unapologetically anti religious teachers. Religious teachers are the swore enemies of the Alpha Male. They are deluding themselves that they are self supporting when in fact they produce nothing of any economic value and depend solely on donations.

The unapologetically anti religious teachers  element of my thinking connects me with many people that have been terrorized by religious teachers  


Policies and principles don’t matter, nor do obsolete ideological divisions like Reform or observant , because the system itself is a sham.  


What we are seeing here is a convergence of two phenomena: Authentic Torah thought, popular discontent with phony religious teachers . 


I demand revolutionary change. But in order to make an impact on the system , I need quantity. We need lots of people to recognize that know that religious teachers  are frauds,
and predators. Their idea is to keep everyone working, so they can sit around all day relaxing with their friends in their so called yeshivas and kollel's. Real authentic Torah learning is the last thing they want.
There are of course a few authentic yeshivas but they are only about three in NY (Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Mir) and few others based on the Ponovitch approach in Israel. 


religious teachers  are the swore enemies of the Alpha Male. They are deluding themselves that they are self supporting when in fact they produce nothing of any economic value and depend solely on donations.
There is a good reason why the Rambam said not to give any money to any religious teachers. The reason w are seeing today when religious teachers are abusers and predators. And to top it all off they claim they malicious lies are from the Torah and Talmud.

All these problems would not exist if Torah and money were kept separate

Introduction to Talmud- Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri

If you need a simple introduction to Talmud I recommend the book of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri which combines simple, straight logic with depth

When I was in yeshiva there were two kinds of books around "Deep Lumdus" Deep learning  and "Easy Lumdus." The easy learning. The easy learning one were things you could learn and understand without having to have gone through the whole subject in depth. These were things that I would pick up and learn on Friday nights. [But it still gave you a good idea of the depths of the subject.]

The hard Lumdus is what it sounds like "hard." That is Reb Chaim [Soloveitchik], Baruch Ber, Shimon Shkop. Rav Shach combines these two things. Easy to understand without having to know all the sugia in depth while at the same time introducing you to the depth. [Yaakov Abuchatzeira also wrote a very good book of what you could call "easy Lumdus." An excellent book.]

Idea in Talmud Bava Metzia 98a

בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

___________________________________________________________________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א

What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said  כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.


מה שנראה  לי הוא שכל זה תלוי במה רש''י מחזיק בכפירה. הדרך שהתוספות מבינים את רש''י היא שאם השומר אמר כפירה,  אז הוא לוקח שבועה. אם כן, אז למעשה יש שאלה על רש''י. השאלה היא שאין מיגו. אבל כפי שאני רואה את זה, רש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים היא כאשר הוא אומר נאנס, אבל אם הוא אמר הכפירה אז הוא היה אמין

Ideas in Bava Metzia Ideas in Talmud


If you need a simple introduction to this I recommend the book of Rav Shach the Avi Ezri which combines simple straight logic with depth.

Idea in Talmud Bava Metzia 98a

I was just thinking over the sugia [Subject in the Talmud] in Bava Metzia 98 and Shavuot and the Tosphot. The first time I learned it Rashi made sense to me. Then my learning partner explained what the question of Tosphot on Rashi is. And thus Tosphot brings Rabbainu Tam. And then there is a question on Rabbainu Tam and so Tosphot then brings the Riva.
As I was thinking it over again as I was out doing shopping it occurred to me again that Rashi makes sense. With no access to a Gemara bear with me as I write down what I remember. But my memory might be playing tricks and I have no way to check. I looked at my own notes so I am not saying I remember this all from scratch. Still I might have forgotten something

At any rate here is what I remember. The Mishna in Shavuot says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel said that is when there are  witnesses. If there are no witnesses then the employer has a Migo. He could have said "who are you? I never saw you before." But instead he says "I paid you already." Rava [I think] asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know Rashi holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
Now full stop. Does this make sense? To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a migo. So if you believe a person because he has a migo then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could Tosphot ask on this?

