r3 a music file in mp3 and midi. Lashon Hara/Slander לא תלך רכיל העמיך "Thou shalt not go around as a slanderer among your people." Leviticus

Lashon Hara is a very important subject. I was introduced to this at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And it was a major area of emphasis for the Rosh yeshiva, Reb Shmuel Berenbaum. In fact, there was a time the secular Russian cooks in the kitchen had made some mistake regarding meat and milk, and people went to him to complain. And he was furious about the people that had complained. And the next day at the normal Musar Shmuz (talk) [Thursday] he made a very big deal about incident. [It was not the normal subject of his Musar. The normal subject was to learn Torah. But he was very strict personally about Lashon Hara. And I always noticed that people that were strict about Lashon Hara always were notably more successful in their learning Torah than people who were not. I tried to work hard on the book the Chafetz Chaim (Laws of Lashon Hara). I think I might have gone through it with the commentary at the bottom at least once, word for word. [I think so, but I am not sure]. [I spent a good deal of time on the other Musar books of the Chafetz Chaim. I think I might have gone through most of them. But at the time I was also trying to do the Musar of the Rishonim [Mediaeval Musar] and the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter so I do not think I finished every single book of the Chafetz Chaim. I was trying to get through all the schools of Musar/Navardok, Kelm, Slobodka, Naphtali Amshterndam, Isaac Blasser.  That was besides regular Gemara things I needed to be doing. 

r3 is some music.  [r3 in midi]  r3 in nwc

When the whole world turned against me, I was aware I was not going to be able to be as strict as I wanted to be in Lashon Hara. This is hard to explain in writing this minute. I can explain this but maybe not this second. 

[If I would have to explain this it would be thus: If a group is known to be good, and yet because of personal experience you know they are evil, then it is very hard to be careful in Lashon Hara. You can't agree with people and yet you can't disagree. Even if you would want to go into the sordid details no one will believe you so it ends up you transgress the prohibition anyway. If teh general public was more aware of the laws of Lashon Hara I might be able to explain this better. But in a nut shell that is about teh best I can do.

So at that point I decided the most important thing would be to speak the truth always at all cost. 

Also, I think learning programming is very important. Though I would normally say that getting a full university education is important but nowadays universities are off the right path except for the major ones: Stanford, NYU, Cal Tech, MIT.  For some reason some universities put pseudo science into their curriculum [e.g. social "sciences" and humanities. Now there in one oxymorn and one case of false advertizment.]

[1] I hold that learning Physics is  a kind of service towards God even if you do not understand what you are reading. [I mean this in connection with learning Torah. That is I recommend daily sessions, Some part in Torah, and some part in Physics.]

The idea I borrow from the regular idea that we already know that learning Torah is a mitzvah even if you do not know what you are reading. But I would like to expand this idea to the natural sciences also based on the Rambam.

The places that say learning Torah is a mitzvah even when you do not know the meaning of the words is from the Gemara itself and also the Ari. [The Gemara says לעלם לגרס אדם אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר. The Ari says what one learns in this world but was not able to understand, when he gets to the next world he will understand.

The source for the idea that learning Physics  is a mitzvah  is from the Rambam, the Duties of the Heart and all the many rishonim who brings the words of the Rambam word for word in their Musar books. [The only two original sources are actually the Rambam and the חובות ללבות. After that people just quote the Rambam's first chapter in Mishna Torah about the way to come to love and fear of God is by learning and contemplating his great works. My reasoning is however based on what we know that the Rambam meant by how he explained himself in the Guide. The later Musar books do not actually quote the Guide itself on this issue. And in fact all later Musar  is  against all kind of secular learning. It is only the original Musar that goes along with the Rambam. Personally I was not clear on this issue until at some point I started noticing things that caused me to think the Rambam was right.]
For example  super hyper religiosity does not seem to result in human decency. What brings about human decency seems to be the balanced approach of the Rambam.







[2] But I don't have a large array of promises to make for this. Many times we find charismatic leader of idolatry make promises of what one will gain by surrender to the all holy leader or by some kind of holy practice that he said to do. I don't have any of these kinds of promises. And I think it is not good to make such promises. I.e. I think the promises of "tzadikim" to do such and such a thing and thereby gain this world and the next are not possible to back up with facts.

I think it is best just to keep the Torah like it says and not to look further than that.

[3] Also I think the first step to keeping Torah is to avoid all the cults that pretend to keep Torah.  Mainly Hasidim.

[4] I see promises being made for different kinds of things. mediation. certain mantras, certain prayers, etc. I am not impressed with the results I see in people following these practices. Mainly chasidim I have found to be amazingly despicable, though the original founder may have been admirable.

[5] There should be sessions of learning that are more in depth. For this reason for some years I would say every paragraph forwards and backwards  in order to get the ideas more clearly. This method did help me very much when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.

r11 p129 e flat major

Some are more subtle. They seize every possible means of seeming kosher in order to hide the central figurine that they worship. But the rituals only serve as a public distraction. Their idolatry is not Jewish in spite of the protests to the contrary.

religious people need some central figure to concentrate upon, something on which to focus their minds. 

Zen Buddhists  say, "If you meet Buddha on the way, kill him immediately."  If you meet Buddha on the way, kill him immediately, otherwise he will kill you. Don't allow him a single chance, otherwise he will possess you and he will become a central figure. 
That is, religious world gets possessed by an graven image.  An arch type. 

The mind of the religious person wraps itself around this central figure. For  certain kinds of mind, a  central object is needed. This is what the Torah is trying to save us from. 

Some  are more subtle. They seize every possible means of seeming kosher in order to hide the central figurine that they worship. But the rituals only serve as a public distraction. Their idolatry is not Jewish in spite of the protests to the contrary. 


One of my reason for not being involved in the Charedi world is that it has been taken over by idolatry and that seems to me to make the whole thing not kosher. In this regard Reform and conservative Judaism are kosher because they are not doing idolatry nor do they acquiesce to it, nor make excuses for it. They might not be keeping everything that a Jew is obligated to do but they at least are not serving other gods. That makes them a lot more kosher than the religious .

The cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on- sordid shenanigans are not a good advertisement  for their beliefs. I don't reject this tradition in total , nor deny that there is value in it; and indeed a vital implicit message for people which is that meaningless existence  is probably the main problem of the modern world. 

But for all my interest,  that I found the individuals involved to be off-putting. Indeed, among the scores of teachers and authors I encountered -(set aside group members), there were barely a handful I found tolerable as persons or whose lifestyle seemed admirable (in so far as I could discover this): they were and are not an impressive bunch (at least, not to me).This was confirmed by visits spaced out over  years-  areas being the center of all that is the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on; and a places that  had more hyperbolic praise for their special and wonderful atmosphere than perhaps anywhere else.I  believing the legends and stories was intrigued. However --- I found these places and people as at best underwhelming; and  in fact, mostly somewhat unpleasant - with a seedy, fake and slightly sinister feel about them; and (with a few exceptions) a much higher than usual head count of apparently damaged, emotionally-desperate or exploitative, and manipulative  people.

