Almost invariably when I was in Israel and I would just mention the name "Bava Sali", the person I was talking to would launch into a story of how he had some problem in his personal life that could not be solved no matter how much he tried, and then he went to Bava Sali for a blessing and the problem was solved. It mattered little if the person himself was religious or not. Just that they needed as much faith as necessary to make the trip to Netivot. [A city in Southern Israel.]

 But the curious thing about this was that between him and his community there was a kind of equilibrium. He himself was a super "separation from this world" type of guy while his community in Morocco were simple working Jews. [More or less religious.]

I have a few observations to make about the whole Bava Sali thing.
I would like to go into his conception of what Normal Torah observance involves and how applicable it is to other people, or even perhaps to gentiles. Also I would like to go into the question that the whole thing seems to have reached an impasse. There are lost more issues but these seem to me to be the more relevant right now.


First of all it seems to me that Bava Sali gives a good explanation of what Torah is supposed to be about. No shtick. That is no games. To him keeping Torah meant keeping Torah in the most simple basic way possible.  [note 1 ] People will always try to claim that Bava Sali supported their particular cult but this is universally not true if you dig into the actual facts. Straight Torah observance would be what defined the Bava Sali path. No beliefs in any person would be considered important or helpful in any way. Only keeping Torah personally. [note 3]  

On the other hand the Bava Sali thing has lost its momentum. The closest of the people to him Chareidi in way very different from the Sefardi tradition. Some people have used the aura of Bava Sali for gain. [note 2]

In spite of the difficulties of the Bava Sali thing, it still provide a rich domain of information about Torah and what it means to keep Torah simply with no games.

The Talmud tends to have a wider idea of what Torah is about than what you see in Maimonides. For example we find Hillel II said there would not be a messiah (ever) because the King of Israel Chizkia fulfilled that role.  And in the Gemara that discuss the opinion of Hillel we do not find anyone accusing him of being an apikorus or heretic. Now we know that the belief in a future messiah is one of the thirteen main principles of faith that the Rambam derives from the Talmud. And it is a clear principle to him that anyone that denies or even does not believe in any one of those thirteen principles is a heretic and not even considered Jewish.

This I do not mean as a question because it is clear that there are other opinions in the Talmud that hold belief in a future messiah is important to the degree that the Rambam stated. And all the Rambam did here is to decide the law as is his usual custom.

My point here is really meant for Reform and Conservative Jews to realize that not only is the Talmud important for them to learn but that it also represents a world view of Torah that is closer to their own understanding of Torah than Orthodox Judaism. This is in spite of the fact that the Orthodox do try to represent their position as being supported in the Talmud. Most often this is simply not the case.

On the other hand there are positions in Maimonides that are closer to Reform Judaism than what seems to be so in the Talmud. Secular studies in Natural Science would be the most famous example.
In a highly ironic way I discovered the position of several medieval authorities concerning secular studies  when I was trying to find Chizuk [encouragement] about just sitting and learning Torah all day.
This happened when I started learning Musar (Ethics) and discovered a good amount of the medieval Jewish authorities were basically saying to go out and get a job and do not use the Torah to make money and also to learn secular subjects. This was the exact opposite of what I wanted to hear from Musar (Ethics) books.
[I thought that sitting and learning Torah was the ultimate goal. 
 
On the other hand we all should learn Torah and do mitzvot as much as possible. And the Reform are wrong for trying to redefine mitzvot into social activism. That is intellectual dishonesty. Mitzvot are mitzvot and averot are averot [sin is sin] You don't get to redefine these things according to your sexual or intellectual orientation. 

There was something unique about Bava Sali [Israel Abuchatzaira] that that can't be attributed to just the fact of his emphasizing doing Torah and mitzvoth or to his miracles. Miracles we know are a dime a dozen. People in every religion take the miracle workers of that religion to be proofs of that religion. But they are not proof of anything because of several reasons. They can be from the sitra achra. Even when they are from the side of holiness still anyone doing certain kinds of service like fasting and general separation from the pleasures of this world tend to gain some kind of spiritual power. Furthermore miracles happen to everyone and have no bearing on the holiness of any individual

In spite of all this there was something really unusualness about Bava Sali.

What I mean to say by this is I want to bring out the idea that there is an essential contradiction between the idea of human perfection as represented by Bava Sali w and the idea of human perfection as represented by my parents and by Albert Einstein, Newton, and Aristotle.


Now we know outside of the miracles of Bava Sali there was by him a essential emphasis of simple and plain old Shulchan Aruch. Neither for him or for others was there any idea of specific things to emphasize. It was just simple keep Torah. [For the general public reading this blog I think the best idea of how to get an idea of what it means to keep Torah in the ideal sense you should find a sefer hachinuch.]


But There was a very different idea of human perfection as emphasized by people like Einstein.

And in between that were my parents that represented the human n perfection in terms of mentchlichkeit.[untranslatable Yiddish meaning basically human decency].

What I mean to point out here is that each of these paths has pit falls and even actual flaws for most people. But what we can do is to try to focus on certain points that are in each path and try to emulate and stick to these basic points as best we can with Balance and common sense.


I would like to point out that the basic path of Torah and mitzvot is a little subtle.Even with the Rambam writing it simply and bava sali showing a good modern example of how to do it --it still is subtle. The problem as Bava Sali said himself all paths are dangerous. That is one can try to do Torah in the most simple ways that would seem to be obvious and yet find himself in situations in which not just he finds the world that he has placed himself in is predatory but also finds himself doing more objective evil than when he was not trying to keep Torah at all.

Some people think the kabala is independent of Plato but that assumption is not only wrong but also tends to create  a kind of weird bubble type of world that people that study kabalah live in. And this bubble world tends to detract from the positive things that people can gain from the thought of Isaac Luria .

It is also know that he sometimes touches on themes from scholastic thought from the middle ages.

None of this is news to anyone.

Mainly it looks roughly parallel. But  the creation is ex nihilo. We know that this is not compatible with Plotinus but rather comes from the Rambam and Saadia Geon. While it is true that Plotinus is not compatible with pantheism but neither is he compatible with creation ex nihilo


So while Kabalah of the Ari [Isaac Luria is pretty straightforward Plotinus in a highly developed mystical form] but seems to be moving in the direction of the Rambam.

OK that is the end of this subject.
Now I just wanted to point out a  one example we have a theme that pops up about tying oneself to the intellect that is contained in everything. This is straight from Plotinus. 

At any rate, one important reason to support the State of Israel is simple. We Jews have taken the trouble to get out of everyone's way. We are not asking for anyone's kindness. We simply ask people not to attack us. And when people do attack us we claim the right to defend ourselves. There is nothing inherent in Torah that should prove objectionable to any gentiles of Christian or Muslim faith. However it is clear that some Muslims hate us because of their religion, not ours. [Not all Muslims but the radical type.] And some Muslims do see Israel as a beachhead for Western encroachment. And that it is. We are bringing the Ship of Democracy and Human Rights  throughout the Middle East. This is something Muslims ought to welcome. [And I am sure many do welcome us, but are quite about their beliefs.]

the world view of mainstream [Ashkenazic] Torah.