That is all I really have to say right now. But just for completeness let me add what I recall Tosphot says after this. That is that rabbainu Tam says the only time there is שבועת השומרים is when there is מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה

________________________________________________________________________________

 The משנה in שבועות says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. רב and שמואל said that is when there are  witnesses. If there are no witnesses, then the employer has a מיגו. He could have said who are you? I never saw you before. But instead he says I paid you already. רבא  asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know רש''י holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a מיגו. So if you believe a person because he has a מיגו then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could תוספות ask on this?



המשנה בשבועות אומרת שכיר נשבע ונוטל. עובד לוקח שבועה ומקבל תשלום. רב ושמואל אמרו כי זה כאשר יש עדים. אם אין עדים, אז למעסיק יש מיגו. הוא היה יכול לומר מי אתה? מעולם לא ראיתי אותך. אבל במקום זה הוא אומר שילמתי לך כבר. רבא שאל, "אם כן אז לא יכולה להיות שבועת השומרים (שבועה לשומר). עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שרש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים אפילו כשאינו מודה מקצת. לי זה נשמע הגיוני לחלוטין. המקרה הרגיל של שבועת השומרים היא כאשר יש מיגו. אז אם אתה מאמין אדם כי יש לו מיגו, אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים. ברור כשמש. מה קורה בעולם של תוספותשהם  שואלים על זה?


Ideas in Bava Metzia


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

___________________________________________________________________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said  כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

The local religious teacher as opposed to a person that learns Torah for its own sake.

The local religious teacher  has a little piece of paper that says “certified ” on it, and that little piece of paper assures him that he will never be cast out among the poors, the middle class. But, you see, he earned it, by being the son of a religious teacher. A legacy. An aristocrat.

Have you ever met a minor rabbi?

A minor religious teacher is a snot-nosed kid who went to some big name yeshiva. What does he have? A piece of paper and a "Shtele" gig. [position] Is mr. minor religious teacher , who couldn’t tell over a Tosphot if it hit him in the head, a particularly talented religious teacher? Could he, in a double-blind test, out-compete the poors, the yokels, the disgusting average Jews of gross, inferior white Ashkenazc background ? If minor religious teacher were hit by a truck, his fat guts splattered into a million giblets across the pavement of his coastal gated community, would anyone care? No. minor religious teacher the minor aristocrat, is replaceable. He is privileged, but he is still insecure.

If you ever meet a minor religious teacher, insecurity will be the most obvious thing about him. 

If you ever meet a minor religious teacher, get him drunk, or at least angry. Wait for him to start fantasizing about, burning down the South with everyone in it, herding Christians into gas chambers. I’ve met my share of that lot, and they usually do. Sometimes they don’t bother trying to hide it. 

. The worst ones are the most assured and the least secure—the second-generation religious teachers so sure that they’re part of the ‘elite’ and the first-generation Brahmin unlike the converts from flyover states. 

 Since the "minor religious teacher" exerts influence over his students, and since the students pay the minor rabbi lots and lots of money to attend their cult compounds yeshivas, the minor religious teacher has a strong incentive to justify their position ideologically (by, for example, setting up a binary opposition between the virtuous “religious teachers ” and the un-virtuous “reform Jews and Zionists”) and materially (by turning their certificates of Spiritual Transformation into certificates of ideological ability to hold a job), and that this incentive is shared by the elite, who have the money and the connections to get themselves and their children into the most Spiritually Transforming cult compounds yeshivas of all for to seekers of Spiritual Transformation.

Presumably, one is to question everything except the religious teachers …

But we could always question the idea that an education is something you get by sitting in a room in yeshiva. 

Minor religious teachers are nervous snot-nosed man-children pushing the interests of their class as hard as they can in the desperate hope that they can hold onto their position.