This contrasts with my experience of real working class people and regular Lithuanian Yeshiva type of people, where (without going over the top about it) there are  some very decent and trust-worthy people, the general atmosphere is considerably more wholesome than average, and there is a fair bit of courage, integrity, beauty and a lot more altruism than I myself am capable of. Something to look up to. 

A lot of this boils down to s-e-x (variously  promiscuous, and rape of children) - I strongly suspect that the usual, mainstream secular and materialist motivation of sex is powerfully at work on or just below the surface of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on spirituality - and there are very few who are exempt. This means that whatever spirituality is on-the-go is - in practice - put into a subordinate place; and the spiritual side really doesn't work as the primary motivator. It would be going too far - but not much too far - to suggest that the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on in real life (as opposed to in theory) seem to operate like a gigantic rationalization for aspiration for sordid shenanigans!  The damage they cause in individual lives is enormous and always denied. They leave trails of broken people and marriages where ever they go. Rape of children is the most common thing that I hear about in every the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on group, but that is not the whole story. It is just a constant underlying factor

It makes sense that exploitation soon follows then. Sex seems to be the most powerful, or most abused, tool in the marketers/profiteers arsenal. The fake  appropriation Torah is a shame. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a university or legitimate Lithuanian yeshivas, the incompetent get weeded  out by competition. It’s only in societies like the ones built by the the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on and other status oriented types that the incompetent become the institution and wind up in positions of unassailable power, locking everyone else down to their piss-poor levels of performance. The main thing for them is the appearance of competence, not actual competence.
The major focus is credentials. The credentials are always given by equally incompetent frauds.
 This is one of the reasons the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on societies QUICKLY become hell on Earth. Because you can’t get rid of everyone who is competent without the rest of society collapsing.  

______________________________________________________________________

The way to get clarity is by study of cults. Once you see the claims and practices of your supposedly enlightened groups are the same you gain insight into what is really going on.

Look up the Chafetz Chaim Vol. I chapter 4 for the reasons why I am obligated to make this information public.  Also see Vol I chapter 7 for the בין אדם לחבירו reasons.

I mean to say that there are two very different aspects of Lashon Hara  and each one needs to be dealt with separately before one can publish a statement like this. Obligations between man and his fellow man is one part and obligation between Man and God is the other part. Since the problems are in both areas I have had to make sure I would fulfill all the conditions necessary before I could write the above essay. 

The super-organism is an argument why starting a Lithuanian yeshiva is a good thing.

See the book by Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle.  But he was not arguing for  Litvak Yeshiva. but rather for an American kind of Democracy. But I think the argument [I mean building on what he was saying] can be used to support the idea of why it is good to have a Litvak yeshiva around even if you do not learn there or even if you are not religious at all.

My reasoning is simple. Why not learn the Oral and Written Law at home? Well, on one hand certainly that is a good idea. I am not objecting to anyone who wants to  avoid all the hassle and simply buy a few books of the Gemara and learn at home. But you know already what the drawback is. The only way it gets into you is by being in a Lithuanian yeshiva. Even if you are a genius and can learn at home and understand it, still the קנין בנפש-acquiring it into one's soul-does not happen outside of a Litvak Yeshiva. Period.   The reason is obviously because of the super-organism.

And what is the advantage of this? Well, at least two things I can think of off hand. One is Midot [character ]and the other is the Heidegger Dilemma. That last thing is that modern life is meaningless.
 Reason has a limit as Kant noted. It can not venture into unconditioned realities.

The idea here is that you get two advantages by a Litvak Yeshiva. One is improvement in character. The other is it gives a connection with the meaning of life from the realm of good. [As we know people can find the meaning of their lives from the Dark Realm. And I would like to avoid that. So instead I recommend something that gives a connection with the bright, and holy  side of things.]

Jews in the U.S. support left-wing causes not for the causes themselves, but because they see those causes as a way to stick it to the Christian majority.

An excerpt from an essay from this site
This is critique and perhaps it hurts. But the best thing when you hear critique is the first evaluate if it is true, or even if some small part of it is true. And if it is, then to accept it, and to try to work on correcting the situation

Here is the excerpt:

"Jews in the U.S. support left-wing causes not for the causes themselves, but because they see those causes as a way to stick it to the Christian majority. I don’t think most of them do this consciously. But a lot of them equate “white America” with “oppression” and “conformity” and believe the patriarchal white majority is something that needs to be usurped.

This explains why Jews were the architects of feminism and the backers of the ’60s Civil Rights Movement. What better way to screw up Christian families and majority-Christian neighborhoods? This also explains a lot [about] 20th century art. 

Put it all together, and basically it comes down to “how can we destroy the Christians of America?”. Christians — or people who just think Christianity is what helped make America."


That is the basic idea of the critique. There is much to discuss about this problem. The best way to deal with this that I can see is simply to stop endorsing bad stuff when it seems  the things that make them interesting are that they hurt Christians.

Idolatry does not bother anyone unless it happens to be an idol they don't like.

But many Jews were Democrats because Democrats were like Kennedy. No one saw where it was leading to. Now many Jews are going definite Republican and pro traditional Judaic Christian society values.

The reason for the above essay is to address those that are still part of the Anti American Democratic party.

Ideas in Shas

What I am doing in the Gemara is mainly based on how I learned how to learn in Shar Yashuv. In the Mir in NY, Reb Shmuel Berenbaum was largely dealing with what you could call Global Issues. That is how the Gemara in front of you fits in with the rest of Shas. And he would do this based on the regular achronim, Reb Chaim Baruch Ber, R Akiva Eiger etc.

But what I am doing is more like working on the actual calculating the sugia on the page itself. And sometimes I go into how it relates to other sugiot.
The thing about the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn was that each of the four Roshei Yeshiva knew Shas very well and almost all of their classes had to do with "global issues"- how the subject on teh page related to other areas in Shas. It was in Far Rockaway that I had gotten the idea that the first step is to work on the subject on the page completely before looking into the issue of how it relates elsewhere.

The original idea of Navardok was trust in God as you can see in the book מדרגת האדם which is really a fantastic book. But after Isaac Blasser discussed with the Alter of Navardok [Joseph Horvitz] the importance of public work, the focus became making yeshivas. "Yeshiva" here means places that learn Talmud all day. That has little to do with modern usage of the term. The modern yeshiva is  a chat factory.
But there are a few notable exceptions which hearken back to the original idea.

I would not bring this up if I did not think there is something very special about this kind of institution. But extreme care must be taken that if one starts such a thing, that it not go off course.

My own experience in yeshiva was remarkable. I mean it was luminous. But for some reason my steps were guided towards authentic yeshivas. For all I know, I could have been guided towards very bad places [cults whose main focus is on the worship of their leader]. [It was the son of Elchanan Wassermann who told me about Shar Yashuv.]

 I was guided towards two very great places. Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. Shar Yashuv is more for beginners and the Mir in NY is for more advanced levels. But both places were prime examples of what a yeshiva ought to be.