Hashkafa is the word used for the world view of mainstream [Ashkenazic] Torah.

It has to do with principles of faith for sure but it is much wider than that. It means in essence the philosophy of Torah and the word in itself implies that the Torah in fact has it own unique philosophy. We however do find that people carry into the Torah their own philosophies that they pick up elsewhere, and then claim that their philosophy is that of the Torah.- but this is not intellectually honest.


For me personally one of the advantages that I gained by learning Musar [ethical books of Torah written during the Middle Ages] is that it introduced me to the Philosophy of the Torah in a straightforward way before I had heard any alternative variations.

But Musar does this job in a soft way and only indirectly.

Recently in the process of learning Tractate Adodah Zara it seemed relevant to open up the Ramam concerning the actual principles of Torah as he explains them in Hilchot Teshuva [there he goes into greater depth than he does in the famous commentary to the Mishna in Chapter Cheleck in Sanhedrin].

Aristotle: that everything has  four causes. One is  purpose. And this purpose is close to intellect inside of everything. This refers to a well known idea that was developed in the Middle Ages.
 There are the four causes of everything  one of which is the teleological cause. And we know that the major characteristic of Aristotle is to develop  independent ideas from many different angles and then to weave them together. So the intellect in everything which in this case will refer to the Platonic idea is related to the purpose of the thing.



The purposes of all things are related to each other. They all come together like a function from a space to one point. That one point is the next world, the delight of the world to come. [Actually it is there is a hierarchy of arrows, that map from one space to another until you get to the last and final purpose.

 Rambam in the laws of Teshuva where he goes into some depth about what heresy is. Associating any  kind of physicality to God is one kind of problem that is identified in the Rambam. Also there is the problem of a mediator which the Rambam includes in the types of minut [heresy]. And there is no question the Rambam takes these things very seriously.

]

There are two ideas of what Torah is about. One is radical monotheism and the other is that of a document that is meant to lead people towards pure Monotheism. 

So the question is according to the Torah are all intermediate steps not kosher at all or is it possible that there is some justification of going to a tzadik for a blessing?  This is really a rather large issue and it would take a lot more than this quick note to deal with it thoroughly.

The idea of leading people towards Monotheism seems to be clear in Maimonides [in the Guide] when he gives reasons for mitzvot. 

This comes up nowadays when going to even Lithuanian Gedolim  seems to be commonplace and the issue seems to be surrounding the idea of an intermediary.

And it felt strange. I felt like I was opening up myself towards compromising the basic Monotheism of the Torah. I mean I was raised in home that was not particularly religious but the Torah was very important in our home and when I started learning Torah on a more intense basis I did not expect that my monotheism would be compromised.

Nowadays it seems to me that Orthodox Judaism is highly compromised concerning this issue [of Monotheism]. It does not seem to matter which group it is. While it is admirable the strict devotion to the Torah and Talmud that is claimed by the Orthodox, but that does not seem to provide an adequate excuse for diluting the most basic and essential message of the Torah

 I think it is possible to divide Breslov into two basic groups.

This would not be along the regular lines of who is the leader of that individual group. But the major issue would be concerning the problem of worship of a human being. I have been wondering for a long time where is Breslov located concerning this question. 

Yet a random sampling of people that come to his synagogue in Uman will show that many are pantheist and many also have crossed the line.  It is for this reason that I have decided that it is high time to take a closer look at the Talmud tractate Avodah Zara--Idolatry to see where the line can be drawn exactly.

I think that also it is possible to say that some groups of Hasidut do tend to blur the line between respect of a human being and worship of a human being.
However I do not mean to knock the more radical type of Breslov from the standpoint of strict adherence to the Law of the Torah.

But there is a much more serious issue that I was thinking about that relates to the interface between Strict Torah law and type of free society that Jews have gotten used to in the USA and in Israel. It is kind of a luxury to be striving for more strictness and more Torah when we have the benefit of a free society around us. 


Regardless of this it is clear that we need divine law and some counter balance to secular society. But make an ideal to undermine free and open society while enjoying its benefits seems to me to be problematic.

Tying oneself spiritually to a tzadik [i.e. saint]

Tying oneself spiritually to a tzadik [i.e. saint]. It occurs to me that I might have written about this in the past in light of the idea of Reb Chaim from Voloshin [the disciple of the Gra] that this type of thing is idolatry.


What bothers me is that the way this is understood by some people is to change the focus of Torah from being around God to being around a person. 


But I see this at least as a flaw in the system that should be openly corrected --that is it should be stated publicly that  the purpose of serve towards God is to do God's will and not to be tied to a tzadik.

learning Torah is the highest mitzvah

 In the older type of Torah system it was considered that learning Torah is the highest mitzvah and that as much time one needed to spend on a vocation was acceptable but not desirable.

Now the Rambam is probably the best support of Torah of all. He is highly rigorous but leans towards Aristotle.
So between the Rambam the Ramchal  there is fairly strong basis for Torah.
So the lack of a basis is not what is bothering me.  Torah has great intellectual and moral validity, but it does require some effort to discover what it is and how to live in accordance with it.

what idolatry involves.

I think that people are not very well aware of what idolatry involves. And recently I have thought that it might be a good idea to look at Tractate Idolatry [Avodah Zarah] in the Talmud to get a better idea of what it involves.
In spite of the fact that it does tend to be a confusing issue at least I think we can see some of the things that are either sufficient or necessary conditions for some act to be considered idolatry.
First any one of the four major types of service that people do towards an idol is idolatry. They are offering incense, bowing, slaughtering an animal as a sacrifice, or offering blood. Sometimes you hear religious people accusing some other religious group of doing idolatry, but that is a complaint that does need to be defended.


But there is more to it than that. The basic definition is accepting some other being as ones god besides God--[the first cause]. [This might not be a necessary condition. Doing one of the four services before an idol is alone enough to convict a person of idolatry. Accepting some other being besides God [the First Cause] as ones personal god would have to be considered a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.]

One issue that makes the whole subject more complicated is that if one serves an idol with the type of service that's specified for that idol that is also idolatry.
I should mention that the Malbim discusses the fact that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to bow down to Daniel as an idol and the discussion that Jeremiah had with Yochanan ben Kareach in this regard.

It so happened that Jews in Egypt were telling Jeremiah that from the time that they had stopped offering incense to the Queen of Heaven that they began to have troubles. Jeremiah said to them that their troubles stemmed from doing idolatry, not from ceasing to do idolatry. Further he said if they do not stop they will be destroyed. [In the Tenach the issue that seems to bother God the most is idolatry. This certainly has to be the top on the list of the big No No's. Though it is true that in general keeping all of the mitzvot is also high on the list but this has to take the cake. You do not see racism on the list of No No's at all. Nor Homophobia. Rather you could say that homosexuality is rather frowned upon as being sodomy. Islam-phobia would probably be considered  a mitzvah.]

