also did a lot of this research. He went to HU and xeroxed all the writings of Natan of Gaza and learned them and he saw everything that I am saying here. But it stuck to him, He even tried to brig the soul of Natan from Gaza into the world and hurt himself and his family by dealing with these terrible kinds of energies. And he is the only person I know that even had a chance at succeeding making any correction. If he failed, I don't think anyone should get involved in this terrible stuff. Just know to stay away from all the false messiahs;out there. And take the Gra's advice. Don't go near them. They do not often announce this. They leave it to their followers.
I am thinking that it would make sense to make a point to be against false messiahs. I tend to want to see the good in every person --even bad people. But with false messiahs it makes sense to judge them unfavorably. The reason is they are in the category of מסית ומדיח people that try to entice others to do idolatry. In that case the Torah says not to judge them favorably.
If people would listen to me I would say that just like in Germany there are strict laws against certain cults as is well known, so should the case with false messiahs. How hard could it be to pass a few laws to protect innocent Jews from the clutches of these charlatans? Or at least have sane Roshei Yeshiva speak out against them like Rav Shach used to do?
Not all markets sort out the truth. The marketplace of ideas certainly does not. No matter what religion you are at least half the world is against your beliefs. The fact that lots of people believe a false doctrine means nothing as for its truth value. Rather for its entertainment value and emotional value. But that is not the same as truth,
The problem is even after they die they don't go away. And then things just get worse. We find for example,-- that Natan from Gaza became much more influential after the Shatz [Shabatai Tzvi] was exposed. I can't prove this if you have not read his basic books, but for those who are aware of Natan from Gaza's doctrines they can find them in all books of the religious world today that deal with "Hashkafa" world view issues. If you did not know better, by putting them side by side with books that are learned widely in the religious world you would say that they simply copied over his ideas--sometimes word for word. Go out and check this yourself. It is easy to verify. [If you have the stomach for this kind of research.]
It is better if you trust me on this. I am not happy I had to learn all of the above the hard way. And once and person goes into this stuff it is like wrestling in the mud. One gets dirty. I know this fellow Michael who also did a lot of this research. He went to HU and xeroxed all the writings of Natan of Gaza and learned them and he saw everything that I am saying here. But it stuck to him, He even tried to brig the soul of Natan from Gaza into the world and hurt himself and his family by dealing with these terrible kinds of energies. And he is the only person I know that even had a chance at succeeding making any correction. If he failed, I don't think anyone should get involved in this terrible stuff. Just know to stay away from all the false messiahs;out there. And take the Gra's advice. Don't go near them. They do not often announce this. They leave it to their followers.
I am thinking that it would make sense to make a point to be against false messiahs. I tend to want to see the good in every person --even bad people. But with false messiahs it makes sense to judge them unfavorably. The reason is they are in the category of מסית ומדיח people that try to entice others to do idolatry. In that case the Torah says not to judge them favorably.
If people would listen to me I would say that just like in Germany there are strict laws against certain cults as is well known, so should the case with false messiahs. How hard could it be to pass a few laws to protect innocent Jews from the clutches of these charlatans? Or at least have sane Roshei Yeshiva speak out against them like Rav Shach used to do?
Not all markets sort out the truth. The marketplace of ideas certainly does not. No matter what religion you are at least half the world is against your beliefs. The fact that lots of people believe a false doctrine means nothing as for its truth value. Rather for its entertainment value and emotional value. But that is not the same as truth,
5.2.16
I would have to say that I agree with the מדרגת האדם about trust in God. That is to say I presented his opinion beforehand as some kind of academic exercise. It is look like an argument among Rishonim. And no one can decide between rishonim. Still as he pointed out the Duties of the Heart also agrees there is such a thing as trust without effort.
But what I wanted to say is that this whole thing got too much mixed up with the Torah alone approach. Just because people are learning Torah does not mean they are trusting in God. And just because a person has learned and is occupied with a vocation does not mean he does not trust in God.
In fact, nowadays it looks almost the opposite. So what I suggest is to start some kind of yeshiva that would in fact take the approach of Navardok to combine Torah with trust.
This must sound mild to most people, but I could go on a tirade about yeshivas that trust in money and make it their business to do anything to get money --anything except getting an honest job. I myself have been fooled by these places. But instead of rejecting the whole idea of learning Torah I say simply that the Rambam has already told us not to get paid or accept charity for learning Torah. I should mention that You should trust in God even when things don't go your way. That is the problem of Theodicy.
I should mention that I have seen in many yeshivas an attitude that they deserve free medical care, free food, free housing. They deserve it from the government even though they claim the government is evil. This is not the Torah approach. Though if you are learning Torah, that is not working. And if the government gives you charity, that is charity, not a pay check for honest work. And you should be grateful for the charity.
Appendix:
(1) The background of this essay is the Madragat HaAdam's view that one should trust in God and do no effort to gets one's needs met. What is decreed will come to you. What is not decreed will never get to you with all the effort in the world. He brings the Gra and the Ram'ban (Nachmanides) for proof. The Duties of the Heart says one should do effort. But also brings an idea like the 'Rambam {Maimonides} that when one accepts the service of God, then the yoke of this world is removed. (When you say Rambam you stress the first syllable. When you say Ramban you stress the last.)
