Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

A disciple of Rav Nahman, that is Rav Natan brings in Hoshen Mishpat, laws of guards [that is the part of Shulchan Aruch that deals with monetary laws and deposited object] the idea of trust in God that you see also in Rav Israel Salanter, and his disciple Rav Joseph Horvitz of Navardok. 

To Rav Natan, trust with effort brings up the sparks of holiness that fell because of the breaking of the vessels. Trust in God without effort brings up the sparks of holiness that come from the empty space.

Clearly he is holding that trust with effort is a good thing, but not as great as trust without effort.

In fact the idea is that only by trust with no effort can one bring up the sparks that come from the deepest kelipot [forces of evil.]

Top some degree you see this in Napoleon. He was in prison in Elba. Then broke out to retake France. A army of the new king came out to fight him. As these two armies stood face to face with their arms and weapons raised ready to fire the general of the kings troops called out to Napoleon to surrender. Napoleon told his men to lower their weapons and walked out in front of all his troops and called to the other army. "Here I am, your emperor. If any of you want to kill me here is your chance!" There came a voice from one of the captains of the kings army "Fire!" But no one fired. Instead they all lowered their weapons and shouted long live the Emperor!

So you have to say that the Mishna that says all Torah without work is useless and brings to sin and in the end he merits only to hell has to be talking about Torah without trust. That is: these are independent variables. Torah and work are different variables than trust with or without effort.

To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

Why not to marry American women.

To read that article is a good idea, but to put it simply. To American women you are just a disposable plaything.

truth is divided up

The Litvak Yeshiva world has noticed the importance of the Middle Ages. [That is the people that follow the Torah path like the Gra and Rav Shach.]

That is: the Lithuanian Yeshiva World [i.e. straight Torah]  holds highly of Rishonim (mediaeval authorities like the Tosphot, Rif,  Rosh etc.) [more than achronim (later authorities after the 1500's) ] and of the Musar (Ethics) of the Middle Ages. [Learning teh Ethics of the Middle Ages was the whole point of Rav Israel Salanter and the Musar movement. Later on, the books of his disciples got added in. But the original idea was the Middle Ages.]

So what do do with Metaphysics? [Emphasized by Maimonides and Ibn Pakuda [the author of  the Obligations of the Hearts] right in the beginning of  חובות לבבות, [Obligations of the Heart by Behayee Ibn Pakuda].

Medieval metaphysics can not be taken simply simply because some of the axioms do not seem all that correct, even though the logic is correct.

You need to some degree Kant and Hegel. But in the same way that the Litvak world takes achronim--as modifications of Rishonim, not as standing on their own.


[My own opinion is that true Torah is only found in yeshivas that go by the Gra like Brisk or Ponovitch. However, as the sages said-- in the future the truth will be divided. האמת יהיה נעדרת --עדרים עדרים. Since the truth is divided up and you can not find it in just one place. so you need to do a process of "birur" taking the good and discarding what is wrong. But you can not do that until the lies and delusions have fallen. Truth can only come together after lies have been destroyed.]

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Professor Moshe Ideal brings a doubt  as to the development of Rav Avraham Abulafia. That is what was the trigger for the new revelations of 1270? Was it his method of Divine Names or was it grace?

This rings a bell with me because I think that it is a combination of factors. That is to say in my view there are certain stages to come to "Devekut" [literally "attachment"] (or prophecy in the language of the Middle Ages) and there are also certain stages to leaving that and coming back down to Earth as we find in Plato's cave where those who left it were forced to come back and instruct those that remained inside.

In my view coming to Devekut is simply a matter of following the straight, simple path of Torah as defined by the Gra and Rav Shach.  That is Devekut comes by grace. But then to contain the light and focus it one needs the Divine names. And then one is forced to leave in order to help thoese that are left inside the cave.

[But what to do with the problem of ego inflation and religious delusions? To me it seems that one needs to be rid of evil before one can come to truth. To be rid of evil I think depends a lot on the art of discernment. To take literally the advice of the Gra in his letter of excommunication.  But not to use that to dismiss Rav Nahman who I think would not be included as can easily be seen from the language used there.]

See Moshe Idel on this subject

Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat on Bitachon [trust in God]

In the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat [end of perek 6] there is a story about a person that became "ger" [convert].
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.

Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.

So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]

[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off.  That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."

When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.

So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.

Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10

Rosh Hashanah = the actual new moon. This of course is going according the Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 that you go according to the time of the "molad"--the conjunction. 

Prince Philip [husband of the Queen of England]: pearls of wisdom.

"British women can't cook"

"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed" (during the 1981 recession).

"You are a woman, aren't you?" (in Kenya after accepting a small gift from a local woman).

"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).

"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).

"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).

"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).

"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).

"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).

"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).

"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" [National Health Service] (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital). 

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy.

People respond to incentives. If you give to the religious world lots of money they gain power and control. And yet no one that is actually subject to religious rule is very happy. It is a conspiracy to keep the corrupt and evil leaders in control. Thus it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyayu ought not to have religious people in his cabinet.  Though I can not figure out why or how the religious world got to be such a nightmare still the facts on the ground indicate that the more power they gain the worse it is for everyone.

[My own approach to Torah is more along the lines of balance. and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה and not to seek out new restrictions. To some degree This approach is based on the book of Rav Nahman the LeM vol II. 42. Where he defines the service of God as not to be seeking out new restrictions. but rather learning and keeping Torah simply.


[The trouble with parliamentary systems as noted by the founding fathers of the USA. At the time even King George assumed the English Parliament had absolute power over the colonies. [Besides that the Parliament in fact needed to pay the war debt that they had incurred because of the war with France which in fact was a benefit for Americans. But Americans though willing to contribute money and arms and people to the war effort did not think Parliament had power over them.. The king yes, but Parliament no. This same kind of system still plagues Europe. The founding fathers on the other hand did not think to give to even their own parliament [Congress and Senate] such power. This is the reason for three branches of government in the USA. In Israel this problem is such that the religious have power to bring down the government any time they feel they are not getting enough money.