The thing that they were telling Jeremiah was [according to the Malbim] that they did not accept the queen of Heaven as their god, and that they were good orthodox Jews and believed all the thirteen principles of the rambam. They were just offering incense as a segulah [lucky charm].

Now I have discussed idolatry many times on my different blogs. And I have decided that it is time for me to do some serious work in Tractate Idolatry [Avodah Zarah] in order to get some kind of clarity about these issues. Idolatry is one of those terms that it is easy to throw around and accuse people you don't like of doing. It used to be a term that was an extreme insult. Nowadays racist has taken its place. But even so it is an important subject to understand.
Some people it seems are not even aware that they might be doing idolatry. On occasion you see this complaint leveled by Christians against some kind of practice like working too hard or making an idol out of some movie star.  But worshiping a movie star is not one of the four [avodot] types of serve one renders to an idol. They do seem blissfully unaware that serving a human being as god might very well come under the basic definition of idolatry. (Aquinas was aware of this issue and being the great thinker that he was did try to resolve it honestly. Protestants however seem unaware of the issue at all.) But of course this could apply across the board. Sometimes you do see people that seem to get close to crossing the line separating simple admiration and desire to emulate towards idolatry. 

 For further research I hope to do the two major areas in Avodah Zara which deal with these issues. The beginning of chapter three and four. It is surprising that this issue has not received more attention.
When people act and treat their rabbi as a god is that idolatry? I would think so. So even if I think that going to Uman is important, but I think people need to be very careful not to cross the line between being with a tzadik on Rosh Hashana which is good and doing things that might be considered as crossing a fine line.

So in conclusion I think it is safe to say that the four services do not depend on thought or attitude. Once one has done them he is guilty of idolatry. He can't say he did not accept the idol as a god. It is only in the sufficient condition of accepting a different god as one's god is where thought is relevant. So now we can see that offering incense to the queen of heaven was considered as idolatry even if they did not accept her as their god.

Children and teenagers in the USA are given radical left wing socialist induction lessons from kindergarten until the end of high school.

 Children and teenagers in the USA are given radical left wing socialist induction lessons from kindergarten until the end of high school.

This is the basic approach of all public schools in the USA. Yet at home children are given a set of Judeo- Christian values. But these Judeo-Christian values are not compatible with the wave of indoctrination they get in public school. And even if children would like to defend the values they get at home the fact is that Judeo- Christian values are hard to defend. Even Aquinas left a basic question he was unable to resolve and other questions that he could not resolve very well.


The difficulty this presents is that after 12 years of indoctrination you can’t expect people to vote in any way other than the way that reflects their basic socialist values. What is the surprise? No wonder Republicans have trouble.

I could suggest that everyone should start to learn Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot [Talmud]--but to do so I would have to explain in what way this can provide a solution for the American dilemma and set of problems.
This might need a little more time than I have right now.
But I think I can give a basic introduction into the idea. I might not be able to finish but let me begin.
Human history is divided into three parts. Period one has in it three part Pre Socratics, Plato, and neo Plato, This period deals with how is change possible.

Period two is the Middle Ages. This deals more religious issues but issues which also relate to philosophy. The two issues are free will and divine simplicity. Here also there was leading up period and then the peak in Moshe Ben Maimon [or Aquinas depending on who you ask].

The modern period dealt with two issues also the mind body problem, and the debate between the rationalists and the empiricists.--How is knowledge possible? This went up until Kant. Then we had the post Kant period. Here also were three parts pre Kant, Kant and post Kant. [Also politics became an issue in this period.]

Now a new period is starting. I can't predicate the question that is going to seize the interest of mankind for the next thousand years. But I can say that people are going to need and anchor of rationality and moral value--the very thing you get when you learn the Torah together with the Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot.

I can imagine that one major question will deal with the interface between Divine law in the Torah and how it relates to the natural law and natural rights. This is a continuation of Medieval thought but with the modern advent of the USA the fact of natural rights will become important as it relates to divine law. 


[note 1]

Another important aspect of the Talmud which I did not mention but which is relevant is because of the problem with the theory political authority.  I did mention in the essay that one question that will arise in the future is the interface between political authority and Divine authority abut what needs to be pointed out here is the fact that John Locke's ideas of natural rights really have no empirical basis. It is not just that Habermas and others have noted the problems with the theoretical basis of the Constitution of the USA and the more obvious problems with the total lack of intellectual justification for Marxist doctrine. It is that a new theory of political justification is necessary.  Habermas blew John Rawls theory out of the water but that still leaves us with need to defend or modify the system of John Locke.  In short: Divine Law is back. You just can't get around it.

Gaon from Villna

We find that world view issues were important to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. It is not just that he wrote the Guide for the Perplexed to  answer questions concerning, well, world view issues, but that these ideas pop up often in all of his writings.

 But when you try to get into the Rambam [Maimonides] you find several pitfalls.

One obvious one is Jose Faur. While his devotion to the cause of the Rambam is admirable but  his knowledge and understanding of the Rishonim [medieval authorities] is ziltch and when he attacks the other  Rishonim based on his lack of knowledge it come out looking like he went of a bit much into the "Sefardi pride" trap.

I think it is a true thing that the best way to learn the Rambam is in conjunction with the regular normal Rishonim like Topshpot and not to make a fetish out of him. [This is the way Ashkenazim have always learned the Rambam and Reb Ovadia Joseph also for that matter.]

On the other hand it is a good idea for people to start the task of understanding the Rambam in world view issues a little better. 

 I need to mention here that the Rambam had children and descendants that continued to be the rav roshi [chief rabbi] in Cairo for many generations. And a lot of them wrote books along the lines of the Rambam. So even if they are not the last word on what the Rambam was thinking, still they are instructive to give some hints about his path.

One curious issue that does come up in the Guide and in the book of the Rambam's son [Avraham ben Moshe] was the issue of pantheism.

You can guess why the Guide for the Perplexed is the most unpopular book in the world for Hasidim. You certainly do not want people finding out that the Rambam did not think that Torah belief and pantheism or panetheism were compatible.

In fact I once went through a book concerning the Gaon from Villna and it was clear form reading the actual documents of his time that the Hasidim were using a sophisticated strategy to  convert Jews to another religion. They were holding on to Jewish ritual even more strongly than normal religious Jews. This gave them the ability to substitute Jewish beliefs with pantheism. And they also learned how to use seemly sincere acts of kindness to promote their movement.

 The original Guide that you used to see hanging out in the frum world [you know the one with the commentary of Joseph Albo and someone else.  It is a very difficult book but it rewards the effort. 

There is a great book on the Rambam by David Hartman which is the best modern commentary on the Rambam that I have ever seen.

Gemara in Bava Kama page 3

I wanted to write something fast about the Gemara in Bava Kama page 3 side A and then correct my spelling errors later.
And I wanted to point out how this is relevant in a larger way to general understanding of the Gemara. First I wanted to say that this part of the Talmud we need to divide into three parts. Part one and two deal with the braita [outside teaching = teaching that is not part of the Mishna] and the third part derives all four cases of tooth and foot in a different way.