The reason to expose these frauds is this: If you care about cigarettes. and someone you know is selling something which has no tobacco in it. Just empty packets of paper. Then you say something. But only of you care. So I care about Torah and thus I have to warn people that religious teachers  are selling a false product. Not Torah, but phony Torah 

Dear Dr  Ross, In one essay you indicate are going back to Plato and Plato coincides with  Kant in some ways. So Plato could have answered the question how the forms participate with individuals -he could have answered the representation makes the object possible and the object makes the representation possible. Is this in fact an answer that Plato could have given to the question of Aristotle?

Plato was thinking in metaphysical rather than epistemological terms.  So there is no "representation" in Plato's system, which is not a Critical philosophy.  The world of becoming consists of the objects of becoming.  Kant could interpret these as phenomena, but that would be, indeed, an interpretation.  At the same time, Plato's Forms as transcendent objects cannot be consistently represented in Kant's metaphysics, where a theory of transcendent objects will generate Antinomies.  In other words, God cannot be perfectly free and perfect just, yet He must be both.  But Plato's Forms are not God, or gods; and, like Socrates, the gods he does conceive hold no religious appeal.  In Kant, this does not mean there are no Forms, it just means that universals are abstractions whose ontological status is undetermined.  Since, if they exist independent, it would only be among things-in-themselves, Kant could even say that Aristotle was right, and that the Forms, whatever they are, are in the objects, but then as universals they are not accessible by experience or induction alone, as Aristotle thought.

KR

[Southern States of the Union]

Vilification of the south [Southern States of the Union][All States south of and including Virginia] has gone on long enough. I am not sure how a Christian defense of the south would work but from an Old Testament point of view it is fairly simple. One of the 613 Mitzvot is the set of laws that deal with a Jewish slave, and another one of the Mitzvot is the set dealing with a gentile slave. The reason you have a Mitzvah dealing with each is that the laws are many. It is like we have  a  law dealing with a burnt offering. There are plenty of rules dealing with it [as you can see in the very first chapter of Leviticus] but it all comes under one large category. In any case Slavery is allowed in the Torah. But one is not allowed to be inhumane to ones slaves.
You can see in in the Rambam in "Laws of Slaves" in the Book of Laws 
ספר המשפטים.

besides this I might add that the Constitution is a contract between the states that signed it, and the North had been violating its conditions ever since the Dred Scot decision came down from the Supreme Court

Kant wanted to redefine morality

Kant wanted to redefine morality in ways that lessened the importance of self denial.
This effected the world of Musar [Jewish Ethics] where fasting and self denial became considered less important. So to some degree you can see that the Musar movement was based on the Old Testament and Oral Law but also you can see it  gained lots of Kantian elements and also other elements from other streams of thought. The Kantian elements are perhaps more in accord with the Talmud. But the memes from other streams of thought seem foreign to me and more based on the Sitra Achra than on Torah.

In short, whatever is left of the Musar movement today has been so infected with foreign elements it scarcely has any resemblance to what the original books of Musar were talking about.

Blacks are the masters, and whites are the slaves.

Isaiah Berlin explained this best by the idea of negative rights. Negative rights are things like what we have in the Bill of Rights. Things that government can not do. This can be expanded to what other people can not take from you. But today when instead of negative rights, we have positive rights, that creates slavery.If someone has a right to things like housing or food, then that means other are forced -forced labor- to provide it. Forced labor is what is usually called ''slavery.'' And so now Blacks are the masters, and whites are the slaves.


Right do exist in Nature. They are the more modern way that ''natural law'' exists. That is;- instead of saying "Thou shalt not steal," John Locke used a concept that means in essence the same thing, but puts the emphasis on the person himself. The ''Right'' is what the man has himself. ''Thou shalt not steal'' is what others can not do to him. He based this on Natural Law which began with Saadia Gaon and the Rambam, and was developed in detail by Aquinas.

I could say simply to read the Two Treaties of Government by John Locke, but even there he does not spell this all out in simple words, so I thought it is upon me to explain this.