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University)

Profesor Moshe Idel (Hebrew University) has a new book on the issue of the Sonship which looks at the issue from the standpoint of mystics from the Middle Ages.

I have noticed this subject come up in various places in the Gemara. [One place I noticed this was in Bava Batra. God calls a tzadik by his name.]

But the major thing seems to be a kind of take on Emanation that is common enough in the Ari [Isaac Luria] and Moshe Cordovaro.

The idea of Jesus being a tzadik that partakes of this  aspect of things seems to me to be more or less clear after I saw this in Avraham Abulafia and also in Moshe Idel's PhD thesis.

[Son in the Remak always refers to Tiferet. In the Ari himself I saw the idea of the vessel of yesod containing the light of kindness which I figured was in reference to Jesus.]

With Kant I go with the idea that certain areas of value are not accessible to human reason, so to speculate about them makes little sense. And you see this also with Fries and Leonard Nelson who hold from a kind of knowledge that is not by reason nor by sense perception. So besides basic faith I have that Rav Avraham Abulafia knew what he was talking about, I do not like to make any further speculations.



Another thing is this: The Christian "take" on Jesus to me seems wrong. He did not advocate the nullification of the commandments--as explained in the Theonomic Position on the web site of Anthony Flood. He said one must keep all the Torah. The Oral and Written Law. [Everything the prushim say to do you must do...] [He said anyone who teaches you to not keep the Torah shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven for verily I say unto you heaven and earth shall pass away but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away] So it does not sound like he is saying not to keep the Law.]

American War of Independence as opposed to the Revolution in France.

The reasons for the American War of Independence do not seem to be based on the idea of John Locke. There was a soldier who fought at bunker hill who was interviewed many years later and he was asked about it. He never had heard of John Locke. As for the Stamp act --also he had never seen one. There was a whole list of the usual reasons given  that he was asked about and he never heard of any of them. So when finally he was asked then why did you fight? He said because we had been taking care of our own business  by ourselves and the British wanted to interfere.

What you see is that the colonies were not beholden to England for more than a hundred years--since 1620. They had been taking care of themselves They just wanted to continue their traditions and organizations with no interference from Britain. It was not a revolution to change the order of things.--Completely opposite of the Revolution in France that aimed at overturning the old order.

[I want to add here that the American system even after the War of Independence was based 99% on the English system. The Colonies had no reason to rebel except for the tyranny of Parliament. But that alone would not have caused the break from England until they appealed to the king, King George, and he refused to hear their complaints.]

Species can change

Species can change from one into another. [It is also brought in the Babylonian Talmud in Bava Kama around page 16--I forget exactly].[It is in the Jerusalem Talmud also. I saw it as I was flipping through the pages. I forget where I saw it. It was I think in Shabat or Eruvin.]
You see there that even bones can become living things. And many different examples are given on one species changing into another every seven years.
So I do not see why this seems to be an issue of contention. [That is in terms of evolution. As for the math probability of evolution I think that is not the best way of looking at it. After all if you take any point on a line and ask before you hit it with your pencil what is the probability of hitting it you get zero. 1/infinity. --Since there are an infinite number of points on a line. So after you have hit any random point you can prove mathematical that you could never have hit it. ]

argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot

The argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot concerning an alley with three walls.
To the Rambam it has a category of a carmlit [a middle state that is not a private domain nor a public domain] To Tosphot and the Rashba it is a private domain.


One of the commentators of the Yerushlmi brings this subject and the opinion of the magid mishna on the Rambam.
What is hard to understand about the Rambam here is the gemara in Suka page 7: an alley that is open on two sides--if equipped with a lehi is a private domain and if with overhead board is a carmlit.

If the Rambam would be right why should the Gemara deal with an alley with two walls?

In this area there is an argument between the Magid Mishna on the Rambam and Rav Moshe Margolit [the author of the Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi].

To Rav Moshe the three wall alley that is open to a carmlit and has a lehi is a reshut Hayakid. And to me it looks like he is using this idea to answer for the Rambam. I do not see how this helps the Rambam. If a simple lehi helps an open alley [open on two sides] then why should an alley closed on three sides be worse.

I guess he must be saying the open alley also is just open to a carmlit. Still I admit it is hard for me to see how the Ramabm could fit into the Gemara over here.

[Sorry if I do not have any more ability to concentrate on things in order to make my remarks clearer--after my experience with getting arrested because of false accusations I have little ability to concentrate on anything.]]

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. Moshe Idel conserning his approach to the idea of "the Son" and the start of his interest in Rav Avraham Abulfia.

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism

https://shi-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/Havruta_2009_Issue3_MosheIdelInterview.pdf

" In my Ph.D. dissertation, I wrote a section dealing with the son of God in Avraham Abulafia."
[Abraham ben Shmuel Abulafia (1240-C.1291), the founder of the ecstatic brand of Kabbalah]


In that thesis, you can see the Rav Abulafia held that Jesus was a tzadik.[משיח בן יוסף, החותם של יום ששי] I had seen that beforehand in Rav Abulafia, but seeing this idea also brought in Moshe Idel made it more clear. [I asked him later about this issue on the phone.]

Sonship

https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Sonship-Mysticism-Library-Studies/product-reviews/0826496660/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews


See also Kabalah and Elites

[Myself I never got into Rav Abulafia but I see him as a very important aspect of Torah. However I did see some of this subject in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]. The most obvious place for me is after the breaking of the vessels the vessel of Foundation was brought up into Emanation and filled with the light of Kindness. כלי של יסוד נעלה לאצילות ובו ירד האור של חסד. The Ari also brings this up concerning Joseph in Egypt.
Hegel has his own take on this which is known to be hard to understand. However it seems to me that Hegel is thinking more about Adam Kadmon more than Joseph. [While Hegel brings both subjects he does not tie them specifically together.]]

the Rambam and Tosphot about a private domain on Shabat.