[2] There were lost of miracles with Navardok people. But they were never recorded because it was considered natural that when one trust in God, God pays back in return.
But what I wanted to say is that this whole thing got too much mixed up with the Torah alone approach. Just because people are learning Torah does not mean they are trusting in God. And just because a person has learned and is occupied with a vocation does not mean he does not trust in God.
In fact, nowadays it looks almost the opposite. So what I suggest is to start some kind of yeshiva that would in fact take the approach of Navardok to combine Torah with trust.
This must sound mild to most people, but I could go on a tirade about yeshivas that trust in money and make it their business to do anything to get money --anything except getting an honest job. I myself have been fooled by these places. But instead of rejecting the whole idea of learning Torah I say simply that the Rambam has already told us not to get paid or accept charity for learning Torah. I should mention that You should trust in God even when things don't go your way. That is the problem of Theodicy.
I should mention that I have seen in many yeshivas an attitude that they deserve free medical care, free food, free housing. They deserve it from the government even though they claim the government is evil. This is not the Torah approach. Though if you are learning Torah, that is not working. And if the government gives you charity, that is charity, not a pay check for honest work. And you should be grateful for the charity.
Appendix:
(1) The background of this essay is the Madragat HaAdam's view that one should trust in God and do no effort to gets one's needs met. What is decreed will come to you. What is not decreed will never get to you with all the effort in the world. He brings the Gra and the Ram'ban (Nachmanides) for proof. The Duties of the Heart says one should do effort. But also brings an idea like the 'Rambam {Maimonides} that when one accepts the service of God, then the yoke of this world is removed. (When you say Rambam you stress the first syllable. When you say Ramban you stress the last.)
[2] There were lost of miracles with Navardok people. But they were never recorded because it was considered natural that when one trust in God, God pays back in return.
רש''י יכול לומר הוא מסביר את הרעיון של שבועות השומרים פי חוות דעתו של רבי חייא בר יוסף. אבל תוספות כשהוא שואל על רש''י מנסה להדוף את הנקודה הזו. את זה אני לא הזכרתי ברשימותיי. רבי חייא בר יוסף אומר עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן כי כאשר הוא אומר אצל שומר את המילים "כי הוא זה" אנחנו צריכים לשים את המילים האלה במקום אחר, כי הם לא מתאימים עם במקרה של שומר. אם האובייקט יש פה, יש להחזיר אותו. רבי חייא בר אבא אומר שאנחנו לא אומרים את זה. המילים בהתאים במקומם משום שאנו אומרים ששומר צריך להיות מודה במקצת (הודאה חלקית) כדי להישבע. רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב אומר אם יש דבר כמו "מיגו" אז אף פעם לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים משום שומר יכול לומר "לא היו דברים מעולם" ויהיה נאמן. לכן, כאשר הוא אומר "נאנס" הוא צריך גם להיות אמין. רש''י במקום אחר אומר כי שומר לוקח שבועה אפילו על טיעון של "לא היו דברים מעולם". מה תוספות שואל בצדק כי רש''י נסתרת ישירות על ידי רבא שאומר טענה של "לא היו דברים מעולם" הוא נאמן. כתבתי כי רש''י יכול לומר רבא הולך כמו רבי חייא בר אבא שצריך מודה מקצת כדי שתהיה שבועה, וכי המקום שבו רש''י אומר שומר לוקח שבועה אפילו על "לא היו דברים מעולם" הוא כמו רבי חייא בר יוסף. מה תוספות כותב בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך אני חושב נועד לדחוף את התשובה זה של רש''י. שם הוא כותב את שאלתו על רבינו תם "למרות רבי חייא בר אבא מחזיק אין שבועה עם הודאה ונאנס הוא מודה שקיימת שבועה עם הודאה וכפירה. מה תוספות עושה הוא אמור לתת נקודה לא רק על השאלה שלו על רבינו תם אלא גם רומז על רש''י שאפילו רבי חייא בר יוסף גם מסכים שאתה צריך מודה מקצת כלומר אתה צריך כפירה והודאה. זה רק עבור נאנס לבד שיש שבועה. כך הוא כבר חותר להגיע ריב''א
I admit I am not sure why Tosphot would say this. The only reason I mention this is simply to show that Tosphot was aware that Rashi might try to answer the question of Tosphot in the way I had suggested and tried to fend this off by saying even Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph agrees when there is complete כפירה that we need also הודאה I mean he needs מודה במצקת. Does Tosphot have proof of this? I do not know. In any case, this whole subject clearly needs a lot more thinking.
I admit I am not sure why Tosphot would say this. The only reason I mention this is simply to show that Tosphot was aware that Rashi might try to answer the question of Tosphot in the way I had suggested and tried to fend this off by saying even Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph agrees when there is complete כפירה that we need also הודאה I mean he needs מודה במצקת. Does Tosphot have proof of this? I do not know. In any case, this whole subject clearly needs a lot more thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)