The first way of the Braita is clear. We use "he sent" for foot and to get  to the lesser case [it walked by itself] we use a to tooth. The braita does the same with it ate. It uses it for tooth and to fill in the lesser case it uses a hekesh to foot.
 At this point--part three the Gemara uses "he sent" for both tooth and foot without us. And to get to the two other lesser cases it uses "ubier" ("It ate").. It does this but it only says one case for "it ate." The case the animal walked by itself. the  on the מהרש''א explains that it gets to the second less several case of tooth by means of the logic the gemara just got done using--the fact that tooth and foot are in equilibrium. so if you use it ate for foot you have to use it for tooth also.

 The natural question תוספות asks here is why does the gemara not ask like it did above what do you use the verse  כאשר יבער הגלל?

What this means is that about the Talmud uses    כאשר יבער הגלל to fill in all the gaps. The חמור case of נכלה השורש tooth and לא נכלה. Now what can now after the Talmud derives everything without that verse, what  do you need the verse for?

תוספות answers that the ברייתא means to say that if we did not have the ברייתא way of deriving all for cases we would be able to fall back on the way of the braita,


Ok this piece was what I wrote fast. Now I would like to explain a few things. one thing is that I used simplified approach in explaining this Gemara. You probably noticed that I left out the fact that part one and part two of the gemara assumes that all distinctions of tooth go into foot and visa verse. you cant have missed it because it is an essential part of the reasoning of the Gemara. And yet when I explained the Gemara used on two cases for foot [(a) he sent the animal, and (b) it went by itself] and two cases for tooth [it ate all, it ate part.]  For those of you familiar with covariant coordinates this is easy to explain why I did this. I similar changed the coordinates. I used vertical lines instead of slanted lines to go through my graph. The end result ends up the exact same way.

hard words

hekesh [“similarity” = same aspects of different cases= “what is it with this case? Thus and thus. So is it with that case.]

בבא קמא ג' ע''א 

 First I wanted to say that this part of the תלמוד we need to divide into three parts. Part one and two deal with the ברייתא, and the third part derives all four cases of שן and רגל in a different way.


The first way of the ברייתא is clear. We use ושילח for ניזקי רגל and to get  to  איפה שהלכה  בעצמה we use  שן. The ברייתא does the same with וביער בשדה אחר. It uses it for שן and to fill in the lesser case it uses a היקש to רגל.
 At this point the גמרא uses ושילח for both שן and רגל without us. And to get to the two other lesser cases it uses "וביער בשדה אחר. It does this but it only says one case for וביער בשדה אחר. The case the animal walked by itself. The מהדורא בתרא של המהרש''א explains that it gets to the second less several case of שן by means of the logic the גמרא just got done using  that is fact that שן and רגל are שווים. So if you use וביער for רגל you have to use it for שן also.

 The natural question תוספות asks here is why does the גמרא not ask like it did above, What do you use the verse כאשר יבער הגלל.

What this means is that about the גמרא uses כאשר יבער הגלל to fill in all the gaps. The מצב  החמור of שן and the מצב הקל.  Now after the גמרא derives everything without that verse, what can do you need the verse for?

 תוספות answers that the ברייתא means to say that if we did not have the third way of deriving all for cases we would be able to fall back on the way of the ברייתא,

For the general public I feel I ought to insert a note or two about what is important about Gemara.

The basic importance of the Talmud is in two areas. Numinous value and moral value. The way I understand this is basically through the school of thought of Plato,Why I am a Platonist --friesian.com and  Kant,.[]  I should mention  that even Maimonides is somewhere in between Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus the Platonist. So in terms of would view and a good consistent way to evaluate moral issues, the Talmud is important. It also does give a rather spiritual path. And it has the advantage of being a logical rigorous explanation of the Written Law{Torah}.
There is also a philosophical advantage to the Torah and Talmud. This has to do with Western Civilization, and in particular the USA. Right now, it is a bit difficult to find a rational justification of either. In my view, the Talmud provides a way out of the modem political dilemma. I would have to find time to go into this another time.

I just got done writing about the Talmud on my other blog so I don't know how well i am going to be able to focus my attention here.
Here i wanted to discuss the Rambam.

We all would like the rambam to be saying in his eight chapters that the Torah is the middle path and also that it brings to the middle path. Right? But on the surface that does not seems to be what he is saying. My thesis is that in fact that is what the rambam is saying.
 Ok not to the meant and potatoes of the subject. Thus saith the Rambam: people have physical aliments and mental sicknesses. Medicine teaches us how to deal with physical sickness. And the same principle applies to mental sickness. You go to the opposite extreme for a while until  the bad nature or diseases is uprooted an then you return to the middle.

Now at this point it looks like the rambam is saying two different things. It seems he means that the Torah is itself the middle path, But also that it brings to the middle path. but how can he say that is the way to get to the middle is to go to the opposite extremer which he just got done saying is pure evil?
The Torah is i hope not telling us to go to some evil extremer in order to straighten out our personal problems!

I suggest that the Rambam here can be meaning that the Torah provides  ways for individual to cure themselves but that its general approach is in fact the Middle. Nazir is perfect example that the rambam himself brings  and [nedarim] oaths also. is an example . also a time to do for God is brought by the rambam as a general Principe that the Beit Din can use to correct faults of the generation that is :it is not just for a prophet.

A connection length of days and fear of God.

 I found a connection length of days and fear of God. And I definitely have found myself in need of length of days.--My days had become very short of full of nonsense. I decided I needed a definite refill of fear of God. So I asked myself from where do I think I might get a little fear of God? The most obvious answer I could think of is the idea of learning what is called Musar. This refers to two sets of books on the subject of Fear and Love of God and good character traits. One set was written during the Middle Ages by Jewish scholars. Another set was written recently by people on the same themes. One of these books is called the Madragat HaAdam.
\

Do slogans determine people’s behavior?

How much do slogans determine people’s behavior? They find some slogan that makes sense to them and then use it to make snap decisions based on the slogan. I think slogans determine very much. See the essay of a professor from MIT (John Sterman) I have a link to on this blog in his discussion of computer models and how people do use their own modeling of reality and a small set of rules to determine their large range of behavior, I was once at the shabat table of Rav Zilverman in the old city of Jerusalem and he asked me if I could come up with a catchy slogan for the Geon from Villna. . . I gave some stupid answer I am sorry to say. I mentioned some  one of the aphorisms in the book Even Shelama. Today thinking back to this I realize that not only is very little of the Gra very catchy, but my suggestion missed the whole point. The point is something short and simple that grabs a person and alters their future behavior. 


Now we have see that some slogans cause people to do bad things. and other s are just a consciouses trap-- like ways of capturing people and  making them mental slaves them as we see in many religious cults today.
Often these cults use some nice sounding slogan but they act individually and collectively in ways opposite from the implication of the slogan.
 Philosophy also works by slogans. Hume came up with the idea that if something disagrees with his premises that it is meaningless. He wrote that if you could find some idea that is not based on observation then he would agree that his empirical philosophy is false, and then he goes right on and finds examples of ideas that are not based on observation. Then he does his neat trick. He calls these ideas "meaningless." And ever since then, in any discussion with left wing liberal,  when they encounter an idea that disagrees with them, they say it is "meaningless."




What I am wondering here is if it is such a good idea to reduce human life and its complexity to a bunch of slogans?

[Note 1] Maybe my parents had the best slogan of all: Be a mensch. This sadly is untranslatable.But roughly it means to be a decent human being with good character traits-decent kind just loyal loving and responsible. This was the Jewish ideal of human perfection in the European generation of Jews that came to the USA.]

[Note 2] The Gra, it could be said would have had a slogan like "learn Torah". This might not be catchy but it does capture the basic idea. He did think that by learning Torah most of a persons problems are solved. And in fact he might have been right about this. Maybe the idea of learning only Torah is a bit too much. But I think it is fair to ask people to have a simple session every day in Torah Mishna and Gemara called "shiurim kesidran." That is "sessions in order." That is take a Old Testament and start at the beginning, and when you have read some in order, then you put a place marker and put it down. Then you do the same with the Mishna.. And you do this in order, and you do not repeat anything nor do you pause to think about anything.

Breslov has taken over the non dualism approach of Hinduism and Buddhism

[1] Buddhism and Hinduism make a lot of assumptions about duality and non duality and about self. What it is and if it exists at all. And if they say it does not exist they are not very clear about what it is exactly that they are saying does not exist. In spite of great philosophical sophistication and depth, both leave me with a sense that they have some good points but those points are mixed with numerous dogmatic assumptions that seem unwarranted.




[2] The Lithuanian world seems to pride itself on its lack of interest in spirituality.To them it is learn Torah and keep mitzvot and that is that. That seems like a fairly good approach in that opening the doors of spirituality seems in fact to welcome a host of phenomenon like illusions and mental illness etc. that seem to be part and parcel of the world of Hasidim.


[3] Breslov has taken over the non dualism approach of Hinduism and Buddhism and accepted it as Halacha Le'Moshe MiSinai. [A law to Moses from mount Sinai] This is in spite of the fact that it is not  traditional Jewish doctrine.

.
If you look at the personality cults that have sprouted up around him and around charismatic leaders  claiming to going in the Breslov path, then there is not much to see.

There  are some amazing aspects to the basic Musar path of Torah. Musar here means medieval books of Ethics like the Duties of The Heart and the rest of the basic cannon But we know that Musar was expanded after the Middle Ages and came to include about 30 books considered to be basic. [And many of the later works began to include kabalistic themes like the Mesilat Yesharim at least as an undercurrent.
Nefesh Hachaim certainly uses the Zohar as a source of evidence for his thesis that learning Torah is the most important thing one can do.




Other people [mainly baali teshuva in Israel] went to Breslov directly and that became their basic source of value and frame of reference. So when they later hear themes of the basic Musar books of people like Saadia Geon or the Rambam they think it is heresy.

There are however extra curricular sources which have important contributions to make concerning what human beings are about.


The question is how to find a unifying thread,  A way to judge if a world view is sound--or if any aspects of it might be sound.This is not to say that once one has this thread his human problems will be solved. World view is only one important tool to come to where we need to go. It does not solve any human problems but it can be of some help not to fall into things that claim to be a solutions and yet are simply traps.


I have such thread that I use. Philosophy. But since the beginning of twentieth century philosophy the idea of philosophy being able to provide a way to judge other world views has become ridiculous.All twentieth century philosophy that is linguistic postmodern analytic philosophy- is in the famous words of John Serle "obviously false".
So people can be excused if they think my using philosophy to judge the validity of any given world view is unsound.

So what I have to add is that I mean I use the  common sense, Maimonides, Plato, and Aristotle.

I have had to use my own sense along with philosophical studies outside of mainstream academia in order to develop my own philosophical point of view.

There are certain professions which attract personalities that have no conscience, snakes in suits. These are areas in which a glib tongue will get someone very far. And you can’t depend on peer review in these areas because all the rest of the people at the top of the profession also got there by the power of their glib tongue and lack of fear for consequences of their actions in this world or the next.


These are not people that are sitting in jail. They are so smooth that they can maneuver themselves out  situations that would land lesser people in jail.

Religious people are exceptionally susceptible to these type of people, because religious people believe in a kind of Divine justice in  which if someone is doing well in this world there must be a reason for it. And if someone is suffering then they must deserve it.

And I do not refer here to the heads of cults. I mean even well respected member of any religious denomination.

In the Jewish world there used to be a mechanism in place that would prevent this kind of abuse. It was the Kahal-- the tax paying working Jews that were in charge of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe. They would make sure before they hired someone to serve as a religious leader, that that person really knew the Talmud well.  




Rather it is the type of people they hurt which I find more interesting. These are usually people with a high degree of interest in spiritual affairs and are seeking to become morally better people. It is this class of highly moral and sensitive spiritually minded people that snakes  hurt the most in their deepest subconscious levels.

The people that I tend to blame for this mess are those that without a sense of responsibility try to get people to join the cult of  charismatic Snakes in suits. But other people that that join and then lose their sense of responsibility and try to get others to join are more at fault.

How to learn the Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Law] of Joseph Karo.

I think today I should concentrate on how to learn the Shulchan Aruch.

The fact of the matter is I have assumed that everyone in the world understands this intuitively. But recently I have noticed that this assumption is unwarranted.

So without further ado let me explain it.

The actual way to understand any single halacha in the Shulchan Aruch is by starting from the Talmud.
Sometimes this is very simple. A very good example is  we all know that one is not allowed to eat milk and meat together. But what about a cow's milk producer--the gland that makes milk? This is an argument in the Gemara and  is contained in a few short, simple paragraphs. So once you have read those simple paragraphs, you can trace the halacha down through the Tur, Beit Yoseph, Bach, and the Shulchan Aruch with the Shach and Taz.  [You could do the Rambam and Rif and Rosh also but nothing would change substantially in your understanding.] This is an unusually simple example.

Later I got involved in learning with Naphtali Yegear. That already involved very deep analysis of the Gemara and Tosphot with the Rabbi Akiva Eiger and Shav Shemtta. That was a level of depth I simply was unprepared for. So on my own, as I was doing Ketobot I continued doing the path of Halacha type of learning that starts from the Gemara and weaves down until the  Shulchan Aruch with all its commentaries like the Shach and the Taz. But Halacha type of learning is not the same as in depth learning of Gemara.

This Halacha  type of learning is not really how to learn Gemara. Learning Gemara proper, means to stay on one Tosphot for weeks and maybe months until its depths start to reveal themselves to you. Yet I want to emphasize here that this Halacha type of learning the Gemara is the only legitimate way to learn Halacha. The only reason we do things like reading the Shulchan Aruch straight is to get a general idea. But we must not fool ourselves to think that since we have read a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch that now we understand that Halacha -even with all the commentaries. This is simply not the case. There is no halacha anywhere that one can understand unless he has made that progression from the actual Talmud until the text of the Shulchan Aruch through the poskim in-between.

[But if you do not have a good learning partner I admit it might be best to do the Halacha type of approach to the Talmud. The in depth approach might simply be too hard for people to do on their own and most people are not even aware of its existence. they think learning the Talmud in depth actually means doing it with poskim [Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tur, Shulchan Aruch]. This is obviously false But it still might be the only thing available to most people. And I might as well admit it the in depth approach was something I could never really get a good handle on. Though I sat through the classes of Reb Shmuel Berenbaum .

Once Muslims get their hands on Atom Bombs, the term "suicide bomber" will take on a whole new meaning.]

The world is definitely headed towards global conflict but it is not between the Ukraine and Russia. It is between Christendom and Islam. And therefore from my Jewish point of view I would like to see Christendom united and strengthened. [OK I admit if everyone would-sit and learn Gemara that would be a better option. But being that that is unlikely at least we can all agree that mankind ought to make progress towards a more ethical moral human decent world rather that towards barbarianism and jihad. Progress towards the later at this point would mean the extinction of the human race. Once Muslims get their hands on Atom Bombs the term suicide bomber will take on a whole new meaning.]

total immersion in Torah

The basic opinion of only Torah all day finds its basic expression in the Nefesh Hachaim of Chaim from Voloshin the major disciple of the Geon from Villna. But to a large degree it is implicit in older books of Musar and in the Talmud itself. In fact in the Tenach (the Hebrew Bible) we do find the idea that serving God is the only thing that has value. 

\
While total immersion in Torah all day might good for some people but I have some questions if the Torah itself asks this from people. If we take a look for example  at the first and foremost of all books of Musar --the Chovot Levavot [Duties of the Heart] we find that he claims [Shar Prishut] that one is obligated to learn an honest profession that does not include depending on being supported for learning Torah.


But in truth the idea of learning Torah as a profession I did not hear about when I was in NY . There never was a question in anyone's mind that one should learn Torah all the time but that it is not to be a paid profession. The idea in N.Y. was that if one was sufficiently devoted to learning Torah, that God would provide some means of support,- in some kosher  way--not in the form of a pay check for sitting  learning.
  Everyone knew the simple basic Halacha that one is not allowed to make the Torah into a device to make money. Secular and religious Jews alike.
There is a difficult fine line here--the line that one should learn Torah but that this should not be a paid profession.
 Torah is everywhere.  It is the root of all creation. The Ten Statements of Creation the root of creation and inside of them are the Ten Commandments which are to essence of the Torah.
Torah is everywhere and in all actions and in all people. But in forbidden actions the glory of God is not revealed. So how do forbidden actions have any existence? They is by the first of the ten statements of Creation, the hidden statement. This is the highest of all the statements. That means that when one has fallen into the kelipot-- areas of darkness where there is no glory of God and from there one realizes how far he is as fallen and begins to seek God from there, that is when he has the highest flight into the highest levels.
The point being that one needs to learn Torah in order to find God. But when one does learn Torah and keeps his commandments then he can serve God through anything.

There are several areas in which I disagree with religious Judaism as a whole and there are areas which I agree.
One very major area that I disagree is the way they justify Torah and the Talmud. You can see some of the arguments in books by Rav Avigdor Miller. These arguments in favor of Torah and Talmud are obviously false. On the other hand I do have a way of arguing negatively for Torah and Talmud.
That is I can’t justify what I will call now just "Torah" [but meaning Torah along with it commentary the Talmud] in a positive way but I can deal effectively with most of the criticism. This I do mainly based on my readings in philosophy of Kant, [non intuitive immediate knowledge--which is meant to work mainly for a priori knowledge.], and the Intuitionists like G.E. Moore and Michael Huemer. 
So in short I do justify Torah but not in the way of the Orthodox.


There are individual areas of halachah I also disagree but these are based on my reading of the Talmud and the later authorities like the Rif, Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch with its commentaries the Shach and the Taz.--




Specific areas of disagreement are the time of Rosh Chodesh, electricity, some aspects of Nida, and the status of statehood of Israel and serving in the IDF. But in general I accept the general framework of Halacha and how a legitimate halacha opinion is found and defended by means of the Talmud and poskim that I mentioned above. In other words I claim that a halacha that can't be defended by the Talmud is not a legitimate halacha.


In terms of Books in Torah thought that I think are the most impressive I would have to put the  the Madragat Haadam of Joseph Yozel Horvitz commonly known as the "Alter of Navardok".
As for the Madgarat Haadam there is not even any English translation.

I think both of these books can provide a system of checks and balances in Torah thought. For each one on its own can be misused. But both together I think provide a very good approach to Torah.


Some of the most important ideas in these books a re ideas that have universal validity and are in no way specific for Jewish people. One is trust in God with no effort. This is probably the most important idea of the Madragat HaAdam. The other is talking with God in a forest or some place far away from other people. 



The Orthodox do have one advantage over me--they seem more Jewish.This seems to me to be the result of a kind of nationalism (or rather chauvinism)  in which seeming Jewish seems to be the most important thing. And the Orthodox certainly seem very Jewish. They wear lots of black clothing. They speak Yiddish. They hate everything that smacks of  culture or gentile thought. There is obviously nothing remotely good or Jewish about any of this. But if what you value the most is to seem Jewish, then by all means go ahead and join them.




The thing I should mention about non intuitive immediate knowledge and how it helps to justify Torah is this. One basic area of debate between the rationalists and the empiricists is this we can know things  based on empirical evidence. because we can check our conclusions with what happens in the real world. But when it come to a things that we perceive by reason alone things  how do we know that what we think has anything to do with reality? [This is a bit of a simplification-- we do find the intuitionists think that even empirical evidence we know only by reason].
It is this question that immediate non- intuitive knowledge comes to answer.
It does more that just answer Kant's question how is synthetic a priori possible. It answers how is a priori possible.

Once you get to synthetic a priori we can see that there are areas of value that we know beyond just the principle of non contradiction. and we can test these areas by falsification. In other words even morality which we cant derive from an "is", we can falsify . This is what Socrates spent all of his time doing. and this is in large part what the Talmud is doing. Except the Talmud accepts  sources of information that were unknown to Socrates.

I would like to introduce the major and most motivating idea of Navardok-- trust in God. That is trust without effort--as opposed to trust with effort.
That was based to some degree of a statement of Israeli Salanter and the Geon from Vilnius  that real trust in God means to trust with no effort.




I would like to suggest an integrated approach that combines the best of both approaches with a special emphasis on hiking in the woods and forests while talking with God and when one is not doing that to sit and learn Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.

For people that are limited in time and have to go to school my suggestion is  to introduce into schools two pretty important books of philosophical and  ethical thought--the book of Joseph Horvitz --the Madrgat Haadam I see both as containing important principles for the proper conduct of human life.  

They contain these basic principles: Trust in God with no efforts, talking to God in a forest or someplace where you are not seen or heard by others, learning the Torah, and a program designed to correct ones character flaws--learning Musar.





This is opposed to Pagan cults. Pagan cults are a system of rites. 
 Pagan cults are  systems of rites that involves a manipulation of substances — — that are believed to have some kind of inherent power, again, because of their connection to whatever the primordial world stuff may be in that tradition. So  there's always an element of magic in a pagan cult. It's seeking through these rituals and manipulations of certain substances to, again, let loose certain powers, set into motion certain forces, 

One final and very important point, in the polytheistic worldview, just as there are good gods who might protect human beings there are also evil gods who seek to destroy both humans and other gods. Death and disease are consigned to the realm of these evil demons or these impure evil spirits, but they are siblings with the good gods. Human beings are basically powerless, in the continual cosmic struggle between the good gods and the evil demons, unless they can utilize magic, divination, tap into the powers of the meta divine realm, circumvent the gods who might be making their lives rather miserable. But what's important is that  in the pagan view, evil is an autonomous demonic realm. It is as primary and real as the realm of the holy or good gods. Evil is a metaphysical reality. It is built into the structure of the universe. That's the way the universe was made. The primordial stuff that spawned all that is, spawned it good and bad and exactly as it is, and it's there and it's real.


So  the fundamental idea of Torah  is a radically new idea of a God who is himself the source of all being — not subject to a metadivine realm. There's no transcendent cosmic order or power. 

So what then are the implications of monotheism?
 So in the  Torah - Hebrew Bible, for the first time in history we meet an unlimited God who is timeless and ageless and nonphysical and eternal.

That means that this God transcends nature. Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature in the Bible. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine.
So there's no process by which humans become gods and certainly no process of the reverse as well.
 God can't be manipulated or coerced by charms or words or rituals. They have no power and cannot be used in that way, and so magic is sin. Magic is sin or rebellion against God because it's predicated on a whole mistaken notion of God having limited power. 

I knew this fellow fairly well and we had a few discussions about difficult subjects in the writings of Isaac Luria an he knew the material very well. Much better than almost any so called kabalaists in Israel.

A few years ago i lost contact with him while on my adventures to the USA and Uman and to other parts of Israel outside of Jerusalem.

when i knew him he was on the up and up. He was married [a prerequisite for respect in the world of the charedim] and well respected in the community.
The yesterday I met him again and he had been in prison.. His wife was on the path to becoming pretty much not religious and so there a divorce and she was instructed as common in the chareidi world to make the worst possible accusations and lies against her husband so that she would gain the advantage in the monetary arrangements. [Charedim do not advice all young wives to make these claims--only baali teshuva wives. But for people born a part of their community they go out of their way to make peace.]

The thing here is that after he told me some of the things that happened to him and his family i kind of sympathize with the wife. They were living in some yishuv outside of Jerusalem and had bought a large plastic swimming pool for their 5 year and 4 old daughters.one weekend they went away and the chareidi neighbors slashed it .

I was having the traditional cholent on Shabat.  I said over my little idea about Rav Huna who had thousands of students and the fact that he was not paid anything for learning or teaching Torah. In fact Abyee had a scheme to have his students advice him to divorce his wife and then the guarantor of her dowry/Ketuba [Rav Huna's father] would have to pay, and then he could remarry her and then have money for breakfast. The Ketuba all in all was about two hundred dollars. So Rav Huna must have been in desperate straits. And still he did not ask or receive any money by learning Torah. I have said this over a few times already but I was surprised by the reaction of the fellow I knew from Jerusalem.

I said that the present day gezera of having to serve in the IDF is a result of the sin of using the Torah to make money.

I had a few idea to mention. One in particular I think stands out. It is related to something the Chovot Levavot says--The Duties of the Heart.

It is the idea that one is not supposed to make up a new religion.

That means in practical terms that even though what does it means to keep the Torah can be hard to decide on a daily basis still we know what it means not to keep the Torah.

That means to say we know more or less that a Jews is supposed to learn the Oral and written law--the Five books of Moses and the Babylonian Talmud from cover to cover- and to keep what the Torah says. Period.
But in this process sometimes people have experience with other individuals which might not be optimum. This still does not give one permission to go and make up some new religion.
Learning Torah has been considered the prime directive of the Torah for a couple of thousand years. This is not the subject of any debate. That means to say at minimum everyone should sit down a learn Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot at least an hour every day. And when it comes to Jewish law, the requirement to keep it is not a debate-- although the particulars are.

Also Monotheism is the philosophy of the Torah. This also has never been the subject of ant debate. Torah is not a document of pantheism in any sense and no one ever considered it as such--not Maimonides nor Isaac Luria

Devykut "attachment with God."

For me it so happened that I   that I started reading the Ari (Isaac Luria רבינו האריז''ל).  And after about a year I made Aliya to Israel and then I did a lot of  personal conversation with God while hiking in the forests surrounding Safed in the north of Israel].

 I spent most of my time in a forest. And then I got something that you could call Devykut. Devykut means literally "attachment with God." 


But outside of the subject of of this devykut, I would like to defend the Arizal [Isaac Luria--known by the short name the Ari] here in a philosophical way.
 The system of the Ari is Neo Platonic. That is is assumes a very Neo Platonic system, and then develops it in great detail based on the personal insights of the Ari himself-not on reasoning or logic.

But what makes it particularly interesting is the fact that it looks like Plato was right. I mean let's looks at the rival schools of thought. The rationalist-- the antimonies of Kant demonstrated well the fallacy of rationalism.
The empiricists. There are a few well known simple proofs that empiricism is wrong. [See Michael Huemer's counter examples like you know an object can not be blue and green in the same place at the same time.]  Also Twentieth century philosophy is problematic. In the famous words of John Searle [at University of California, Berkeley], Post modern philosophy and all the analytic linguistic approach is "Obviously false". Just by default alone you are stuck with Hegel or Kant. At this point I rest my case. In either case you are dealing with a neo Platonic approach.

[Well I am not exactly done. I am not very happy with Hegel. But I would rather not go into that right now. And Kant many people associate with the Neo-Kant School. And that is definitely not Neo Platonic. {They also do not think we can know if the Ding An Sich  exists, and that is not Kant who wrote that we do know it exists--but its character is modified by our subjective input.} 

[It would be possible to argue with me that the Ari and Neo-Platonism do put a large degree of confidence in reason--much more than Kant. I assume this is why many Jews like were happy enough to go along with Hegel. 

[On a side note I might mention that there is another system of Kabala of Avraham Abulafia which Moshe Idel did some work on. And I should let people know that in university when people talk about Kabala they are usually talking about Avraham Abulafia, or some other Medieval system [like the "Heichalot"] and not Rav Isaac Luria. [These are relatively unsophisticated systems.] When people in the religious world talk about Kabalah, they usually means three specific people: the Zohar, Moshe Cardovaro and Isaac Luria. There is in fact almost no intersection between University Kabalah and Isaac Luria Kabalah.

There are a few different approaches to I. Luria. The best I think is Shalom Sharabi from Yemen. But there is also a good approach of the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto]. These are both very sophisticated approaches]. 
  

Kabalah in the Ashkenaic world after the events surrounding Shabati Tzvi are filled with interpretations from Natan his disciple. Of all Ashkenazim, only the Gra is clean. The rest of the books take the system of Shabati Tzvi in Kabalah -- but the problem is the system itself is wrong and from the Sitra Achra.
When people think they are reading holy books of Kabalah, they are getting a heavy dose of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) when they read Ashkenazic Kabalah.

Fear of God brings to length of days. [That is that each day should be filled with things that contribute to life goals--and not having your day taken up by things you know to be a waste of time].
I think we can rely on his intuition in this but it still does not tell us how to come to fear of God.

We know the Rambam had an unusual approach to this. [Even though he hides this approach well for the sake of uninitiated still you can see it openly in the Guide.] He held that learning the work of Creation leads to fear of God. and he defines this as what the ancient Greeks called Physics.

I have only a few minutes left here so I would like just to get to my point about Fear of God.
A proper Fear of God program that would I hope lead to length of day I think could be divided into several areas.
[1] Talking to God in a wilderness or forest far from other people. [Pack a lunch and canned water] This is not prayer but opening up ones heart to God. This is very very different from prayer. One advantage of this is that prayer is for specific things that are often contrary to ones actual interest. Another advantage is that it takes exercise to get to a wildness.
[2] Musar. That is two parts. Ancient medieval Musar books and part two the Musar books of the disciples of Israel Salanter. [Christians might try to find similar books that apply to them. Perhaps St John of the Cross.]
[3] The Rambam program of Physics. This goes even for people that are not talented in Physics and Math.

An overview of philosophy today

\
And further more I want to take note of the very significant Neo Platonic approach to reason   There he divides reason into three parts reason in potential, reason in actuality and reason that is acquired. This seems highly Kantian. It assumes a kind of process where reason has gotten a hold of the data that is out there, and now has to process the data.


 This has already been noted by Edward Fesser concerning the general Aristotelian idea of potential and actuality.




This essay I wrote yesterday. But today I just wanted to add a few ideas concerning the implications of the above essay.


And most philosophers of the twentieth century have been trained in linguistics and existentialism and thus lost their ability to think logically. So in fact the only interesting thing today in philosophy is this debate between California and Colorado. (And also Edward Feser-- for Catholics.)

There is among Catholics and effort to get back to work on Aquinas and Aristotle. This is a good thing but  Aquinas never made a bridge between the First Cause who is total actuality and the God of the Old Testament. Aristotle also I see as an important aside to Plato. But his Metaphysics has an essential contradiction in it that to me makes Plato much more interesting

The path of Torah is fairly well understood

Though I think that there is a basic Torah path which involves learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot and basic acetic practices which lead to enlightenment.

But the questions about Torah are many and I think might even be insolvable.



In spite of this I think the path of Torah is fairly well understood. We don't have a lot of questions about what the oral and written law say to do. Nor do we have a wide range of ambiguity about the world view of the Torah. These are fairly well settled issues. The problem that makes it ambiguous is not just intention either. The ambiguity comes from some mysterious aspect of the whole Torah path to perfection. For some people it seem to work and for other it does not. And this seems to have nothing to do with intention. It is just that even person has his own path he must trod down on.

OK now I hope that I have made it clear that particular aspect of Torah. But I wanted to point out a some of the basic problems about what you might call Torah world view. In this we have to start out with the assumption that the Torah is not a glass that you can pour out its world view, and substitute your own in it place. Maimonides and Saadia Geon did a basic analysis of the world view of Torah. They bring to light the basic approach to Torah that one might not be able to see by just learning Gemara, or the written Torah itself. (There is no reason to think their analysis of the world view of Torah is obsolete. No new information has been made available to suggest this.)

I want to add that not only does the Torah have a particular world view but it also has something to say about human goods.[It is not just a book of rituals.] And it sees a connection between non moral values and moral values. People might have alternative views about human goods, but they should not claim that their views are consistent with the Torah. [The issue is not what is Apikorosut/heresy. Rather what does the Torah think about a certain set of questions. If people don't agree with Torah that is their prerogative. But it is not their prerogative to claim their alternative scheme is what the Torah says.]


Here I list  a few Torah views which I think should not be up for debate (1) Reality is objective.
 (2) Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason. [But because human beings are flawed we need the Torah to reveal to us what  reason would say about how to achieve human goods.] (3) Capitalism is the only just social system. This is obvious when you open up the Torah portion after the Ten Commandments in Exodus. You could also consult Tractate Bava Metzia for more details concerning the practice of capitalism. (4) According to Maimonides and Saadia Geon the Torah is Monotheistic. That is that the First Cause/the Creator  made the universe something from nothing--not from His substance. (5) According to the Torah the universe is not God, and it is not condensed god substance. Maimonides goes into this in great depth in the Guide for the Perplexed and Saadia Geon also goes into this in his Emunot Vedeot.

God is not identical with the world,

[1] The belief system of the Torah is monotheism.  God is not identical with the world, but that He is accessible to every human being. But access to God does not come through other human beings but by direct talking with God from ones deepest core in his heart.
This might be hard to do but it is a lot easier that running around after people for help that they can't give anyway.
[2] Part of the issue here is that there seem to be a list of things that are offered to people to promote some kind of connection with the Creator. Yoga and meditation is high on the list if you are considering Brahma to be identical with the First Cause, but I seriously doubt if this works. Also praying through other people seems to me to be problematic. Monotheism I think implies direct prayer to God, not through intermediates. This is not to disparage anyone's religion but rather to suggest to people to get together a private prayer  kit and to go out into the wilderness with hiking boots and pack lunch and talk to God directly. And not invoke any persons merit but to speak to God as you would your own parents. If you were asking your mother a favor, I do not suppose you would ask it in the name of some saint. And God I think is not less concerned about you than your own parents.

[3] Now some people go to public buildings for religious matters, This seems to be to form more of a connection with people than with God,- and I think it should be avoided unless there are social reasons involved or else to learn Torah and Talmud which does need a learning environment. But religious ceremony in public buildings in my opinion is purely negative.

[4] Often people think wearing religious clothing makes them righteous and they get an obnoxious attitude of superiority by that. but according to the Torah one ought to be careful never to display how religious you are.or even if you are religious at all. מה ה' אלקיך דורש ממך כי אם הצנע לכת עם אלקיך "What does got desire from you but to walk modestly with your God." That is to make sure to not wear religious clothing so that your relationship with God remains personal, not public.
[About the head covering.  That is just one of the things the religious like to add to the Torah to make themselves seem righteous. The origin of the whole thing is from מסכת סופרים where it says one called to read the Torah in public should cover his head. There is no law that one should cover his head any other time. It is considered a good thing but not a law. But even a good thing can turn sour when use for nefarious purposes and the religious make a show of it which is against the Torah.]