There is an argument between the Rambam [Shabat chapter 14] and Tosphot about what constitutes a private domain.
Tosphot and the Rashba both hold three walls constitutes a private domain on Shabat. But the Rambam makes a difference. If the alley is open to a public domain then it is just a Carmalit. [A place that is not a private domain nor a public domain.] But if open to a carmalit then it is a private domain. That is the three walls reduce it one level down.
There is a lot to go into here because of a few gemaras in Eruvin which seem to be clearly like Tosphot. [And I wanted to add that the Karban Eda in the Yerushalmi holds that the Rambam holds a Lehi is considered a wall from the Torah but an overhead board is just derabanan.]


But the thing I wanted to point out here is something I mentioned a few years ago--that you really do not see the Gemara making the distinction about a public domain having 600,000 people walking through it. So on Shabat my approach is to carry only in a pocket. This you can see in Ketubot chapter 3 and also in Bava Batra that the thief taking out a purse on Shabat is obligated for Shabat when the purse has changed domain, not when the object in the purse has changed domains.[You can see this more clearly in Bava Batra but I have forgotten the sugia over there.]


But unless it is really absolutely necessary I think it is best to stay home on Shabat and avoid all the problems. Besides that usually people need to recover from Shabat ion Sunday. So it really is not much of a day of rest for most people. 

the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [

 the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים].
The way Rav Nahman understands this is based on a few statements of the sages about the problem of using Torah to make money or gain power.

This idea can be expanded to groups that use the appearance of Torah also to gain power or money.


The idea of Rav Nahman has a few sources in the Gemara. One being the gemaras about demons that were in fact knowledgeable in Torah--and could take over people's souls. So it really is no surprise to find Torah scholars that are in internally demons. 

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison.

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison. It might be in part because of the super organism idea of Howard Bloom.

In fact this kind of behavior I have seen a lot. This was in fact one of the causes that the Gra put his signature on the letter of excommunication. In order to stop that type of action on the part of people that were deeply into religious delusions.

You can see that people that are involved in the good side of Torah like in the Mir or Brisk, never try to go out and change others or make mass movements.

Torah scholars that are demons תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים

The basic idea of Torah scholars that are demons [Le"M vol I chapter 12]. [The Gemara itself brings the idea  that demons can be knowledgeable in Torah and  also that they can possess a person. Therefore the logical deduction is that a person possessed by a demon that is knowledgeable in  Torah will be knowledgeable in Torah. [The note on the bottom of the page in the Le.M brings the source of Rav Nahman from the Zohar, but I do not see why since Rav Nachman also had a source in the Gemara itself. 

 [It is brought in expanded form in the Ari also. ] This seems to me to be one of Rav Nahman's most important ideas. It provides a warning to people that could be too easily taken in.

Is there any test, to know the difference between good and evil in this regard? There is, but I can not tell what it is exactly. 

However I did want to add a comment. First that David Bronson did point out to me that even Rav Yaakov Emden did hold that some parts of the Zohar are authentic. (Large portions of it were added to.)
Furthermore there are plenty of warnings about religious leaders in the Talmud and the Prophets also.

Ari [Isaac Luria]- The way the Ari understands the creation of the universe

The way the Ari [Isaac Luria] understands the creation of the universe is by a process of צמצום of the Divine Presence of God from an empty space within his Infinite Light and then sending down first the light of the divine name 52 or Adam Kadmon of the Circles. Then the name 45 which became Adam Kadmon of the form of Man.

This explains to some degree why Buddha would have seen Nirvana as the peak of things and that perfection means to be self-annihilated.  Buddha [and Schopenhauer] would be seeing the level of the empty space as being the bringing. Thus forgetting that there was one level before that.

However Hegel did incorporate the level of Adam kadmon and the previous levels in his system. [Though I do not know how he learned the Ari or even heard about him. But he certainly brings him in his books. And his system is a kind of commentary on the Ari.]

immigrants into the USA

The problem with inviting immigrants into the USA is אין אורח מזמין אורח a guest can not invite a guest. Besides that there is a problem with using immigration to change the demographics of the USA which intends to change the basic nature of the WASP society. If anywhere else had managed to pull together a decent wholesome society like the USA in its first 200 years then there might be some reason to try and change the USA towards some better model. But since no such society has ever existed with the degree of freedom and justice of the USA it makes no sense to try and change it. And if such a great society elsewhere exist now then why do people still try to get into the USA? Why do they not stay in their utopias?

decrees of the sages

In terms of decrees of the sages, I brought the issue up with my learning partner David Bronson and we went through the commentary of the Rambam and Ramban on the Mitzvot--about the issue.

At the time, I was satified that there is some kind of justification. However, it does seem weak.
[I might add here the importnat fact that the verse in the Torah "לא תתורו" do not go away from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that had legitamate ordination from Sinai that ceased to exist during the period of the Talmud.]
One thing I noticed today was that on the Mishna in Shabat, the Yerushalmi compares the day that the 18 decrees were made into law to the day of the making of the Golden Calf.--Which does not sound like a positive thing. [The 18 decrees were the beginnging of all decrees that were made during the time of the Mishna.]

My original question on this whole thing stemed froman Avot DeRav Natan. Rav Natahn was a person from the time of the Mishna and Gemara and he wrote a commentary on Pirkei Avot which has the status of a Braita. There in the beginning of Pirkei Avot he brings the statement of R Yose that the sages had no permission to make extra laws to put upon the laws of the Torah.

[My own approach to this has varied over time. At one point I just assumed that all decrees "Derabanan" [of the sages during the time of the Mishna] were obligatory. Then at the point when the religious world stated showing its ugly face, and my life was plugged into chaos I realized that keeping everything was not going to be possible. So I decided to pick one basic principle to stick with and as for everything else to depend on the opinions of the lenient authorities.

[This was an idea I got from reading Rav Nahman's books. In his major book the Le''M in two places he brings the idea of not to be strict about anything. And when Rav Natan his disciple asked him about a position of being the rav in some city that was offered to him Rav Nahman said "Why not?" Rav Natan answered, "I am afraid of having to make a legal decision (that might be wrong)."
Rav Nahman said, "As long as there is one authority ("posek") to depend on, you can depend on him."
[Which might refer to a rishon [mediaeval authority] but also might refer to the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch itself.]
Based on that I usually was able to find some lenient opinion in a lot of cases that came up in my chaotic life. But even further--the Raavad and others hold once the reason for a decree is nullified the the decree itself is nullified.