Really you have to go in your mind to consider  the "State of Nature." In the "State of Nature" man has full rights. But there is a disadvantage. He can not protect himself. Even the strongest man needs to sleep. Thus, in order to form a community, man gives up some of his rights --property etc., whatever is necessary in order to form that community;- so that the rest of his rights and person will be protected.

This concept of rights is the exact opposite of Rousseau. The John Locke concept gave birth to the American Democracy.  The Rousseau  concept of the "general will" [where the community has all the rights, and give only what it wants to the individual] gave birth to totalitarianism.

Slogans are important. Men's minds are ruled by slogans. Thus I though to suggest two simple slogans. One for the above essay and another for women.

To put this all into a simple slogan: "Black is Ugly"

You could add another complementary slgan for women "Fat is Ugly and Disgusting." 

[In any case this is a very brief account. And you can not learn this in philosophy courses nor in political science. You have got to trace the development of the ideas yourself from Saadia and Maimonides through Aquinas to John Locke and the read very carefully the Two Treaties along with the whole context of the state of nature thinker Hobbes.  Or you can take my word for it that John Locke's approach is the polar opposite of Rousseau.]

" Remember the Law of Moses"

At a certain point you have to stand for what you believe in. The very end of the prophets Malachi ends his prophecy with: " Remember the Law of Moses" {In Hebrew that is: "Remember the Torah of Moshe"}. There is so much idolatry that has sunk into what is called Judaism --especially in the religious world that at some point you have to draw the line.
I mean we have a good idea of what the Law of Moses says. And it is fairly clear that worship of human beings does not have much place in it. That is to say I just have to agree with the Gra that something is wrong with worship of people and I think he was right for putting that group into excommunication. This may not be a popular opinion but still it seems to me clear as day.

i recall a beggar woman in the neighborhood of Geula who told me Moses came to her in a dream and asked her: "What is it about my book that people do not like? why don't they pay attention to what I wrote?"  So every day as she was sitting there, she would read the book of Deuteronomy.

Ideas in Tracate Bava Metzia  

I need to look over the ideas on page 104. Today it looks to me that what I wrote was sloppy logic on that page concerning an answer to the Rambam. I might just erase it. It is that part where I talk about הפרישה on the Tur. But looking at it again it seems it might make sense. After all if there is no work to be done then the צמית serf ought to just pay according to the amount the field was approximated to yield according to present conditions.  But with no Gemara Bava Metzia or Tur to look it up I can not tell.


 I recall that my learning partner had suggested this and I also saw something like it in the "Prisha." But to be quite honest it seems really funny to me. To me. it seems that if you pay a percent then you pay a percent. If a fixed amount then it is  a fixed amount. I am tempted to throw out that whole paragraph.

Thinking about it today I might leave it in the book. The thing is it is  a proposed answer to the Rambam. But there might be a better solution. Perhaps based on the fact is that I noticed already that the two statements of Rav Papa contradict.

[After the above i think I corrected it and made a link to the new version. Still it would be nice to have a Lithuanian Yeshiva or Beit Midrash where I could go to look this up.]

Music for the glory of God

r60 G minor q96 e major [q96 midi] r61 D major  midi [r61 nwc]

r3   

 [r3 midi]  [r3 nwc]

r60 midi  [r60 nwc]

 Kant and Hegel are complementary and not in opposition.  I mean if we take the schemata of Kant which are clearly the thing that combines the pure concept with the intuition, it seems like we have a kind of synthesis that would look very familiar from the  standpoint of Hegel. Similar but not the same. For Hegel you have see some kind of conflict in the concept itself and then to find some synthesis. Still it is tantalizing to consider how close Kant and Hegel might really be.
And this one small kernel might have further implications. For example the focus and center of weight of morals to Kant is the individual. To Hegel it the larger group. When you consider the idea of Ontological undecidability where the center of mass is neither the subject nor the object it seems this would apply here also with there being a ground of morals that is not in the individual nor the super-organism.