But to describe what a yeshiva ought to be is not easy. Mainly I would say it is a link between Reason and Revelation. That is one works on the hard details of what the Torah is telling us by reason. But somehow that reason approaches the Divine. It is a kind of symbiosis between numinous reality and the mind. You can't really say what it is-but you know the instant you walk in the door.

I really have no idea what it takes to make such a place. But I was drawn to authentic places. [Then my own stupidity got me involved in insane cults.] [But the nice thing about being in an authentic yeshiva is that you never, ever forget the taste of the "real thing."]
__________________________________________________________________________


Maybe I should hide this fact but here it is anyway. I had an emotional connection with both yeshivas. I was in the kind of dilemma that is described by Heidegger. The emptiness of modern life was oppressing me. When I walked into  a place learning Torah in an authentic way I felt like I could breathe. So I admit there was an emotional component to all this. It was not just intellectual curiosity.

______________________________________________________________________________

Just for background information for those that might not know. The major authentic yeshivas today are few. The list is short. Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir in NY, Chaim Berlin in NY, Torah VeDaat in NY.
[Tifrach I have heard good things about, but it is mainly a branch of Ponovitch.]

Hasidic so called "yeshivas" are dens of the Dark Side. The sexual abuse of children is already on police record in Israel. I think that this comes from the origins of the movement. And even non hasidic people  that are aware of this are silent because of the power of the movement. They are afraid of taking it on least they lose their jobs. But constant patterns of behavior shows that the child abuse is not accidental but an integral part of the movement.

Possibly the most consistent argument one is faced with when discussing politically incorrect subjects is the knee-jerkingly reflexive, "You can't generalize like that!" This is usually followed with an anecdote about someone's friend 

Any logical person will soon realize that when discussing macro-issues in regard to society and its trends, not only can you generalize but in fact you must generalize. 

Condensed from here  

I take it that when you see consistent behavior in group that it is obligatory to generalize even though you know there are exceptions.

Music

r8 [r8 in midi]   r9 [r9 in midi] mathematics bar yochai [bar yochai in midi] chs [chs in midi] b104 [b104 in midi]   b101 e36 [e36 in midi] e33 [e33 in midi]  b105  b100 b98

i am very sick so if anyone wants to see the mathematics file or the b files in midi format with the notes i think i must have put the links somewhere else on this blog. right now i have no energy.  

פילגש girl friend. Not the same as prostitute.
To the Rambam it is an איסור עשה--a prohibition that is derived from a positive command. To most Rishonim it is permitted.
I have pointed out that כלב בן יפונה had what you would call a few wives and girls friends. Kalev Ben Yefuna was the friend of Joshua. He was righteous and the only person in the entire OT that it says about him וימלא אחרי השם "he went totally after God." You can find the relevant verses in Chronicles.

Christians clearly would not agree with this because of reasons I do not understand. Maybe they think  Paul can override this? Maybe they are not aware? I really am not sure.  I any case it is not my business.

I m not recommending this idea as a first option. It is only in case you find yourself wifeless. Then a girlfriend is a very good and permissible option.  And even if if you have  a wife, it is still a good option.

The reason Christians are against this is mainly Paul. There are two Pauls. One is the marriage is not good but better than worse things. The other Paul is the Acts of Paul and Thecla which hold that marriage is sin. In any case no of this has relevance for the Old Testament. In the Old Testament ניאוף adultery has a very specific definition and it has nothing to do with sex outside of marriage. It is specifically sex with a married woman with one who is not her husband. A man can have many wives and sex with all of them and that is not adultery. And he can even have a girl friend outside of marriage  and that is also not adultery. But as I mentioned it is subject to a debate among Rishonim. The Rambam in fact holds all sex outside of a a marriage  is forbidden. Only a king is allowed a girlfriend. But even to his opinion sex with a girlfriend is not a straight prohibition לאו. It is rather a לאו הבא מכלל עשה a prohibition that is derived from not doing a positive command.

In any case, the Rambam is a minority opinion. All other rishonim allow it.

The main idea of marriage is that you need two witnesses in order to be married.
That means you need two males above the age of 13 to witness it. And you need the man and woman to intend to be married. A woman can be acquired as a wife in one of three ways: sex, money, or a document in front of 2 witnesses. Plus you need some kind of words along the lines of "You are married to me by this ring" or "You are acquired to me by this ring (or document)"

The verses from where these are learned from are brought down in Kidushin on the very first Mishna. Plus they use the idea of a גזירה שווה. (That is: when one word is used in two different places, you apply the laws of one place to the other.)
That is דבר ערווה and יקום דבר have the same word so we say to marry requires two witnesses.

על פי שני עדים יקום דבר, על כל דבר ערווה, אין דבר שבערווה פחות משניים That is one verse says "No thing shall stand except by the word of two witnesses" and the other verse says "on everything that relates to  עריות." From this they learn that all things related to marriage and divorce need two witnesses.





Adultery is sex with a married woman. That is not symmetric. A man can be married to two wives. But a woman can  be married only to one man. But if a woman married to a man has sex with another man both the man and woman get the death penalty. The reason for the death penalty is because it come under the category of עריות forbidden sexual relations mentioned twice in Leviticus
[Also, marriage only works for people that are allowed to marry. Thus any of the relationships mentioned in Leviticus can not marry. Thus even if one marries his sister in front of two witnesses, nothing happens. The marriage is not חל that is it never happened. It is null and void. That is the state of marriage can only happen in a permitted situation. Thus the sister does not need  a divorce because she was never married in the first place. And if sex occurred in front of two witnesses they both get the death penalty if there was a warning issued by the witnesses. "Don't do this and if you do you should know such and such is the penalty"


Girl friends are not wives. But there is an argument if a girl friend is permitted.[Or even what such a concept is in the first place. See the Gra on the Shulchan Aruch.]
The Rambam said girls friends were permitted only to kings. The Gra shows from Chronicles I 2:46 that that is not the case.



What is going on in the NT is not the issue here. Rather I am just trying to clarify what the law of marriage is according to the Old Testament.



Paul clearly has other ideas. One idea of Paul is that marriage is not a sin. So the church said that celibacy is best. But if not celibacy then marriage is OK. Then there is the Acts of Paul and Thecla in which marriage is considered a sin. In any, case in the Old Testament things are different.


Oaths and vows are not the same thing as getting married. Vows are נדרים. Oaths are שבועות. The laws in which a father or husband can annul the vow of a נערה [girl from 12 to 12.5 years old] refers to things people take vows for. For example "This loaf of bread is like a sacrifice to me." Thus since no one is allowed to eat a sacrifice from the time it is sanctified until it is offered in teh Temple so she can not eat the loaf of bread. But if her father or if she gets married then her husband hears the vow then he can nullify it if is still daylight. [up until 72 minutes after sunset.] Marriage is not like that. Marriage is a state. It can only be taken off by a divorce document given in front of two witnesses.

Marriage comes in two parts. Kidushin and Chupa. That is even after Kidushin even though she is legally married they are not allowed to live together until Chupa. The Chupa is the act of her coming into his space. That needs ten people.  These difference come up in the laws of vows mentioned in Numbers. The word מאורסת means married buy so far without Chupa.

reason and faith.

In the mediaeval philosophers there is a strong connection with reason and faith.
But they did think that reason had limits. This is not so different than  Kant. But Heidegger thought to exploit the limits of reason initiated by Kant to begin an anti reason movement that would get in contact with real Being.

Part of the problem that I see is that Being has two sides to it. A realm of holiness and a realm of darkness. The exclusion of reason which is the step ladder to Being, can only lead to the opposite side of being. 


Heidegger did see the modern problem. Meaningless existence. But who is the culprit?  Reason? Let's think back to beginning of it all Pericles's Athens. Did was there reason to think others were living more authentic lives? Or today. Perhaps in the Sudan people are living more authentically?
And when people do want to get in touch with Being where do they go but fall straight into the hands of cults? 

My feelings were similar. People had been skeptical of the Enlightenment way before Heidegger, starting from Jonathan Swift. But Heidegger put his finger on the modern problem. My own experience was pretty much like Heidegger describes it. And I found my own connection to Being in Shar Yashuv Yeshiva in Far Rockaway and later at the Mir in NY. 

But the same feelings as a rule lead people to terrible cults and demonic, charismatic leaders. There also people find meaning and the "Truth."

None of this would have surprised the Rambam. To him Reason as understood by Aristotle was a prerequisite before Sinai  could happen. "For Rambam an essential attribute of rationality is its transhuman quality.  Abraham is not, for Rambam, a prophet in the fullest sense of the word (a station unique to Moses of Sinai); rather he is a philosopher of the highest rank who discovers a notion similar to what we would call "natural law. Only after the descendants of Abraham have created a community of natural-law abiding persons who will not confuse a revelation from God with the oracles of intermediary beings is the world made safe for the Mosaic revelation." Sunwall. 

God and the world are not one. The world is not made out of any Divine substance. It is made something from nothing. Ex Nihilo.

The Faith of the Torah is Monotheism. That is that God is One and has no substance or form. And He made the world from nothing. This is not the same as pantheism. God and the world are not one. The world is not made out of any Divine substance. It is made something from nothing. Ex Nihilo.

The actual verse of the Torah reads in full אתה הראתה לדעת כי השם הוא האלהים אין עוד מלבדו which says "There are no other gods besides God."
If you read the last three words out of context you come out with a false interpretation of the verse.

There is no implication here about pantheism.
 Pantheism mainly comes from the Upanishads. Spinoza also. And as I wrote else where if this point had been proved, I would not make  a big deal about it. But the Upanishads just state it, and Spinoza does not prove it. Spinoza can only get to it by making a premise that is highly doubtful in itself.
This is unlike the way things are done in, for example, Mathematics. In Math, you start with premises which are almost so trivial that there does not seem any reason to state them. For example: the shortest distance between two points is straight line. You don't start out with premises that are highly doubtful, and then go on to prove even more doubtful conclusions.

Besides this, no one held from pantheism. Not Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Ibn Gavirol, Crescas, Joseph Albo, the Ari, the Ramban (emphasis on last syllable). Abravenal [Not Abarbenal].  Certainly not the Torah Oral or Written.

The idea of Israel Salanter --to learn Musar [ethics] seems to me to be a good idea from the point of view of keeping Torah properly. If fact, I would have to agree that in order to understand how to keep Torah, Musar plus the basic works of Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages is enough. I mean in theory to understand what the Torah requires of us does not really require much more than to know what the Torah consider to be good character, and good world view, and to be able to identify and stay away from people with bad character and bad world views.

[Just for background for the public when I say Jewish Philosophy I mean you start with Saadia Gaon and go up until Crescas, Albo  and Abravenal, (not Abarbenal) אברבנל comes from the Spanish and is pronounced Abravenal.]

The thing about Musar which is a bit hard to figure out is the Kabalah connection. I do not mean specifically the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto.] I mean rather that all Musar after the Ari borrows heavily and depends on Kabalah and especially the Zohar. And that tends to lead people off into all kinds of crazy directions. Yet it is standard fare in almost all Musar.--For Example, Sefer HaCharaidim, Reishit Chachma, the Shelah. If fact name me one book of Musar after that that does not depend on Kabalah? Only the books of the disciples of Israel Salanter himself.


Not that there is anything wrong with this Kabalah connection in itself. The Ari after all is good to learn when one is ready for it. But as a rule who learns Kabalah and is improved? No one that I have heard of except  Bava Sali and people that were anyway into "Avodat Hashem" in a way that the Kabalah just added a bit to the intensity.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Kabalah of the Ari I see as simply a continuation of the Neo Platonic approach of all Jewish Philosophy from Saadia Geon until Crescas and Abravenal. Not only that but I see him as building a bridge between the Neo Platic approach of  Jewish Philosophy and the Aristotelian Philosophy of the Rambam. This seems very good. What I object to are the cults that came afterwards. The Gra did well to excommunicate them.     Not because of false opinions or character. Though both are evident. Lying and fraud are like bread and water to them. Rather the Sitra Achra is their essence. But not just any Sitra Achra but a very specific kelipa.

_______________________________________________________________________

When I say the Ari was building a bridge I really mean the Reshash [that is Shalom Sharabi] the author of Nahar Shalom. Without his approach to the Ari, it is very hard to see any connection with Aristotle. The Ari at first glance seems totally Neo Platonic. It is only when you learn the Ari in connection with Shalom Sharabi that you can start to see how this approach incorporate Aristotle and the Rambam's Aristotelian philosophy along with it. If fact you see this clearly in the order of the worlds that the Reshash sets up after the revival of the dead. Right there he is switching from Plato's ideas to Aristotle's forms

a7 A Minor

You can't use science to prove the existence of God. The only two ways that I am aware of is the one I put on the top on my blog:  

 Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. 

The other way is by a proof called the Ontological proof. That is God has all possible perfections by definition. If he would lack existence he would lack one perfection. Therefore He exists. This was put into rigorous logical form by Godel.  I saw this once in Hebrew University and later someone put it on the internet.  This seems to be good but I prefer the basic idea of the First Cause. 

The basic question on the ontological proof was stated by Kant that existence is not a predicate. But we know that "is" is in fact a predicate. But what Kant means to ask is really that logic can not penetrate into unconditioned realities. He is asking a question based on his entire way of thinking--not just a minor observation. And we know that people after Kant have tried to bridge this gap. 

However I think this goes too far into theology. I do not want to assume characteristics of God. Nor did the Rambam. It was enough for him to borrow from Aristotle's First mover to get to the First Cause and that is enough for me. In fact, I would prefer not to assume any characteristics about God at all. I go in this way like the Book of Job. In that book the friends of Job said God is just and we can not understand his ways. The normal Shabat Table Judaism standard fare. But at the end  of that book God comes along and says the friends of Job were wrong. This same point was driven home by Schopenhauer who basing himself on Kant thought that God is the ding an sich--wild, delighting in being unpredictable, with no interest in being considered good. The Will. And the world is just an expression of the Will. 

The concept of חרם (or excommunication) is not well understood. People tend to this of it as an option whether to pay attention to it or not. But in fact it is a legitimate halachic category. It has a regular classification of an איסר נדר. That is if you say about a sheep or goat "הרי זה קרבן"["This is dedicated as a sacrifice in the Temple"] it gets a classification of being sanctified for the Temple in Jerusalem and one is not allowed to use it for any mundane purpose. It becomes a חפצא של אסיר an object that is forbidden to use. The idea of a חרם gets its validity from this same idea. You can see this in the laws of oaths in the Rambam. In the commentaries on the Rambam there is a debate whether a נידוי or חרם come from the category of איסר נדר or איסר שבועה. But there is no doubt that one that transgresses it is considered as if he transgressed a נדר או שבועה and that is a לאו דאורייתא (prohibition from the Torah itself).


When the Gra made a חרם he was not inventing a halachic category but using one that already existed. The reason he wrote elsewhere. The Gra held the teachings of hasidim are from the Sitra Achra and that its energies are fallen energies--miracles given to them like the miracles done by the Golden Calf. Miracles and powers of the Dark Side.


So why is it ignored. The institutions that would normally be following the Gra were infiltrated and taken over. That is Lithuanian yeshivas. [And this also explains what many people wonder about --why are Lithuanian yeshivas  corrupt? Well now you know.]

The answer to all of this is simple. To start paying attention to what the Gra said. It could not be more simple.

The only way now is to be for or against. There is no middle road. I though before I could find one but I see now that was a failing strategy.

r5  r4  q13 b101  j1  j2 

Sitra Achra A.K.A. The Dark Side

Some people and some groups are possibly wrapped up with the Dark Side.
There is not good reason to eliminate this possibility, while some problems might be in fact from world views gone astray or mental illness. It has been the tendency of the West to minimize or eliminate entirely the effects of the Dark Side in peoples'  lives and to deny its existence. 

The Gra would not have put that group into excommunication if he if not think that the Sitra Achra had not become mixed up with it in some kind of hidden way.


This is an important topic and I would like to at least explain my own approach. 
Mainly it goes like this: morality and holiness are tightly bonded. It is as simple as that.
Morality here means common sense morality. When you see a person that does not have that or a group, then they are part of the Sitra Achra.  

Common sense morality is what you would think based on the Ten Commandments. Do not steal or lie etc. Once a group is involved in some kind of fraud I assume there is more wrong with it than moral wrong.I also assume there is metaphysical evil inside of it.

There is no escape from a cult as a full person. After some time of being involved with it the brain becomes hardwired into that mode of thinking. Trying to escape simply means pulling out all the wires.

Especially if the leader was charismatic. Then one's whole personality becomes absorbed into that framework.
[What happens if you pull all the hardware out of your computer? It does not work anymore. Same here. This is why people hang on to false beliefs even after they know the beliefs are wrong.]

I do not mean to sound negative. After all one can change. But along with change in mental framework comes change in one's life situation.

People leave sometimes from  a cult and go into worse things.

My approach is to look at what I think was a proper framework while I was there [Yeshivat Mir in  NY.] and even though I can't be there right now, to at least try to be learning Torah and keeping Torah as much as possible in the most straight no nonsense fashion possible.

What is the way of Torah? To be honorable, truthful, trustworthy, capable, strong. It is to be the type of man you would want to be with you in a survival situation.  Not what cults are made from.Cults are about making people think they have all these virtues by means of serving their leader and the cult. Service to the leader is what makes a man a man in a cult. It is the opposite of Torah.

To escape from cults the best thing is to learn Jewish Philosophy of the Middle Ages. Philosophy has a drawback of not being able to postulate positive values but it does save from negative values.

To learn Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages however requires a bit of background. That is the Pre Socratics Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But there is also a need to supplement them with Post Middle Ages. And this part is hard. The idea of learning philosophy after the Middle Ages is on one hand dangerous because philosophy went off into post modern and other crazy directions. I had to do a lot of work to sift through it all and find the strands of  sense.
Briefly, after the Middle Ages philosophy got divided between England (the Empiricists) and Europe the Rationalists.  Kant came along and made a compromise. But his solution was unsatisfactory so the German idealist came along to continue the work of Kant. It is this strand of thought that is important as a supplement to Jewsih philosophy of the Middle Ages,

[Jewish though after the Middle Ages got off track into cults.]

Book on Bava Metzia   Book on Talmud




One idea I think to add is in Bava Kama on page 3a. The gemara at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrants 3 and 4 [אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים] and the 3rd part of the Gemara which brings both tooth and foot from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the Mahrasha says the reason for the last part of the Gemara is שקולים הם. Why question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the Gemara? Why is the first approach of the Gemara we don't say the same? In the first part of the Gemara we do not learn both foot and tooth from one verse --But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them.

________________________________________________________________________________


The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you roll the dice, you end up with the fact that the last part of the Gemara does not need four verses and the first part does need four. And between tooth and foot in the end of the Gemara we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש So no matter what you say for the end of the gemara you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three verses.



(1) The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you look at it, you end up with the fact that the last part of the גמרא does not need four פסוקים and the first part does need four. And between שן and רגל in the end of the גמרא we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש. So no matter what you say for the end of the גמרא you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three פסוקים.








__________________________________________________________________________________


בבא קמא ג' ע''א The גמרא at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrant שלישי  and רביעי אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים and the third part of the גמרא which brings both שן and רגל from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the מהרש''א says the reason for the last part of the גמרא is שקולים הם. My question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the גמרא? Why in the first approach of the גמרא we don't say the same? In the first part of the גמרא we do not learn both רגל and שן from one verse. But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them

בבא קמא ג' ע''א הגמרא בתחילה דורשת שני פסוקים נוספים להוסיף רביע שלישי ורביעי (אזלא ממילא ולא נאכל השרשים) ואת החלק השלישי של הגמרא מביאה  שן ורגל מפסוק אחד ואינה מחייבת פסוק נוסף כדי להוסיף את רביע האחרון. המהדורא בתרא של מהרש''א אומר כי הסיבה של חלק האחרון של הגמרא היא ששקולים הם. השאלה שלי היא למה לא אומרים את אותו הדבר עבור החלק הראשון של הגמרא? למה בגישה הראשונה של גמרא אנחנו לא אומרים את אותו הדבר?הגם שבחלקו הראשון של גמרא אינם לומדים שניהם רגל ושן מפסוק אחד. אבל אנחנו עושים השוואה ביניהם ואומרים שקיים היקש ביניהם.

The din Torah (court case) that Reb Nachman had with the Satan was that Reb Nachman would be able to present his advice to the world so people would have the benefit of his ideas-but that his inyan [his "thing"] would be surrounded by a kelipa [evil force] such that who so ever would come into it would be affected by a kelipa of insanity and ugly behavior.

My conclusion is that there really is no reason to be in Uman. It is not just the kelipa of insanity around the ziun itself. It is that it does not seem like the biggest deal in the first place. It does have the effect of getting people away from Gemara  and it does not seem worth it. It does not seem like one gets that much benefit from the whole thing or as much as one loses by dropping out of the yeshiva world. It might save from worse kelipot but besides that I don't know.


 It is not that Reb Nachman did not have some good ideas. Rather there is just too much cult  activity involved. And it seems to me that it entices people away from the straight Lithuanian yeshiva path . And from what I have seen over the years this is universal. No one ever becomes a better person from involvement with it. If anything I think it takes people from otherwise decent things they are doing and tends to degrade them. The ideas themselves of Reb Nachman I tend to think highly of but then people hear about them and get involved with Breslov and that changes them. I have tried to mention some of these issues to people but my impression is it is beyond redemption. 

Ideas in Bava Metzia updated  I wanted to add an answer there on a question on Shmuel that I had asked in my original booklet.

Ideas in Shas


My basic idea about learning Torah is that it is best done at home alone. Get yourself a Gemara and don't depend on there being a Beit Midrash. The problem with depending on some close by synagogue or such for learning is dealing with the kelipot [evil forces]. Unless you are in the area of an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva, the other options are mainly bad-cults or worse. Why bother? 

Torah is Monotheism

I do not seem to be able to get people on board with my idea of Torah being Monotheism. Most people have never heard of it. And the religious world is hopelessly pantheistic. I have no idea from where the problem stems from. Clearly the Gra tried his hand at getting Torah Judaism back in track but failed miserably. His excommunication was and is ignored even by his closest disciples.

No one wants to believe that the Gra knew what he was doing.

The only Institution that I know of that takes the Gra seriously is the yeshiva Aderet Eliyahu in the Old City of Jerusalem. But that place is more concerned with the general path of the Gra more that the issue of the basic world view of Torah.

Worship of tzadikim seems to have gone unnoticed as being a kind of idolatry. And Idolatry is supposed to be forbidden --or thus I thought.

There were people in the past that thought I had the ability to awaken others towards the authentic Torah. But it seems to me today that I missed the boat somehow.
The cults just grow and grow and the truth is just stomped on more and more.

The idea that Torah is Monotheism is basically expressed by Saadia Gaon and the Rambam and all the rishonim that wrote about the basic world view of Torah. Surprisingly enough the Ari agrees with this. The Ari does not attempt to change the world view of Torah in the slightest. But today these facts are ignored and distorted.

Without Torah one can not say that wrong is wrong. And without philosophy one can't say that a cult is  a cult. But the opposite is not true. With philosophy alone one can justify any wrong. With Torah one can justify any cult. Any set of delusions can be justified.

Thus I see the philosophers of the Middle Ages as providing an important function. The combining of Torah with philosophy allows one to say wrong is wrong and also to identify  cults that are disguised as legitimate Torah institutions.

So what I am suggesting is to learn Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol, the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, Abravenal (Isaac and Yehuda), Crescas and Joseph Albo with the same rigor and depth as one would do on Gemara Rshi and Tosphot. 

Virtue and knowledge are identical and thus in theory possible to teach. I would like to suggest a  three pronged approach. Musar, Hashkafa world view, outdoor survival skills.

The first idea in that of Israel Salanter. It deals mainly with study of the type of character traits the Torah requires of us. There is a promise of Isaac Blasser that by this study one is cured of physical and spiritual sickness.
The second deals with the study of what kind of world view the Torah has. That started mainly from Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol and included the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, and goes up until Joseph Albo, and Cresas. these were the major rigorous thinkers along these lines. The idea here is that the Torah is not an empty vessel that one can put any ideas into it that he wants. It has a specific world view. Agree with it or not, one has to know it. The problems that began with people putting their delusions into the Torah and dressing them up in verses has continued until this day and shows no sign of abating.
The third is outdoor skills. I am thinking of what the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts used to be doing. That is the idea of instilling good values by means of action, not just words. honor, loyalty, team work, hard work, cleanliness trustworthiness. etc

Lithuanian path

Can you teach virtue? This seems to be the basic idea of what we call "learning Torah." This is something that is dealt with in a Platonic dialogue. On one hand it seems it can't be taught. On the other hand Socrates thought virtue and knowledge are one. And so it can be taught. An at least we can see religions that teach evil and we can see that people in them in fact learn evil.

But this is a delicate question. On one hand you know what you will be learning if you go into electrical engineering or if you go to become a blacksmith or car repair man. This was the whole point of Socrates. Learning and teaching virtue is not the same thing. He concluded that he knew of no one that knew what virtue is or who could teach it. I am in a similar situation. The closest thing that I saw was the basic path of my parents. "Menschlichkeit" .
That is to the idea of striving to be  a whole and moral decent human. That is the Ten Commandments.

 A close approximation to this is the Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva path.

But the Lithuanian path has a kind of problem that I can't exactly put my finger on. But the problems seem to be the copycats that try to pretend they are real yeshivas but are certainly not learning the Holy Torah but bags of delusions.

The problem is simple. Cults. "Learning Torah" is just a code word for cults that are trying to get your children..

Virtue seems to be what you learn when you learn a vocation. But institutions that are supposed to be dealing with mental and spiritual health seem to be traps for the innocent. Psychiatrists's expertise seems to be in making people mentally ill, and religious organizations seem to excel in making sick, religious fanatics.

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a Tosphot "demain eved"

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a says when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The Gemara asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? Rav answered the money of  a slave. Shmuel said a slave in his garment. Tosphot asks on the opinion of Rav how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this {Ideas in Bava Metzia chs 8 and 9} I mentioned that this question of Tosphot does not like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia. Rather Tosphot is going like the Gemara in Bava Batra. I mean to say that Tosphot here is saying that Sumchus would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the Gemara in Bava Batra. But in the beginning of Bava Metzia the Gemara concludes that if Sumchus said his din in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what Tosphot was doing.  

So fine Tosphot then finds a way to show the case of Rav is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.

But then we get to Shmuel. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of Shmuel. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of Shmuel.

What I wanted to say today was simply that Shmuel is going like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia in which holds the opinion that Sumchus said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not.  That is to say that Rav and Shmuel are disagreeing about the opinion of Sumchus. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing Gemaras, one in Bava Metzia and the other in Bava Batra.

_______________________________________________________________________



The משנה in בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''אsays when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The גמרא asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? רב answered the money of  a slave. שמואל said a slave in his garment. תוספות asks on the opinion of רב how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this I mentioned that this question of תוספות is not like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא. Rather תוספות is going like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. I mean to say that תוספות here is saying that סומכוס would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. But in the beginning of בבא מציעא the גמרא concludes that if סומכוס said his דין in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what תוספות was doing.  

So fine תוספות then finds a way to show the case of רב is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.

But then we get to שמואל. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of שמואל. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of שמואל.

What I wanted to say today was simply that שמואל is going like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא in which holds the opinion that סומכוס said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not.  That is to say that רב and שמואל are disagreeing about the opinion of סומכוס. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing גמרות, one in בבא מציעא and the other in בבא בתרא.


) ב''מ ק: יש לשאול: שמואל צריך לעבור דרך כל ארבע בבות האלה של המשנה, היינו (1) ברי וברי, (2) שמא וברי, (3) ברי ושמא, (4) שמא ושמא. אז מה הוא עושה עם שמא ושמא? כסף לא נתחלף. רק שני גברים נכנסים לבית דין עם ספק על בגד עם חלק נוסף,- אם החלק הנוסף גם היה מוכל במחירה. איפה הדררא דממונא (כמו שתוספות ניסו למצוא תירוץ לרב)? תשאיר את החלק איפה שהוא. למה חולקים?

המשנה בבבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א אומרת כשיש  מוכר וקונה של עבד והם שניהם בטוחים על הטיעונים שלהם אז המוכר לוקח שבועה כי הוא מכר את העבד הקטן. כאשר הם לא בטוחים אז הם מחלקים את כסף שיש ספק בו. הגמרא שואלת אבל אנחנו לא נשבעים על עבדים? רב ענה דנים על שיווי הכספי של עבד. שמואל אמר עבד בבגדו. תוספות שואלים על חוות דעת של רב איך הם יכולים לחלק? זה לא דררא דממונא! שאלה זו של תוספות לא כמו הגמרא בתחילת בבא מציעא. במקום זה תוספות הולכים כמו הגמרא בבא בתרא בחזקת הבתים. אני מתכוון לומר כי תוספות כאן אומרים כי סומכוס לא הייה אומר לחלק אלא אם כן הוא מקרה של דררא דממונא. זה כמו הגמרא בבא בתרא. אבל בתחילה של בבא מציעא ב: הגמרא מסכמת שאם סומכוס אמר הדין שלו במקרה של דררא דממונא, אז על אחת כמה וכמה היה אומר את דינו כאשר המצב אינו דררא דממונא.   ואז תוספות מוצאים דרך להראות שהמקרה של  רב  הוא כן דררא דממונא. היינו שהיו עדים ששמעו את ההסכם וראו כסף הוחלף, אבל לא ראו כמה כסף הוחלף. אבל אז מגיעים לשמואל. שאלתי איפה הוא דררא דממונא במקרה של שמואל. אין כסף שהוחלף.  זה כל העניין של שמואל. מה שאני רוצה לומר  פשוט כי שמואל הוא הולך כמו הגמרא בתחילה בבא מציעא  המחזיקה בדעה שסומכוס אמר את הדין שלו בשני מקרים - אם יש דררא דממונא או שלא. כלומר רב  שמואל הם חולקים על דעתו של סומכוס. חילוקי דעות אלה משתקפים בשתי גמרות אלה המנוגדות, אחת בבבא מציעא והשניה בבבא בתרא

_________________________________________________________________________________

There are still problems. Problem 1: In my notes I mention that the gemara here is depending on the gemara on page 97. This brings to mind the fact that even the gemara there is problematic. The Gemara there suggests perhaps the reason for the mishna is because certainty and doubt certainty is better.  But the amazing question is that certainty and doubt certainty wins the case with no oath and the mishna says on 97 and also page 100 certainty wins with an oath! That is not the same thing!
Another stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] Or was I referring to the debate if Sumchus said his law in the case of both  certainly and doubt or just one on page 100a?
In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.

I would like to recommend the general path of the Gra of straight Torah. But I see that for some reason the Gra was ignored then and now. If not for the idolatry aspects of the group that he excommunicated it would be enough the sexual child abuse that almost every child undergoes in their institutions. Why this is still ignored today is a mystery to me.

This is always swept up and covered but it is  areal phenomenon. The arrests and police records are public for anyone who wants to investigate.

Male bees mate once with the queen and die within seconds of mating. The semen goes into the queen bee with explosive force. [You can hear it if you are standing nearby.] The penis and associated abdominal tissue is left inside the queen. What a way to go!



That is their whole function. They do not do a drop of work but sit around all say watching TV or supposedly learning Torah when in fact they are simply talking and chatting.
My feeling is that humans are not very far from this paradigm.
I am some sympathy for men as I am one myself. There is some kind of paradigm shift going on.

There are still talented men. But as a rule it is the females nowadays that are reliable to get a job done not the men.

Thus even though girls are not allowed to learn Talmud, still Jewish Philosophy I think should be top priority for them. Because they need awareness of what the Torah actually holds and not listen to the idiotic men who simply don't know but think they know. [A short list: That means Saadia Gaon's [אמונות ודעות, מורה נבוכים, אברבנל, יוסף אלבו, קרסקס, אבן גבירול]

WHAT should I say?
—Since Faith is dead,
And Truth away
From you is fled?
Should I be led
With doubleness?
Nay! nay! mistress.

I promised you,
And you promised me,
To be as true
As I would be.
But since I see
Your double heart,
Farewell my part!

Thought for to take
‘Tis not my mind;
But to forsake
One so unkind;
And as I find
So will I trust.
Farewell, unjust!

Can ye say nay
But that you said
That I alway
Should be obeyed?
And—thus betrayed
Or that I wist!
Farewell, unkist!

Sir Thomas Wyatt, d. 1524

r6 i1 i3 i6 i8 i15  i20  l26   CHS Some of these might need editing but I think there are probably Ok for right now. e8  e72 e71

There are Americans that want a return to the 1950's. This is admirable.

The reason is that the USA then was in fact a highly moral, wholesome, and decent society. These are the people that are interested in voting for Trump. That is because they think that will go either in the direction of correcting the fall of the USA into moral depravity, or will stop the fall, or perhaps even reverse it.

My own feelings about this are based on the Talmud. That is a few things stand out when you learn Talmud. One is private property. It is impossible to read any page in the three "bavas" that does not hammer in this point. [Bava Kama Bava Metzia Bava Batra]. The other thing is family values. And simply learning Ketubot of any part of Seder Nashim drives this point in.

I know there are lot so people that are against family values and against private property. That is they whole Democratic party. But I believe that is only because they never learned Torah.

The danger is the Democrats  are geared towards getting legal and illegal votes. Thy are galvanized on election day. The reason is nothing matters to them but raw power. Republicans are just not all they much concerned.

In Maimonides (note 1), I found the idea of learning Physics and Metaphysics as being a kind of service towards God that  is even higher than learning Torah. But by the time I discovered this, I was not able to spend as much time on either subject that would be required to gain any high level of competence. So I started learning, simple by the idea brought in Tractate Shabat page 63: "In learning one should say the words in order and go, on even though he forgets, and even though he does not understand what he is learning." See the Musar book אורחות צדיקים that goes into this idea at great length.

(Note 1) The place to see this in the Rambam/Maimonides is the the "parable about the country of the King" in the Guide, the introduction to the Guide, last two laws in chapter four of the Mishne Torah, and chapter three of Laws of learning Torah.

In the above mentioned parable the Rambam puts scientists and philosophers closer to God than people that know and keep the whole Torah perfectly. In the beginning of Mishna Torah, he says the first four chapters [which are Physics and Metaphysics] deal with ideas that are called "Pardes." Then in Laws of Talmud Torah he says One should divide one's day into three parts. The Written Law, the Oral Law and the Gemara, "and the subject called Pardes is in the category of Gemara."

[Just for clarity-I am not saying to do this all the time. Rather to divide one's time between the Oral and Written law and also Physics and Metaphysics, and survival skills. Metaphysics in the language of the Rambam means 13 books of Aristotle named The Metaphysics. It is statements of the Rambam that refer to Aristotle in a highly complementary way in his commentary of the Mishna which caused it to not be learned. Have you ever seen a Mishna with just the commentary of the Rambam? Of course not. And now you know why.]



ברמב''ם, מצאתי את הרעיון ללמוד פיסיקה מטפיסיקה כסוג של שירות כלפי אלוהים כי הוא אפילו גבוה יותר מאשר לימוד תורה וקיום המצוות. אבל עד גיליתי את זה, לא הייתי מסוגל לבלות כמה שיותר זמן על הנושא שיידרש כדי להשיג  יכולת גבוהה. אז התחלתי ללמוד, פשוט מעצם הרעיון שהובא במסכת שבת ס''ג ע''א בלימוד, אחד צריך רק לומר את המילים  וללכת להלן  אף שהוא שוכח ואף על פי שהוא אינו מבין מה הוא לומד. ראה בספר המוסר אורחות צדיקים.
.לעולם לגרס אדם אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר
המקום כדי לראות את זה רמב''ם הוא המשל על המדינה של המלך של המורה הנבוכים, שני הלכות האחרונות בפרק ארבעה של המשנה התורה חלק א' , ובפרק ג' הלכות לימוד תורה. במשל הנזכר לעיל רמב''ם מעמיד מדענים ופילוסופים קרוב יותר לאלוהים מאשר אנשים שיודעים לשמור על התורה כולה באופן מושלם. בתחילת משנה תורה, הוא אומר ארבעת הפרקים הראשונים שהם ענינים של פיזיקה ומטפיסיקה נקראים פרדס . ואז בהלכות תלמוד תורה הוא אומר אחד צריך לחלק את היום לשלושה חלקים. חלק אחד ללמודהתורה שבכתב, ואז התורה שבעל פה וחלק אחד ואת הגמרא,  "והנושא שנקרא הפרדס היא בקטגוריה של גמרא"


Ultimately most people are not interested in the hard parts of Physics nor Aristotle's Metaphysics. The Rambam here is giving a motivation--that it brings to two major goals of Torah Love and Fear of God when one sees and understands the wisdom of God in his Creation. But there is another motivation also. Most people do want to understand the world they live in. This maybe is not high on their list of things to do every day but it is is  a fundamental need. And this is also I think a good motivation to learn Physics and Metaphysics.

To some degree our own souls and the souls of others are hidden. But there is a surprisingly easy way of seeing the state of any person's soul. See what they talk about when they are relaxing among friends.  If they are not on guard but just relaxing and chatting their essence, their inner desires because expressed in words.  And you can see the same for groups. When you walk into the place where they gather either to learn or talk, what do they talk about? This shows their inner state. Then you can see if their noble flowery words about what they do and think match the true reality.

 If their conversation is all about how to get secular Jews to give them money and what is wrong with secular Jews then you know you are not dealing with an elevated spiritual community. Even if they insist on how spiritual they are, you already have a guarantee measuring stick. You can see if the claims are the same as the facts. You can see if they are just some cult around a leader, or if they are into Torah. You can see if they are building a cult based on the lie that they are all about Torah while in fact building their power base.

For this reason I have suggested that people learn only in Litvak yeshivas because only in such places have I seen the words match the facts.  

A good deal of the problems involved with worship of tzadikim involves the problem of delusion.
Idolatry also is a problem from the standpoint of the Torah. And especially since they are in the category of מסית ומדיח, people that entice others to worship their false gods]

That is we don't know whether that particular tzadik has real revelations of if his revelations are delusions. And on the same hand he might very well have delusions and yet be very charismatic.

And the emotional appeal might be great while at the same time have zero validity objectively.
 It is hard to separate these variables.
And when they are trying to make converts they don't say they worship the tzadik.
On the contrary they will emphatically deny it.


The secrets are  only for the initiated.


A good deal of the difficulties is because of numinous reality. And numinous reality is has potent emotional appeal and it sometimes is from the realm of holiness and sometimes from the realm of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sometimes it is simply delusions. The trouble with pseudo tzadikim is that delusions are allergic. People pick them up from their delusional leader.


Where does this problem come from? To me it seems clear that the people that were able to see the problem decided instead to be silent or acquiesce. Rav Shach was the only one who saw clearly and he was ignored and still is. [Along with the Gra.] Now some people have taken the Gra seriously. That is the Zilverman's in the Old City. But they are a small  minority. Some people take Rav Shach seriously, but that is only in Ponovitch. Outside of these places I have never heard of anyone that considers worship of tzadikim to be  a problem.


And why is this that they were silent? It was because their expertise was not in Jewish philosophy. People like Reb Shmuel Berenbaum thought of themselves as too small to deal with השקפה issues. Most had never even read the major works of Jewish Philosophy like Ibn Gavirol,  the Guide, or Joseph Albo. [For this reason I made it a point to get some background in the Guide and Saadia Gaon and basic world view ideas of the Geonim and Rishonim. Their world view is very unlike  you could imagine.]

And there is no indication that anyone after the Ari was anything within light years of the Ari. They have emotional appeal, but nothing as far as objective reality goes.


In any case we have a whole set of problems that have not been addressed very well. The nature of delusions, the nature of pseudo tzadikim, and the urge to worship pseudo tzadikim. The best I could do to get anywhere in this was to study different groups like Hindu cults and hope that that would give me some insight. As far as I got, still did not seem to matter much. No one in any case was really willing to listen. In any case, because these issues are not resolved,the best thing is to get the basic set of medieval thought, the Guide of the Rambam, Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot, Abravenal, Joseph Albo, Crescas and get a decent idea of what Torah teaches in terms of world view. [It is not worship of tzadikim for one thing. But there is  a lot more to it.]

See Steven Hassan Escape from Cults

Bait and Switch is what he identifies as the major cult characteristic and this in fact seems to be the case. The hiding of the actual beliefs. First draw people in by seeming Kosher and then switching.
As for my own study of cults I found Steven Hassan helpful.

There is a simple test for cults. There is an objective change in character that can be seen.
When one joins a group like a Lithuanian yeshiva the change in "Midot" [Character traits for the better is obvious to all.] When on the other hand one joins a cult the change in character is also obvious. Who can's see how people's traits change for the better when they join a place like the Mir or Chaim Berlin? And places and groups that worship some tzadik. The deterioration in character is clear even to people in the group and takes effect almost immediately. And this has nothing to do with what you think of the tzadik. For all you know the tzadik might very well be a true tzadik. Still the effect on people's character is unmistakable. It is not necessarily that they become bad people. But their character changes towards something ugly. Some undefinable ugliness takes over their personality. Or in other groups some strange kind of cruelty and sadism  enters into their souls.

I should mention I did a lot of reading on this but I do not feel comfortable in going into detail about the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I would hope that my warnings here should be enough.

In any case this is no more  a matter of discussion. Once the idolatry became clear it should have been time for action--decisive action.