In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus.

In terms of German Idealism, my feeling is there is a lot there that is important. But I do not feel committed to any one particular thesis.
But I did want to mention just a few thoughts. One is that the way it is presented is usually wrong. The way it is usually understood is that it is some version of Berkeley.
The way I see it is that it is a version of Neo-Platonism.

In terms of the arrow of thought from Being into Logos (of Hegel), that is the opposite of the direction of Plotinus. But that is just the direction of deriving things. The actual Creation I see as being from Logos until Being. like Plotinus.

As for Shopenhaur I see him as just related to the חלל הפנוי [the Empty Space] of the Ari [Isaac Luria] before the actual sending down of the Infinite Divine Light.--So I do not see him at all in disagreement with Hegel anywhere near the degree he thought he was.

Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy.

There is a great of good ideas in the Gra and Rav Nachman and Musar [the Musar movement of Rav Israel Salanter.] The thing is you need some kind of measuring stick to decide what is applicable to you and what is not. There are lots of false ideas out there and common sense and reason are needed to sort things out. This was the general approach in the Middle Ages. Reason and Faith. For after all if you would take everything in Torah literally, it would be problematic. So you need some common sense. Even to choice who you think is valid also requires common sense.

As Rav Nahman pointed out, there are plenty Torah scholars that are demons. And they have a Torah of the Sitra Achra. The realm of evil. So it does take a certain amount of caution to discern whom to listen to.

Some of the great ideas of the Gra are well known--learning Torah, trust in God, and his signature on the letter of excommunication. [Which did not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you look at the original documents that were later collected in a few famous books. I saw a book that had the original documents in a small public library in Jerusalem in the old city.]

Some of Rav Nahman's ideas were talking with God in one's own language as one talks with a friend. But lots of other great ideas and insights--too many to go into.


[Musar itself is great but tends to be kind of mediaeval in philosophy. It seems to ignore the concerns of the Enlightenment philosophers. Is there some way out of that? Maybe. Kant came along to some degree to answer the rationalistic empiricist problem--mind body. In tend to see Hegel as being a good approach to this issue. But with in mind the kinds of concerns of McTaggart.]

I myself do not have a commitment towards any system of beliefs but rather I am committed to seek the truth in all issues.  This is kind of personal but also it was the atmosphere of S California where I grew up. But I also recognize the opinion of people that know more than me.

the first important Musar book the Obligation of the Hearts is neo platonic [in the first part, shar hayihud]

free stuff in order to get elected

The strategy of promising free stuff in order to get elected is really not all that different from communism. So in order to evaluate if this is a legitimate approach one could look at the history of communism to see if it is workable policy. Well no. It is not workable. It destroys the economy. But what it does do is to get people's votes to put the one that promises into power.

The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money.

What happens in the Mir in NY is that a person is learning Torah for its own sake a few years and then gets married. Then his father and or father in law support him and her a few years. But there was never any intention of using the holy Torah to make money. So he never bothered to learn Yora Deah and get the phony kind of ordination we have nowadays. In Ketuboth page 109 there is a case related to this that is brought in Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yoseph Karo. In the Gemara the case is a person went away and someone else gave money to his wife to support her. The husband does not have to pay it back. But if she borrowed to support herself then he does. [But not anything that she spent, but only the amount that he was obligated that is two meals per day or about a quart of flour per week.]

The casein Shulchan Aruch is the father in law supported the couple for the two years that was stipulated in the marriage contract but then kept on supporting the couple after that. Then he decides to ask his son in law to pay him back.

The Trumat HaDeshen is brought in the Rema [Moshe Isarles] that the son in law does not have to pay back for the wife but only for himself. The achronim over there disagree.

So what happens if someone gives you a present and then later asks you to pay for it?

[The general way of Torah used to be such that one got married and continued to learn for  number of years but the idea was never to use Torah as a means to make money. This is what I myself was doing for the years after I got married. And then we got to Israel. In Israel I did not join the kollel in Meor Haim because I thought it was along the lines of using Torah for money. But the State of Israel itself made things easy to settle in. Rent was very low and so were the bills. As for the kollel thing itself I am not sure what to think. Mainly it seems to me to be forbidden and yet still I admit there are those who allow it.]

young men angry? https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/readers-sound-off-on-why-young-american-men-are-so-angry/

Why are we angry?

Let me share my story.

I work a corporate job that routinely demands 70-plus hours a week. I barely have time to think, much less take care of myself mentally and physically. I am so burned out I can barely handle life anymore. I am 43.

I am constantly told how I am wrong at work.

I am seeing on the Internet that white men are toxic. It’s in the popular culture.

I’m a Democrat, and frankly the anti-white rhetoric has gotten ME angry.

I’ve been passed up for several promotions for applicants who were less qualified but met race and gender preference criteria — also known as, not a white male.

It’s not a good time to be one. I can only imagine what a young man who hasn’t established himself yet is going through.

The hidden Torah and Physics.

The hidden Torah [that is enclosed in the Work of Creation] is mentioned a lot in the Le"M of Rav Nahman in different ways.

One place I noticed this is in the book of Rav Natan his disciple that is brought on the subject of the Red Heifer. That is the sacrifice that is brought outside the Temple and which purifies from the kind of uncleanliness associated with the dead.

For a long time I have thought that this hidden Torah inside of Creation refers to Physics. My reasoning originally was based on the Obligations of the Heart. [Chovot Levavot] where he says both to learn the spirituality inside of creation and also the wisdom inside of creation--two different things [Shar HaBehina chapter 3 I think.]

You can see this idea also in the Rambam in his Guide and the Mishne Torah.

[In terms of the Ari--Rav Isaac Luria you do see a lot of Divine names that are contained in the physical Universe. --at least in the Eitz Chaim. But also in the Reshash [Rav Shalom Sharabi] there is an expanded version in the forth volume of his Sidur. (I mean that there are two sidurs of the Reshash. One is the smaller red one. The other is the large one which is considered more accurate. The smaller one was put together by the grandson of the Reshash. The smaller red one is thought to be a compilation done in Syria. Though I used the smaller one for years until I found the larger one, still Rav Mordechai Sharabi said the smaller one is not all that reliable.]