The way to go about this to make  synthesis is by Dr Kelly Ross.
The thing he noticed is that after space has become something it still needs space to exist in. negative transcendence. [That is we know space is something. Not just because of Einstein but also the Bohm Effect ] Dr Ross build from there is eight modes of necessity. In any case what I would like to do is to see  how Hegel could fit with this.

Time is kind of odd. In Kant it is the way that sensitivity can perceive things, but is not in the realm of concepts. But it is among the things in themselves that cause sensibility but cannot be understood by reason. In fact, in Schrodinger’s equation, we can see that kinetic energy causes time to move. For the first part of the question is change in time. The second part of the equation is kinetic energy. Thus, each one depends on the other. With no energy, time cannot move, and without time, energy cannot exist. [the equation is d/dt of psi of x,t= 1/(2m) times the KE energy

religious teachers triy to present a face of family values.

Keeping Torah is largely an individual endeavor. The religious teachers  try to present a face of family values. This is largely a farce used to entice people. Thus one usually finds that connection with what he or she thought was a Torah keeping community that the community is at odds with Torah. And it provides dead weight towards any attempt to keep Torah honestly.
The religious world communities are set up for the sake of the reproductive success of the head macho man and his henchmen. Not for Torah.
They can even tend to be quite anti Torah in practice.

The truth is however going to an authentic Litvak yeshiva can be a great help if your commitment is really towards the Torah itself.And if you have something like that around then I highly recommend it.


[The difference is this: religious teachers  typically pretend to know that which they do not know. They re pseudo intellectuals in that sense. Lithuanian kinds of yeshivas are in general based on people that do know what they claim to know.]

Math and Physics as a kind of service towards God

 I see Math and Physics as a kind of service towards God along the lines of how we consider learning the Oral and Written Law. I do it more from the standpoint of a part of the mitvzah of learning Torah rather than as a vocation. There is a lot to go into about this. It is not just that I discovered this in the Rambam. There was a whole history of events leading up to the point that I realized this is important. It started as you can imagine with my admiration for my Dad. I knew he was working as a scientist and so that got my curiosity up about as to what he was involved with. Then I saw this mentioned in books of Musar while at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But at that time I was on  different track and did not want to listen - even to Musar which I knew was an accurate representation of the Torah approach. Later I saw this more openly expressed in the Rambam's Mishne Torah and the Guide. And at some point in Israel I started to relearn it.

I also think survival skills are important and that idea comes from the Gemara itself but more should be said about that in a different blog entry.


In a nut shell the idea of the Rambam is that learning Physics and Metaphysics are in themselves a fulfillment of the Mitvzahs to love and fear God. To love and fear are emotions and as such can not be commanded. Thus the Rambam basing himself on the Geonim held that learning Physics and Metaphysics which bring one to be inspired with love and awe of God are the actual fulfillment of these mitzvahs.

As Kabalah became more popular the older ideas of what מעשה ברשית מעשב מרכבה (The work of creation and the work of the Divine Chariot) meant were altered to agree with the kabalsistic approach. This was a dramatic shift but it was introduce subtly so that people would not notice it. I have nothing against learning Isaac Luria whose writings I think-are very important. Still that is not what the Rambam was referring to when he was talking about מעשה בראשית מעשה מרכבה The work of creation and the work of the Divine Chariot.

my Dad

This is what my Dad had to face 3 hours per day [California] all so that my brothers and myself could go to a good high school. He could just as easily bought a home near his place of work  at TRW. But instead choose to be in the neighborhood of  a good school so my brothers and I would get a good education.

He was working on SDI at the time, --laser communication between satellites.

r61 D major

Whom to marry {From a blog Free Northerner}

From this Blog

Biblical Alpha: Proverbs – Part 4

Welcome to the third and final part of Biblical Alpha: Proverbs. (Part 1 , Part 2, and Part 3).

We will cap off the series with the passage on the Woman who Fears the Lord from Proverbs 31:10-31.