At any rate, this refers to the spirituality inside of Creation.--not to the laws of Physics which is what the Chovot Levavot  and the Rambam are referring to.

Rav Nahman: You can serve God with everything. אפשר לעבוד השם בכל דבר.

So how can you learn Physics. Say the words and go on. This is called "Girsa" learning in that way was already mentioned in the Gemara in Shabat 63.

If the Gemara would have wanted to say that music is forbidden period. It is hard to imagine how it could have said it any clearer.

Music is mentioned in the book of Rav Nahman (Le''M 72) as being a great thing -- rids one of illusions and delusions. The way to understand this is not simple since in the gemara in Gitin [I forget the page number but it is towards the beginning] "How do we know that music is forbidden?" And then it brings some verse. And then it goes on to explain that music is forbidden whether by voice or by instrument.
The answer on one hand is like Tosphot that it is referring to music at a wine party. Another answer is that even if you do not hold with the answer of Tosphot but go with the Rambam that all music is forbidden, still he adds that singing praises of God is allowed and praiseworthy.

But again the comes up the more well known question that using verses of the Torah as words for songs is forbidden. It specifically refers to psalms and the Sir Hashirim but the prohibition is for all verses of Torah. "When people use the words of Torah for a song the Torah dresses in garments of mourning and complains before God ';They have made a song out of me'".[That is a quotation from the Gemara.]

[If the Gemara would have wanted to say that music is forbidden period. It is hard to imagine how it could have said it any clearer. So is there any answer for all this? Mainly I have to say that I depend on Tosphot.]

Faith in the wise is one of the great principles

Faith in the wise is one of the great principles I found in Rav Nahman's Le''M vol I chapter 61.

And it is the reason why I will often quote different wise people --for example Rav Nahman himself, and the Gra, and Kant and Hegel. The reason is this principle of faith in the wise. So it can happen that people that are wise can contradict each other. Sometimes that is in order לגרש את הסיטרין אוחרנין to expel the forces of evil. That is often one is no worthy to learn from a truly wise person or a tzadik. So it comes about that different tzadikim disagree with each other in order to sow confusion in minds of people that then go away from them.

This applies to truly wise and great people. So this is  test to see who is worthy. On the other hand there is such a thing as the Torah of the Realm of Evil. And there are Torah scholars that are in fact demons of the Sitra Achra as Rav Nahman brings in Le''M vol I chapter 12 and 28. So it is necessary to develop some kind of common sense to be able to tell the difference between authentic and inauthentic.

"Faith in the wise" is as is well known a principle from the Mishna in Avot [Pirkay Avot] but the reason this stuck in my mind was that Rav Nahman ties it into the problem that I had at the time. He says על ידי אמונת חכמים יכולים להוציא את משפטינו לאור "by means of faith in the wise one is able to bring his judgment into the light." That is to merit to the right piece of advice that will help him in his troubles." i.e. to merit to the right advice. I was not sure what to do at that time. So I simply learned that particular Torah lesson every day--saying it from beginning to end, until some kind of clarity would come to me. So I was learning that lesson for a different reason --not to come to faith in the wise. But the idea of faith in the wise did stick with me.

Authentic Torah

The major thing which I found compelling about the Litvak yeshiva world was its authenticity.

That is more or less if you put the Gra, together with Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach and Rav Haim of Brisk, you come out with a kind of path that struck me as being "the real thing."

Why was this important to me? I really do not recall very well. Mainly, I think it was that in those days, finding the Truth was the big thing. And to find to Truth was perhaps for me more than intellectual interest.

But you do need a certain kind of common sense to be able to tell in any area of value what is the real thing,-- and what is not. As Steven Dutch says for every area of knowledge there is a pseudo science that corresponds to it. [Authenticity was not mentioned a lot in those days, but it was implicit that in the search for the truth, you did not what to settle for half baked measures.]

The aspect of Rav Israel Salanter is an important aspect of this, since without that, it is easy to get sidetracked about what Torah is really about. His emphasis on Musar [Ethical books] of Torah brings out what is really important in Torah (character, fear of God, trust in God), and what are just side issues.

[In truth, however I find this path hard to stick with, and hard to keep, and hard to understand. There is some kind of aspect of the whole thing that became institutionalized. So for this to work at all you need to be part of a place that really is authentic.--Something like Ponovitch, or Brisk, or the Mir--or along those lines.]

Tikun HaKlali of Rav Nahman. Correction for sexual sin

Rav Nahman of Breslov emphasis on sexual purity makes a lot of sense to me. Even though it is hard to maintain any kind of purity nowadays he did search for a solution for after the fact sins. To some degree you can see this in books of Musar and also the Ari [Isaac Luria]. But Rav Nahman's idea seems best to me. That is to say these ten psalms, 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150. that same day and also to go to a natural body of water like the sea or a river.

In the book of Rav Natan [one of his disciples] he also brings the idea of being married is a Tikun HaBrit [correction for sexual sin]. But nowadays this is hard to do.

The basic idea of Rav Nahman is that sexual sin  causes damage in spiritual realms. And so by saying thiose ten psalms which corrospond to the ten kinds of song that David said the psalms in would bring total correction.

[It should be noted that this saying of teh psalms has the ability to correct even more than sexual sin as you can see in the major book of Rav Nahman the LE"M vol I chapter 19.]

German Idealism

Idealism is the idea that we are only aware of our own minds. what is outside our own heads we have no idea of and have no reason to think it is real.

Idealism of Berkeley is false but has great and rigorous proofs. So Thomas Reid spent a good deal of effort refuting it.

Kant accepted idealism to the degree that he holds there is an outside world but that it must conform to conditions of possibility of experience.

And our own knowledge must conform to the limits of reason. As Kelley Ross puts it: a bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer and cannot process information.

Shopenhaur accepts that Kant proved his point but modifies it. [Shopenaur starts his book with "The world is my representation. So now that he is not here, why is the world still here?]

To me it seems that idealism is simply wrong. I am pretty sure that most people reading this have seen rigorous proofs of absurd things. Like: there can be no motion of Zeno. Or that pi = 3.


That does not mean the idea is true. That is how I look at idealism.

So as Michael Huemer says--the Mind Body problem [which is behind all this] is not solved. What seems true to me is that Hegel got the right idea that any knowledge combines synthesizes both empirical impute and a priori impute. [Michael Huemer says basically the same thing in one essay where he shows all empirical knowledge depends on a priori assumptions.] His way to solve then issue is by probability. Every assumption starts out with a beginning amount of how much sense it makes. So even when you throw out one assumption that at first made sense it is because it disagrees with another assumption that makes more sense. That is for example how Einstein decided to modify Newton instead of Maxwell. To him , electrodynamics was more basic than Classical dynamics.

A major premise of the religious world is that if they would be in charge of things, then everything would be all right. Once you find out that this assumption is wildly wrong, you usually do not have the ability to back out.

A major premise of the religious world is that if they would be in charge of things, then everything would be all right. Once you find out that this assumption is wildly wrong, you usually do not have the ability to back out.

So I see a lot of value in then book of Allan Bloom where he goes into the Enlightenment. There he shows that it was largely a political movement to take power from priests and princes and give it to the educated people.like scientists. I am in full sympathy with this idea after living in a society that was largely based on Enlightenment ideals --especially John Locke--i.e the USA during the period when it was mainly WASP.[White Anglo Saxon Protestant].

However as he points out, the Enlightenment and the USA itself is at a crossroads. It is not just the many people that are American citizens that hate the USA that will stop at nothing to destroy it. It is a focus of lots of forces. But more important it is an epiphenomenon from the problems in the Enlightenment itself.

The best idea would be to answer the question how to move forward. Not simply to give up and go back to the rule of priests and princes.

So what is needed I think is some kind of Hegel synthesis.--to see what is right in Enlightenment philosophy and what is right in the counter enlightenment and to create a synthesis of both and to then discard what was not right in either.

My own feeling is to divide ones time between these two methods. As was done in the Mir yeshiva in NY. The morning for intense in depth learning and the afternoon for fast learning.

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 there is the famous few paragraphs about learning fast.
This certainly helped me a lot when I was trying to get up to speed in Physics and Math. After high school I concentrated on Torah learning --which is great in itself. But  that meant that I skipped Physics. [Not being aware of the opinion of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. Nor were their opinions well known in the Litvak yeshiva world at the time. ]
But besides learning fast Rav Nahman does talk about review in his sefer hamidot.
So how to combine these two opposites?

In books of Musar before Rav Nahman like the אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righeous there seem to be both things.

[ My own feeling is to divide ones time between these two methods. As was done in the Mir yeshiva in NY. The morning for intense in depth learning and the afternoon for fast learning.

American life before things got weird

Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind goes into the conflict between the Enlightenment vision of people as improvable by means of education and the anti enlightenment philosophers.
In that book he traces the conflict to be a question between John Locke and Rousseau about what is the state of nature of man before you would have any education or civilization.

It occurred to me a long time ago that he leaves out the treatment of these question of Kant and Hegel. And I am not sure why. Maybe he did not think that there has been any kind of solution.

Why would not the Hegel kind of synthesis work here?


In any case-my own view is based on basic experience. I had the opportunity to experience average American life before things got weird. The regular experience was  is the regular schooling up until university and family outings every weekend. It was Freedom combined with responsibility. There were no free rides. the Welfare state had not been expanded yet.
Of course all that changed. But that is how things once were and it was great.
So all the arguments against capitalism and the American way just fall off me like water on a duck.

But I see the USA in a deep crisis. And I am not sure why people want to make it into a socialist society. However i also can see why Russia had to become the USSR. It was not just the end of the effects in the Ukraine now that the thawing out period is over and the criminal elements in the Ukraine are raising their heads again. But even before that--I saw all the working infra structure was from the communists. So as far as Russia goes I can see the point of the USSR. But not in the USA. So what is the difference? I could take  a guess and say that the USA used to be WASP. But there might be lots of other explanations. The point is that my views are not based on idealism but experience and just seeing how things are and how the used to be.

So based on my experience I do not see the religious world as any kind of noble ideal.  My experience in the religious world shows me clearly that it is no where near as nice as the just average day experience in the USA only just a few years ago. In fact, the very concept of the religious gaining power gives me horrible nightmares.

Rav Nahman's Sefer haMidot-- "If you want to repent be sure not to be in debt."

Dr Kelley Ross has a nice section dealing with Kenyan economics on his Kant Fries site.http://www.friesian.com/.. Michael Huemer also I kind of recall. The basic idea is that the driving force of economies is demand, not supply.

My opinion about economies is based on a statement in Rav Nahman's Sefer haMidot-- "If you want to repent be sure not to be in debt." And since I got the idea from Musar books I had read before I discovered Rav Nahman about the importance of repentance, I decided to not be in debt even for a minute.

This related since  the way the government works nowadays is based on Kenyan economics. Which is the idea that going into debt is a good thing and it is what drives the economy forward. [They use weasel words to disguise what they mean. They call it the "supply side". But that simply means the more debt you go into, the richer you will be.

ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov

There are a few basic ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov that i think are very important. Clearly the talking with God  in one's own language as personal friend has to take the top of the list. But there is also his way of learning of just saying the words. Though this is mentioned in Sihot Haran 76, there are other hints to it in the LM. I forget exactly where But one lessons starts out "על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבא לתבונות התורה לעומקה".[By means of saying the words one comes to understanding of the Torah in its depth.']

However in Shar Yashuv review was emphasized by Rav Freifeld. The Mir clearly was into learning in depth. In fact the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenaum had the reputation in those days of being the deepest in the world.--And that might have been true. That is what students of Lithuanian yeshivot were all saying all over. To me it is hard to compare. All the great Litvak gedolim seemed to have very great depth--especially Rav Shach.

But I found a wealth of great ideas besides these in the books of Rav Nahman. But these two things seems to be the most important. (1) Learning fast and (2) talking with God as a friend talks with another.
As for learning in depth (of the Mir) this to me sometimes seems important, and sometimes it seems to just get me weighed down.

I found for example that learning fast helped me in Physics - since the kind of nitty gritty calculations that one need to do take me a very long time. To get an idea of physics beyond the surface level I think the fast learning is right thing. [As for Rav Nahman's discussions against science, I think he was referring to the pseudo science that was in his days.] 

It seems to me that Kant is going like Aristotle. That is that he agrees there are universals but that they depend on particulars.

That is to say (to take an example from Dr Huemer) lets say I have two pieces of paper in front of me. Do they have anything in common? Yes. They are both white. Whiteness is a universal. It is something that particulars have in common. How do you recognize particulars is by the fact that you see and feel them. But a universal you can not actually feel of see. You recognize it by a different faculty. Reason.

It was a point of Kant to limit the validity of reason to conditions of possible experience. That is particulars.

To be able to get to faith beyond the realm of possible experience it seems to me you would need either Leonard Nelson's Kant Fries School of non intuitive immediate knowledge, or Hegel.

For even though Kant did limit the realm of reason, there were enough problems in understanding Kant that leave room for a Friesian Development or a Hegelian one. [Maybe Shopenhaur also but I am not sure about that.] In any case, I have to say that I am just offering this a a suggestion but have really not do the homework to be any kind of expert. Still Americans have a good and health suspicion of experts as they ought. So I feel somewhat at ease in offering my opinion about areas of value that are more content and less formal. [Going in this like Dr Kelley Ross who divides areas of value along curve of all form and no content like logic and going up to more content like math but less formal. Then justice and art and music which have more content and less form. In those areas it seems the more expert one is the more they lose common sense.]

Kelley Ross has spent a good deal of effort to try and bring attention to Leonard Nelson. At least some of those efforts are gaining success.The  Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy by Nelson seems to have been published in English by Yale University Press.

Shulhan Aruch Even HaEzer 93

That section deals with laws of a widow. The basic law is that a widow gets mezonot [food] from the land of her husband until she asks for her Ketubah [marriage document which gives 200 zuz to a virgin if the husband divorces her or if he dies. But in it are included mentions of other obligations. 200 zuz  I figured might be a few thousand dollars based ona Rosh I saw once.]] or until she gets married again. But the Geonim who came after the Gemara made a tekana [law from teh scribes, not from the Torah] that she can receive food also from movable property. [This does not apply to a divorced woman who gets her ketubah right away but there is no obligation of "alimony".
But what happens if there are a few wives. Since they all got married to the same guy at different times so the obligation of the ketubah stars at different times. So the first one married gets her ketubah first. Then if there is any property left over the second one collects etc. [Just like would be the case if he owed money on loans he took out.]


I only had a few minutes to look at it but it seems to me that one way to understand the Rambam is that the obligation of mezonot starts at the marriage. [If there is the word therefore].

The Raavad understand that the obligation of mezonot starts at the time the husband dies, not when they got married. And that is how I think most of the people on the page over there in the Shulchan Aruch  like the Beit Shmuel and Helkat Mehokek understand the Rambam also.
[The simple way to understand this is that clearly the actual obligation of mezonot stars when the husband dies but the tekana stated at the marriage. The thing here is I actually recall Rav Shach mentioning this issue and that he took it as a simple thing that the obligation starts at the death of the husband. But then you can ask why would the ketubah be any different? There also there is no obligation until she is divorced or until she dies! What is the difference?]

When I saw the importance of  learning metaphysics and physics in Ibn Pakuda's חובות הלבבות it did not click with me right away. I was at the Mir in NY and was not looking for distractions from learning Gemara. still something of what he was saying must have stuck with me because later when I saw the same thing in the Guide of the Rambam, it started making sense that maybe that was the aspect of learning Torah that I had been lacking. However I really was not sure what to do with the metaphysics aspect of the whole thing.  On one hand the Ibn Pakuda and rambam were clear they were not talking about mysticism. [No offence intended towards the Remak (Moshe Cordovaro) and the Ari (Isaac Luria). It is just that that is not what the Rambam was talking about.] But what can one do with Metaphysics? What could be considered the be fulfilling what the Rambam was saying? Aristotle and Plato for sure. I guess Plotinus also. But what about later on people?


To make this short I should just say that I found the neo Kantian people to be pretty important, though I can not say who is better. Leonard Nelson and his Kant Fries School of thought look to me to be very great, but not to the degree of being the only ones that added or improved on things.
I mean to say that when Kant wants to limit the realm in which reason is justified he goes to conditions of experience. But a group pf people noticed some inner contradictions with that in Kant himself. That is the circularity that experience itself depends on a priori assumptions. So Reinhold came up with the Representation. That answers the issue since it is neither just a priori nor posteriori. Shopenhaur made good use of this in his The World as will and Representation. Still it seems that each one of these people fills in pieces of  a big puzzle. Hegel pointed out how the dialectic brings to truth and knowledge From Being to Logos]. And that is an accurate description of how in fact knowledge progresses.[You see this in Rav Nahman also in his claim that talking with God brings one to truth.].

Pantheism

It is not the belief system of Jews , Muslims nor Christians.[See Volume II of the Guide where a similar issue is the focus. If creation was from an eternal substance. The Rambam rejects this and says that if it would be true then the Torah would not be valid.

This all came up because the pope has been in South America recently and the announcement from the Vatican seems to indicate a kind of pantheism that leaves Catholics wondering what is going on with the pope.

The Rishonim held that creation is ex nihilo. Or in Hebrew "Yesh Mei'ain" "יש מאין".[Something from Nothing.--not from any pre-existing substance.]
[You can see this mentioned in all the medieval sages, and even the Ari himself right smack in the beginning of the Eitz Chaim.]


In spite of this being the belief of Spinoza, it does not seem to have a lot of evidence or support even from reason. --Because the basic assumption of Spinoza that one substance can not effect another substance is not at all obvious. [And the reasonableness of axioms is important. For example in mathematics you do not start out with wildly unreasonable assumptions. You start with things that are almost too simple to state. Like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Or if A =B and B=C then A =C. So for Spinoza to build his system on shaky foundations does not add a lot of credibility to it.


So when Rav Nahman emphasizes the importance of faith, I have to assume he is not talking about pantheism. In fact, in the context of the L''M of Rav Nahman, it seems he is simply talking about straight and simple faith in God,--not pantheism nor even facts about God, but simple faith and trust.

[He never mentions the 13 principles of faith of the Rambam and might well be thinking along the lines of Rav Joseph Albo that the actual principles are 6 or like the Abravanel that they are 3 principles.]

The meals that a husband owes his wife. [Shulhan aruch of Rav Joseph Karo Even HaEzer 70 sif 8]

Lets us say a husband has gone off to work in a foreign country and his wife borrows money to feed herself. Then of course the husband is obligated to pay back the debt when he returns [Shulhan aruch of Rav Joseph Karo Even HaEzer 70 sif 8] But what happens if she forgives the loan?  Normally I would think that once one is obligated in some debt then that is that. But that is the odd thing about loans in general. A lender can always forgive a debt even after it has been incurred.

So I just happened tp stop by the Breslov place of learning today and noticed this issue comes up in the Shulchan Aruch. The Halkat Mehokeke says in fact she can not forgive the loan.[[opposite of what the Rema writes there from the Mordecei in in the end of Ketuboth. I saw that the Beit Shmuel does in fact defend the Rema and the Mordechei but I did not get a chance to see his reasoning. It might be what I am saying here. That the loan the debt does not go directly from the husband to the lender but rather it goes through the wife. But if that is the case then this whole issue certainly depends on that exact issue that i recall came of in Shas and I recall seeing that Rav Shach brings it in his book the Avi Ezri.

But if I recall this issue was decided already in the Gemara itself and in the Rambam that the middle man can be excluded and we can consider the debt as going directly from A to C without B.[In the case of loans]. That is all I have to say about this issue for now except that I did get a second or two to notice the Taz over there does bring up this issue that it is like a a regular loan.


I ought just to add that over there you also see what I mentioned a few days ago that the husband does not owe a lot of מזונות [meals] to his wife. Just two a day plus one me'ah of money per week. Which is just a few dollars. And you can see right there in shulchan aruch that a divorced woman get zero support. --which just goes to show how the religious nowadays are liars as they claim the Torah gives alimony to a divorced woman.

In any case we do see also in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of 69 that the wife can forgive the meals.- Just like you see when people get married on condition that the husband keeps on learning Torah. This is clearly a great thing --as long as the husband is not using Torah to make money.

כנגד מדינת הלכה A state of halacha is against halacha.

I claim that a state of halacha [Jewish Law] is against halacha. [There is no such thing as ordination. Authentic ordination stopped during the time of the Talmud. After that there is only pseudo ordination. And even if there would be the authentic thing no one today were qualify.]  It is merely an attempt to use the appearance of ordination to gain power and money.  The whole religious world is just one big scam. [There is no legitimate excuse to use Torah to make money or to be excused from military service. But the problems are much deeper than these two issues.]
  One one hand there is much to learn in Torah about values and morality. But the attempt of the religious world to impose their power and authority on others would result in the worst kind of nightmare I can imagine.
   The main support for this idea is experience, not theory. That is to say I can pick out things in which the religious world is obviously against the Torah.  But these would be after the facts that I and anyone who has lived under the authority of the religious leaders knows about.
  There is a kind of cult mentality in the religious world that you would expect more in Adi Da or Scientology.
  There are better places and worse but the major emphasis of getting the fry to be frum has hidden agenda. It is no as innocent as they try to make it look.
  Netanyahu [The Prime Minister of Israel] was actually asked a few days ago about this exact question and he said a state of halacha. that is just a sick joke. I will not give any support to such a thing.
  I do not know how he knows this. But it is clear that he is as aware of the evil and sickness of life under Jewish religious authorities as I am. It is no accident that anyone who has lived under that kind of authority leaves it as soon as they are able.
  However on the positive side of things --if I could I would try to learn a and keep Torah as much as I could. But that has nothing to do with the sick frum world.
The basic idea is that part of the Torah בין אדם לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man. In these areas as is well known the frum religious world is a nightmare.

[ Rav Nahman was aware of these problems. Especially you can see this in LM vol I chapter 61 where he warns about allowing religious leaders to claim ordination.]

I thought the USA was doing well when it was basically WASP. There is a principle --a guest can not invite a guest. So WASPs graciously allowed people in need to come. But that does not mean they the guests ought to invite others. The change in the USA is such that a swamp of people in the USA are hostile to America. Also the Socialist Left made the USA seem a lot different than the period that I recall.


A similar thing seems to apply to Israel. The religious did everything they could to stop its foundation. But now want all the benefits.

religious leaders

Even though Rav Nahman made it clear that religious leaders in the Jewish world tend to be demons (note 1)--that is from the realm of Evil. Still I think the problem is not the people but the system.

That is that the system is not really based on Torah at all but is rather based on a group dynamics that rewards fraud.


I noticed that the religious world tends to believe they are smarter and better morally than anyone else.
These two claims do not hold up to scrutiny. And they are not minor issues. The whole  raison d'être (reason to be) depends on these claims being factual. (note 2) As you can see in the Rambam in his reason for the commandments in the Guide for the Perplexed.


(note 1) For example in L''M I: 12. I:28  and many other places were he refers to Torah scholars that are demons. "The reason that some Torah scholars are against those who fear God is because they receive their Torah lessons form the demons" (LM I:12).  Another quote is" Torah scholars that are demons receive their Torah lessons from the "alfin hanefulin" [the fallen letters A"]

(note 2) See Talmud Bava Mezia 119 the argument between R Shimon Ben Yohai and the sages. The Rambam in Mishne Torah seem to decide the halacha in opposite ways. Once like R. Shimon and in another place not. But Rav Shach pointed out there is a third opinion R Yehuda and that the Rambam in consistant in deciding like him in all cases.