Also known as the Proverbs 31 women, this passage is the standard many in evangelical and other Christian circles measure womanhood by. It is a standard some Christian women like to rebel against and one many Christian women think they fall short of, but try to attain.

Any patriarch-to-be should examine this woman carefully. Make sure any potential woman you plan to marry matches what is written here, or at least is trying to. (This goes for anyone else planning to hitch themselves to a woman, not just patriarchs).

So let’s look at the kind of women a patriarch should try to find. I’ll break it down:

An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.

A wife of good character is one of the greatest gifts a man can have. If you marry, make sure you marry a wife of good character.

The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.

A good wife is trustworthy. If you can’t trust a woman, don’t marry her.

She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.

A good wife will seek the good for her husband. She will not try to hurt you. Marry a women who wants to to good by you, not a women who demands and criticizes (or worse).

She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.

A good wife works hard. Marry a women who is active and productive, not lazy. Do not marry a woman who’s spoiled or unwilling to get her hands dirty.

She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.

A good wife prepares food for her family and makes sure they are fed right. Marry a woman who likes to cook. Do not marry a women who refuses to cook because it’s sexist.

She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.

A good wife can take be trusted to care of finances and handle her wealth properly. Marry a woman who can follow a budget. Do not marry a wasteful spendthrift or a women who likes wracking up consumer debt.

She dresses herself with strength
and makes her arms strong.

A good wife is strong. Marry a woman who can take care of herself and won’t be utterly helpless without you. Do not marry a delicate flower, a weak women, a dependent women, or someone unwilling take care of themselves. (Hint: Do not confuse being strong with being bitchy or a ball-buster as some feminists are wont to).

She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.

A good wife is productive and industrious. Marry a women who is willing to work hard, do not marry one who is lazy.

She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.

A good wife is compassionate, charitable, and generous. Marry a woman who cares about the people around her, do not marry a woman who thinks only of herself.

She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.

A good wife will make sure her family, herself, and her home are kept well and look presentable. Look for a wife who will value and create beauty in herself, her family, her home, and you. (Hint: Valuing beauty is not the same as vanity and superficiality). Marry a woman who takes care of herself and her home, do not marry a disorganized mess.

Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.

A good wife is one who will bring you respect among your peers and your betters. Marry a woman you are proud to show off to your friends, your church, your family, and you boss. Do not marry a woman you would be embarrassed to bring to an office party or family dinner.

She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.

A reiteration; a good wife is productive, industrious, and financially astute.

Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.

A good wife is dignified, but has a sense of humour. Marry a respectable women with an easygoing, joyful temperament. Do not marry a coarse or “low-class” woman or a women who feigns dignity through being stuck-up, prissy, or a stick-in-the-mud.

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

A good wife is wise and speaks kindly. Marry a woman whose judgment you respect and who talks kindly to you and others. Do not marry a stupid, foolish, or rude woman.

She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.

Another re-iteration; a good wife takes care of her family and isn’t lazy.

Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
“Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”

A good wife will bring joy to you and your children. Choose one that will. Choose a good mother for your children. Do not marry a woman that will bring pain or sorrow to you or your children.

Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.

Beauty fades. Choose a wife who has good character; do not fall into the trap of marrying a beautiful woman lacking character. Beauty is good, but character matters more in the long run.

Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.

A good wife will let her good works speak for her; she will not be vain, boastful, or arrogant. Marry a humble woman who desires to do good and help those around her. Do not marry a selfish narcissist, an attention-whore, or an arrogant, vain, or snotty woman.

The Proverbs portion of the Biblical Alpha series has been a bit different from the rest of the series; it has focused more on advice for men, than on Biblical teaching on masculine virtues, but I hope it’s been valuable to some of the readers.

A major theme throughout, is choosing the right woman and avoiding destructive women. Hopefully, this will  help patriarchs-to-be (or others looking for relationships with females) know more about the kind of woman they should look for, and the kind of women they should avoid.

****
* All references from Proverbs, ESV version.

Share: