Islam is at war with the West.

Islam is at war with the West.
To deny that fact will not win the war.

A war is not won until the enemy, the loser, knows that he’s been beaten, that he has absolutely no chance in Hell of prevailing and that any further resistance will not only not lead to any sort of future possible, fantasy land victory, it will also lead to further horrors, humiliations and pointless suffering. If you leave as much as a shred of a hope that there is a future possibility of turning the table around, then you haven’t won. You’ve just gained a truce.

It’s as simple as that.

WWII as the last war this country [the USA] actually fought like we meant it is a great example. Germany knew they’d been beaten. Not because they’d lost a bunch of battles and the allied troops were marching at will through Germany itself, but because Germany had thrown everything, EVERYTHING they had at the allies for 6 long years and it hadn’t changed the outcome. Nothing Germany could produce had been able to stop that, and Germany was way ahead in everything technologically, they’d thrown every available German into the grinder down to pre-teens and septuagenarians, they were united as very few, if any, countries had ever been before, and they still couldn’t stop it.

Japan had watched two major cities get obliterated in as many days and, for all that they knew, we could keep on obliterating all of their cities in the same way until there was nothing left.

THOSE are the factors that ended those wars decisively, not any number of won battles, no matter how decisively any of them were won.

What won those wars was the simple message that “we have destroyed/killed x% of you. We can keep on doing so until that x reaches 100, and there isn’t a single thing you can do about it. And unless you surrender, UNCONDITIONALLY, we WILL do so.”

That is the only message that wins wars and makes them stay won.

More on Japan specifically:

Unconditional surrender was not particularly popular among some Allied leaders, especially Churchill and several notable American generals such as Eisenhower. It was heavily debated throughout the conflict, and still remains one of the most controversial policies of the war. Steven Casey in Cautious Crusade has a whole chapter dedicated to the politics of unconditional surrender, and notes that historians have long debated over FDR’s motives and the effects. Generally, it’s believed that his fear was that if militant entities and institutions were allowed to remain postwar, future conflict would be inevitable, invoking the memory of the 1918 armistice with Germany. FDR himself explained, “unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy, and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other people.” (Casey, 118). The Allies would avoid any uncertainty, decisively and completely winning the war, or it would keep fighting. It has been asserted that the move was also to keep Stalin from attaining any negotiated peace during a time when the US had yet to open a second front and casualties on the Eastern front were extreme (the announcement had taken place merely a few days after the conclusion of the Battle of Stalingrad). Truman, taking office in April 1945, believed that to go back on the demand of unconditional surrender would be a sign of weakness both to the American people and to the Japanese government, providing fuel for those who wished to continue the war. Critics believe unconditional surrender was a significant boost to Axis propaganda, leading them to fight more fanatically, and lengthened the duration of the war both in the European and Pacific theaters. Upon hearing of it, Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels exclaimed, “I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan.” (Fleming, Written in Blood)

The means for which this surrender was to be achieved was total war – the complete mobilization of a nation’s resources, including the conversion of its industry and drafting of citizens. The intention is not to just destroy the enemy military forces, but also to destroy their ability to make war. This leads to an incredibly blurred line between combatants and civilians. For instance, in order to destroy Japan’s ability to make war, factories in densely populated urban centers were targeted. By extension, civilians in industrial areas could themselves even be viewed as “legitimate” targets. By the end of the war, cities were being routinely bombed into submission in an effort to break the will of the government and people to fight.

Hasegawa notes that the use of the bomb was the best possible outcome to Truman, solving the problem of unconditional surrender, invasion, and Soviet interference. For the Japanese, news of the bomb led to complete disarray. Asada states that many in the army and Japan’s R&D board denied that an atomic bomb had been used, or even that it was possible that one could have been developed so soon. Information from Hiroshima was limited, as the infrastructure had already been significantly damaged even before the 6th. However, both Asada and Hasegawa note that by that evening, and certainly by the following day, little doubt remained. Asada argues that acceptance of American technological superiority helped the army “save face” and “smoothed their acceptance of surrender” – a minister tried to persuade the military by pleading, “if we say we lost a scientific war, the people will understand” (Asada, 197).

On August 9th, the USSR declared war on Japan and Soviet armor poured into Manchuria. Coupled with the use of the atomic bomb, this utterly crippled the hope of continuing the war effort. Though Japanese forces mounted a strong defense, they were quickly pushed back. Yet, the supreme council still held on to hope that it could negotiate with the Soviets, refusing to officially declare war. Though the Prime Minister and other civilian leaders now openly declared that Japan should surrender, military leaders wished to continue the fight. Even after the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th, the supreme council still tried to push for maintaining the position of Emperor, and there was a 3-3 split for three other conditions: war criminal trials would be conducted by the Japanese, self-disarmament, and that occupation (particularly of Tokyo) should be avoided or limited wherever possible. (Hasegawa 204, Frank 291). The short span of time between bombings as well as Allied threats were made to give the impression that the US already had a stockpile of the weapons when in actuality it only had the two. A third would have come “sometime after August 19, and then the fourth bomb in the beginning of September,” (Hasegawa 298). It was only until the morning of the 10th that the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams saying it would accept the Potsdam Declaration and unconditional surrender after Hirohito himself demanded the war’s end. Even then, there was an attempted coup by a segment of the military leadership, which invaded the imperial palace and nearly killed the Prime Minister, as well as other senior officials. On August 15, the emperor officially announced the surrender worldwide. Many pockets of Japanese soldiers still continued to fight, and many military officers chose suicide over surrender. By 1947, a new constitution was written, and while the emperor was maintained as ceremonial figurehead, the Empire of Japan was formally dissolved.

Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more “direct” impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank’s account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis.

It’s worth noting that the term “unconditional surrender” originated after the battle for Fort Donelson with Grant’s subordinates Andrew Foote* (“No sir, your surrender will be unconditional!”) and CF Smith (“I’ll make no terms with rebels with arms in their hands — my terms are unconditional and immediate surrender!” and, more famously, “No terms to the damned Rebels!”). The total-war idea came to full deadly fruition later with Sherman, of course.

What’s most interesting to me about it all, though, is how Grant and Sherman are almost universally revered and lionized as American heroes now, while modern-era “hard war” men like Curtis LeMay are regarded by many as somehow monstrous, executors not so much of victory as of atrocity. Is that a function of the unique horror of nuclear weapons, or of merely being farther removed in time? Does it maybe say more about us than it does about them?

Either way, in light of our ongoing (and so far unsuccessful) struggle with Islam–a perhaps even more fanatical and dedicated foe than Imperial Japan–it’s all worth thinking about very damned carefully, I’d say.

The way Muslims take over. It is by this combination of diverse tactics. Seeming nice when in small number. Then they are liked. Then when the number grows to about 20%, then the things change. There are attacks. It is a long story. But I have looked at the history of Muslims takeovers in the Middle East and Asia and Europe and it always follows a fixed tried and true pattern that never has failed even once.

Straight forward armed invasions have often proved non effective. The best method is this pattern of softening up the population before the actual attacks begin. 

Emphasis on the prohibition of  Lashon HaRa (slander) is amazingly great. I only wish I had been more careful about this myself. In fact, everyone that I ever knew that had success in Torah learning were always extremely careful about this. In fact, I would say that success in understanding and keeping Torah always seemed to depend on carefulness in Lashon Hara, and not at all in intellect. 

I saw very smart people that did not get very far in learning, and simultaneously they also were not careful about Lashon Hara. 

I also saw people not so smart, but that learned and understood Shas [Talmud] very well, and it always turned out those were the guys that were careful about Lashon HaRa. 

But for myself I should mention that warning people about bad groups in not in the category of Lashon Hara. Still I wish I had spend more time on the Chafetz Chaim. 
Maybe things would have been better if I had. 

For the general public let me just give some background. Slander has its own verse in the Torah. But there are plenty of other verses that are applicable to it. The actual verse is לא תלך רכיל בעמיך "Thou shalt not walk around as a tale bearer among your people." Leviticus.

Rav Freifeld (informally known as Reb Shelomo)[the founder of Shar Yashuv] in NY was always telling me and anyone else that would listen to do review ten times. This put me in a real dilemma which has continued until this very day. I want and need to make progress. But understanding often only comes after ten times of review.
So what I tried to do was in some areas to do the ten times review idea.  This was both in Far Rockaway [where Rav Freifeld's  yeshiva was. I recall doing chapter 5 of Ketubot a lot of times. I do not recall if it was ten altogether. When later I got to the Mir in NY, I remember doing every Mahrasha and Pnei Yehoshua either ten or more times. I put a dot next to the paragraph to show every time I finished it. But the afternoon sessions were anyway for going fast and that it when I tried to plow through Shas with just Gemara, Rashi, and some Tosphot.

There is a lot to go into about this. But in short I have always felt this tension pulling me in opposite directions. On one hand to stay on the page until everything is clear and understood or to go on and depend that on the second and third time around it will become clear.

What I wanted to say was basically that every rosh yeshiva I ever knew and the good learning partners I had were always into the "Stay on it until it is clear." Maybe that is why they are rosh yeshivas and I am a bum.

The learning partner I had  recently was even more into staying on it until every word is clear more than anyone I every knew.

So my conclusion is this: What I think I smart people are more into the stay on it until you get it. That is the reason they can stay on it until they get it. But for me this sometimes does not work. Often it happens that no matter how long I stay on something I just do not get it. So what I think is what you find in Lithuanian types of yeshivas is the right thing. The morning's should be for "stay on it until you get it."  The afternoon should be for "Girsa," say the words and go on.

I have never heard of any Litvak yeshiva that did not learn in that way and I think the reason is the Roshei yeshiva in Europe discovered that this was the most effective way.

On a side note: Shar Yeshuv is  a very good yeshiva. I have said this before but let me repeat. Even though it starts at the beginning level it goes up to a very high level very quickly. The present day Rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager is probably one of the greatest Torah scholars I have ever known and certainly is no less than the roshei Yeshiva of the Mir in NY.

r15 [r15 in midi] r3 [r3 in midi]  q100 [q100 in midi] q10 [q10 in midi]  q96 e flat major  [q96 in F major in midi] [q96 in E flat major]  mathematics [mathematics in midi]  q60 [q60 in midi]  q6  [q6 in midi]

q96 in e flat and q96 in f are two different pieces--not just the same piece in a different key

In some cases people who disagree with the traditional monotheism of Torah will attempt to redirect it into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely. Hasidim are a good example.

After reading some  nonsense, you have probably asked yourself; "How could anyone in his right mind believe that?" There is an answer to your question. In. fact, the person who believes the nonsense will usually provide the answer himself if you give him half a chance. Go to the source. Read the believer's account of how he came to believe. He will probably give a clear enough description that you can see where he went wrong. 

Usually they build on some preexisting system.


A lot of people  misunderstand the Torah and stress trivial issues, ignore or downplay significant ones, or garble concepts because they find certain concepts in the the Torah not to their taste or mode of thinking. 


In some cases people who disagree with the traditional monotheism of  Torah  will attempt to redirect it into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely. The cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on are a good example.
They changed the Torah to make it more tasty. But it says about the incense "if one had added honey to it no one would have been able to resist it. So why did they not add honey? because the Torah say all leaven and all honey thou shalt not add to it." [I hear once someone say a slight twist on this. "Why did they not add honey to it? Because the Torah says. Period."]




Some adhere to the Torah out of inertia. They feel a need for some kind of spiritual activity, and the Torah is the best (or only) game in town.


Many  adhere to the Torah for social acceptance. They  like participating in special occasions, or may value it as a symbol of national or group identity

Once Torah becomes really established, the Torah itself can be a route to power, prestige, and privilege. Not only do some people adhere to the Torah for cynical reasons, they are entrenched at its very center. They are the leaders.

I support Trump because from the standpoint of policy. That is,- I know there is a lot of ad hominem arguments that are attacking the character of people that support him. But I am looking at this more from the context of the Constitution of the USA and the job of the chief executive to uphold and support that Constitution.

I might try to go into this in more detail but for right now let me just say that I think the Constitution has been ripped to shreds by the present government.

I do not do a lot of thinking about government. So off hand it would be hard to write a whole essay.
I did a good deal of reading about government over the years. Especially Plato, Aristotle, Locke Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Arendt. I noticed in practice that the USA had become an amazingly hostile place for the white male. That it is was hostile towards white people and hostile towards males. So when you put both together you get (hostility)^2. Add to that hostility towards working people and hostility towards private property and it seemed to me that the USA had changed from the amazingly wholesome moral decent society that I had once knew to become a mocker of its former self. So when Trump comes along to bring back the older order I am impressed.

I know this is not an argument. But it would take some thinking on my part to form a decent argument for Trump.  Maybe I should do some thinking in that direction. As background let me say I am somewhat familiar with communist systems and in fact many other systems that people live under and I have not seen anything that compares even remotely to the Constitution of the USA.

The problem of Halacha [Jewish Law].

I want a Yeshiva Bachur that knows how to learn.

 Halacha does not cover everything or even the most important parts of Torah. There is for example the חובות לבבות Duties of the Heart whose whole premise is that obligations of the heart are also obligations.
The Guide for the Perplexed and all the books of the Rishonim that deal with world view issues  consider world view issue to be in the category of obligation, moral obligation.

There is also the nightmarish world of people that think they are keeping halacha, but are animals. Clearly Halacha is not covering as much as it should. Obligations of the Torah go way beyond Halacah, and in fact the balance of weight is on the side of things not considered in the realm of halacha. Midot. Character.

These are just a few points I wrote down quickly in order not to forget some of the basic issues. But each point should be examined and expanded. Also I forgot to mention  that people have in daily practice only a few guiding principles [a mental model]. So when the emphasis is on halacah, the tendency will be to forget the things that the Torah requires that are way more important than halacah.

Also I do not want to forget the Reshash {Shalom Sharabi} and the Chafetz Chaim.

Where to start? First the Chafetz Chaim. In the book Shemirat Halashon ([שמירת הלשון] which is the sister book of the Chafetz Chaim--the Musar book meant to encourage people not to slander) the Chafetz Chaim says the verse והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו (to walk in His ways and to keep his mitzvot) should be understood as meaning order of precedence. [That is to walk in His ways comes before keeping mitzvot.] The meaning  of walking in his ways is  "What is he? Compassionate. So you should be compassionate. What is he? Merciful. So you should be merciful." That is, the whole range of good character.

The Reshash {Shalon Sharabi} brings from the Zohar in the Nahar Shalom that the mitvot are the clothing of one's soul. The Torah one learns is the food and drink of the soul. Then he asks, "So what is the soul?" He answers it is one character (Midot). And he says there that a lack in Torah and miztvot can always be corrected. But a lack in ones character can never be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The problem of הלכה. I wanted to deal with this issue based on a few things.

One is the obvious problem that הלכה does not cover everything. There is for example the חובות לבבות  whose whole premise is that obligations of the heart are also obligations.
The מורה נבוכים and the books of  סעדיה גאון, הרמב''ם וראשונים that deal with השקפה obviously consider world view issues to be in the category of obligation, moral obligation.

There is also the nightmarish world of people that think they are keeping הלכה, but are animals. Clearly הלכה is not covering as much as it should. Obligations of the תורה go way beyond הלכה, and in fact the balance of weight is on the side of things not considered in the realm of הלכה היינו מידות.

These are just a few points I wrote down quickly in order not to forget some of the basic issues. But each point should be examined and expanded. Also I forgot to mention שטרנמן  brings the idea that people have in daily practice only a few guiding principles. So when the emphasis is on הלכה, the tendency will be to forget the things that the תורה requires that are way more important than הלכה.

Also I do not want to forget the רש''ש רב שלום שרעבי and the חפץ חיים

Where to start? First the חפץ חיים. In the book שמירת הלשון which is the sister book of the חפץ חיים the חפץ חיים says the verse והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו  should be understood as meaning order of precedence. That is to walk in His ways comes before keeping מצוות. The meaning  of walking in his ways is  "What is he? רחום. So you should be רחום. What is he? חנון. So you should be חנון. That is, the whole range of good מידות.

The רש''ש רב שלום שרעבי brings from the זוהר in the נהר שלום that the מצוות are the clothing of one's soul. The Torah one learns is the food and drink of the soul. Then he asks, "So what is the soul?" He answers it is one's מידות. And he says there that a lack in תורה and מצוות can always be corrected. But a lack in ones מידות can never be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________________________

הבעיה של הלכה. בעיה זו מבוססת על כמה דברים. האחד הוא הבעיה הברורה כי הלכה אינה מכסה את הכל. יש למשל את חובות הלבבות אשר ההנחה כולה היא כי חובות של הלב הם גם חובות. המורה הנבוכים  והספרים של סעדיה גאון, הרמב''ם והראשונים   שוקלים השקפת עולם להיות בקטגוריה של חובה, חובה מוסרית. יש גם העולם המסויט של אנשים שחושבים שהם שומרים הלכה, אבל הם חיות. ברור שהלכה אינה מכסה ככל שצריך. חובותיהם של התורה הולכות הרבה מעבר להלכה, ולמעשה יתרת המשקל היא בצד של דברים שלא נחשבו בתחום הלכה היינו מידות. אלו הן רק כמה נקודות רשמתי במהירות כדי שלא לשכוח חלק מסוגיות היסוד. אבל כל נקודה יש לבחון ולהרחיב. כמו כן שכחתי להזכיר שטרנמן שמביא את הרעיון שיש אנשים בפרקטיקה יומיומית רק כמה עקרונות מנחים. לכן, כאשר הדגש הוא על הלכה, הנטייה תהיה לשכוח את הדברים  שתורה דורשת כי הם הרבה יותר חשובים מאשר הלכה. כמו כן אני לא רוצה לשכוח את הרש''ש (רב שלום שהרעבי) ואת החפץ חיים. איפה להתחיל? תחילה החפץ חיים. בספר  שמירת הלשון  (שהוא הספר האחות של חפץ חיים) חפץ חיים אומר הפסוק והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו צריך להיות מובן שיש סדר עדיפות. כלומר ללכת בדרכיו מגיעה לפני שמירת מצוות. המשמעות של הליכה בדרכיו היא "מה הוא? רחום. אז אתה צריך להיות רחום. מה הוא? חנון. אז אתה צריך להיות חנון. כלומר, המגוון השלם של  מידות טובות. הרש''ש (רב שלום שרעבי) מביא מן הזוהר  בתוך הנהר שלום  כי מצוות הן הבגדים של נשמת האדם. התורה שלומד הוא האוכל והשתייה של הנשמה. ואז הוא שואל, "אז מה היא הנשמה?" הוא עונה שזאת  המידות . והוא אומר שם כי חוסר בתורה ואת מצוות יכול תמיד להיות מתוקן. אבל חוסר במידות לא ניתן לתקן

 There is a definite set of books that is the actual Oral Law. The two Talmuds, Sifra, Sifrei, Tosephta, and the Midrash. That is the actual books handed down to us by the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud. There is not one straightforward Halacha book without arguments among them. Not one. What the Rif and Rambam did was to try to derive the halacha from the Oral Law.

And the Rambam wrote in his letters "כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. Just like you can not add or subtract to the written Law, so you can't add or subtract from the Oral Law.

But regardless of that, the Sages definitely had an idea of a final pesak halacha. But why there was no book written that contained it is beyond me.

So we have first order Oral Law. The actual books given to us by Chazal [the sages]. Then there is second order Oral Law--the books of the Rishonim that derive halacha and Musar and world view issues from the first order Oral Law.

In a practical vein what this means is to learn the Oral Law one ought to learn the actual Oral Law. Derivatives of it are good, but not the same thing as the thing in itself.

Talmud Sanhedrin 61b. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The Gemara asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of quadrant II is forbidden? [That is idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.] As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for quadrant II then quadrant II would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of quadrant II, Then all quadrant II would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the Gemara asks if we would learn from bowing then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for quadrant II then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the teaching that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious. This might not seem like a big deal but to me making all three עבודת פנים to be only לאוים seems curious.


Appendix: The actual teaching goes like this: We use "How do they serve" {Deuteronomy 16}to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use "And so not sacrifice to them" to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to God. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. Do not bow comes for itself. Rashi says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our Gemara does not agree with Rashi because our Gemara treats bowing as a כרת.

___________________________________________________________________

 The actual teaching goes like this. We use איכה יעבדו  to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use זובח לאלהים יחרם  to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to an idol. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. לא תשתחווה comes for itself. רש''י says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our גמרא does not agree with רש''י because our גמרא considers bowing as a כרת



______________________________________________________________________________

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The גמרא asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of the second quadrant  is forbidden?  Idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.  As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for the second quadrant  then the second quadrant  would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of the second quadrant, then all the second quadrant  would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the גמרא asks if we would learn from לא תשתחווה then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for  the second quadrant  then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the Braita that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious.

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. הגמרא שואלת למה אנחנו לא לומדים שכל רביע השני אסור מהשתחוויה? (עבודה זרה לא על פי דרכה הרגילה אבל בדרך של כבוד). כפי הדברים הם משתמשים עם השתחוויה עבור "ללאו אצאת." אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור רביע השני אז רביע השני יהיה אסור רק  על ידי לאו ולא כרת. אבל ברורה התשובה לשאלה זו. הסיבה היחידה שאנחנו אומרים ההשתחוויה  ללאו יצאת היא כי לא היה משהו אחר לעשות עם זו. אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור כל רביע השני, אז כל רביע השני יהיה כרת. אז למה להזכיר את זה? כי עכשיו השאלה חזקה יותר עולה. כאשר הגמרא שואלת אם היינו לומדים עם לא תשתחווה אז מה היה "איכה יעבדו" אומר? למה אנחנו לא שואלים: אם היינו משתמשים עם "לא תשתחחוה" עבור ברביע השני, אז מה היה זביחה בא לספר לנו? והתשובה תצטרך להיות בדיוק כמו הזביחה: יצאת ללאו. זה היה בסופו של דבר כלומר כל שלוש עבודות פנים היו רק להיות לאוים ולא כרת.

the importance of learning Mediaeval books of Ethics

So we can defend Musar [that is the importance of learning Mediaeval books of Ethics] According to my last blog entry because it shows the underlying meaning of the Oral and Written Law. Plus it gives a good idea of the actual world view of Torah without distorting it to promote some agenda.

There are other reasons and I am not sure this minute how to state them.

I need I think a bouncing board like when you play tennis by yourself you have something to knock the balls against back to you.

The bouncing board I want to use is the book Plato not Prozac.

In the first chapters, Lou Marinoff, (the president of the American Philosophical Practitioners Association)  mercilessly attacks, for good reason, the dominating establishment of psychiatric therapy and counseling -- its premises, views and accomplishments. He rightly believes that this pseudo-scientific occupation has no reasonable credibility left for anyone, not even its self-serving practitioners who have become so influential in our society.

But his answer of paying for philosophical counseling seems to be exact thing that Socrates was complains about with the sophists.

But a dubious trivialization of Torah to use it in the same way or as a substitute for psychology has disturbing resemblance to modern day cults.

So what I suggest is this idea that became the modern day Lithuanian yeshiva. In spite of the problems you have with all institutions there are some institutions that have an overall good effect. The fact that by the Bell Curve most of them will be mediocre does not provide an argument against any institution.You have rather to look at the basic values and see if they correspond to Reason--that is objective morality.

Philosophy in the way mentioned by Plato not Prozac is not a good approach. But still the author has a very good idea about the fact that philosophy helps to bring to truth by  helping us separate fiction from non fiction. The approach which I think is best would combine Musar [Ethics] with the Philosophy of the Middle Ages [like the Guide of the Rambam of the book of Saadia Gaon the אמונות ודעות, Cresca, Albo, Aberbenal, etc.]

The idea of Socrates was in good measure continued by Plato and Aristotle. And Socrates wanted to find out what is right living--not happy living. And he demolished all attempts define right living in pseudo intellectual ways. This gives us a good hint to what the Rambam was thinking. He thought that Torah tells us what right living is and that the idea of the Torah could be defended even in a debate with Socrates himself in person. But he also knew Socrates would be able to demolish any attempts to justify Torah by pseudo intellectual means. And he knew the philosophy is important in order to discern what the actual message of Torah is. He was aware on the attempts of delusional people to redefine Torah in accord with their delusions.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The issue of Ethics and Musar

The issue of Ethics and Musar was never emphasized in either yeshiva. Mainly yeshiva was for learning Talmud. Period. Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway was not a Musar Yeshiva at all. Reb Freifeld did give talks once a week about world view issues. The Mir however was a Musar yeshiva but in a practical sense that meant learning Ethics 35 minutes per day. 20 minutes before the afternoon prayer and 15 minutes before the evening prayer.

But I was turned on by Musar. To me it answered some basic questions and issues. E.g what am I doing here? The reason is some people go to yeshiva for various reasons that did not apply in my case. I had a happy home. I was accepted into UCLA before I had gone to NY. There was no reason for me to be in yeshiva at all except one thing alone --the search for Truth.

So learning Gemara (i.e.Talmud) all day you can understand was a good and great thing --but it needed a context.

Why is it relevant?

Some yeshivas did not introduce Musar because I think they were afraid of spin. That is people going off into some wild tangent, as did happen with me.
But eventually the general consensus got to be to be  a kind of compromise--not too much Musar and not too little. And that is the basic approach of good yeshivas today.

And this is the approach I think is right.

What makes this difficult to advocate is the same problem you have with all institutions. Only the top ten percent will have any real quality. Everything under that will be pure bureaucracy of no value what so ever.

The Rambam  holds by R. Natan in Bava Kama page 53a.
[A ox knocks a person into  a pit. The person that dug the pit and the owner of the ox each pays half. But we do not know if that means each is obligated in the full damages or only half. The difference is if let's say the ox had no owner. Would the person that dug the pit pay full damages?

But what was unclear if if one page 19a if the string and the chicken both have an owner if both pay 1/2.

But  the Rambam does not fit the Gemara there at all on page 19.
What I had to do to get the Rambam to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the Gemara so that Rav Huna was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ, [This might have been the actual version of the Rambam or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned at the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.]


But there are two possibilities for Rabbi Natan. One is  when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable to half the damages. So now we know that the Rambam holds the later way. Because in the case on page 19 if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.
All I am saying here is just that if we say the Rambam was thinking of the law of Rabbi Natan and the sugia on page 19 as being related we come out with lots of nice results. Too many to go into here. But without this idea then  our sugia on page 19 is not what the Rambam was saying.

________________________________________________________________________________

I admit we do not have to say this. We could say the whole סוגיה on page י''ט is talking about דרך שינוי and then the two סוגיות will be unrelated. Fine. And that is clearly how the רא''ש understood it. But that will leave u in a position of not understanding the רמב''ם nor having any way to get him to click with our גמרא. Or we could say like I wrote and live happily ever after.





_________________________________________________________________________________

What we know to the רמב''ם is he holds by רבי נתן in בבא קמא page נ''ג. But what was unclear was on page י''ט ע''א if the חוט and the chicken both have an owner if both pay a half.
From the language of the Rambam alone it could be that if there is an owner of the חוט Then only he pays damages at all. The reason is the only time the Rambam says the owner of the chicken pays is when there is no owner to the string.


But  the רמב''ם does not fit the גמרא there at all on page י''ט.
What I had to do to get the רמב''ם to fit was to say he changed the order of the questions of the גמרא so that רב הונא was coming to answer the question איש בור ולא שור בורץ. This might have been the actual version of the רמב''ם or that he himself because of some questions that I mentioned t the and of my essay he might have decided to change the version on his own.


But there are two possibilities for רבי נתן. One is  when זה וזה גורם then each one is liable for all the damages. The other is that each one is liable for half the damages. So now we know that the רמב''ם holds the last way. Because in the case on page י''ט if the string has no owner, the owner of the chicken pays only half, not full damages.

_________________________________________________________________________________ מה שאנחנו יודעים על הרמב''ם הוא שהוא מחזיק  בשיטת רבי נתן בבבא קמא דף נ''ג. אבל מה שלא היה ברור היה בעמוד י''ט ע''א אם החוט והתרנגולת  יש להן בעלים אם שניהם משלמים חצי. מלשון הרמב"ם לבד זה יכול להיות שאם יש בעלים של חוט ואז רק הוא משלם פיצויים בכלל. הסיבה לכך היא שהפעם היחידה שהרמב"ם אומר בעלים של העוף משלמים הוא כשאין בעלים לחוט
 הרמב''ם אינו תואם עם הגמרא  בעמוד י''ט. מה שהייתי צריך לעשות כדי להתאים את הרמב''ם היה לומר שהוא שינה את סדר השאלות של גמרא כך שרב הונא בא לענות על השאלה של "איש בור ולא שור בור". ייתכן שזו היתה הגירסה בפועל של רמב''ם או שהוא עצמו בגלל כמה שאלות שהזכרתי אולי החליט לשנות את הגרסה. אבל יש שתי אפשרויות עבור רבי נתן . אחת היא כאשר זה וזה גורם אז כל אחד מהם הוא אחראי לכל הנזקים. השני הוא שכל אחד עלול לחצי הנזקים. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים כי רמב''ם מחזיק הדרך האחרונה. כי במקרה בעמוד י''ט אם לחוט אין בעלים, הבעלים של העוף משלמים רק חצי, לא מלוא הנזקים

I was thinking of writing about my yeshiva years. 


 The yeshiva high school experience tends to be different from the Beit Midrash  type of experience. 
I only went to yeshiva during the Beit Midrash [18-26] years. Not high school. But I went to Reb Simcha Wassermann's yeshiva in the afternoon after school (during my high school years).

 The main thing about yeshiva is it is a powerful all encompassing experience. It is when I really got into the Torah in a way that was different than just intellectual. 
[The intellectual aspect I must admit must seem dry to people. But there is a deep energy inside the Oral and Written Law that you need to dig into in order to find.]





The basic information is that I was at Shar Yashuv for 3.5 years. 


After my first year, I was home during the summer, and that was the time I called my future wife that renewed the friendship we had had during high school. My telling her about the amazing world of yeshiva definitely lit a fuse under her. She really like hearing about how great learning Torah is. 

But Far Rockaway was  not considered in those days an Ivy League school. So I set my sights on the yeshiva that in those day had the reputation of having the deepest Torah giant in the world and that was the Reb Shmuel Berenabum at the Mir. 

Rav Shach [author of the Avi Ezri] was considered the greatest Torah scholar along with Rav Kinevsky [the author of the Kehilat Yaakov] But Reb Shmuel had the reputation of being the deepest thinker. People said about him "If you can understand his classes you can understand anything." I can not say what the difference is but I am just saying over how people thought about Rav Shach as compared to Rav Berenabum.

The was definitely a kind of atmosphere in both yeshiva that was what you would expect to find in the Garden of Eden. Some unearthly beauty. But it had a kind of numinous property which would not be the same kind of thing would feel when listening to Mozart. 


The first yeshiva learned only Gemara. It was not a Musar Yeshiva. The Mir however was a Musar yeshiva and learned about 35 minutes of Musar per day. 

In any case, there were always cults around trying to get recruits. I myself fell for their tactics. They were using the Trojan horse strategy. They would use some kind of bait to convince people that by joining their cult everything would be so much better. To me today, it seems very Satanic, but in those days there were very few warning signs. Just like in Eastern cults, like Adi Da. They had a very respectable public image that hid the deep dirt inside them.
 Only now I know the truth. But if I try to tell people no one listens because cults always work on their public image to seem respectable.

I mentioned trust in God a few times in connection with the idea of learning Torah. That was in fact the foundation stone of the Navardok yeshivas. But if you actually read the חובות לבבות [Chovot Lavavot Duties of the Heart] you can see that he expands the idea of trust in God much wider.
I mean to say that there was an idea in yeshiva "Learn Torah and God will do the rest," (but there was also the idea of השתדלות doing some effort.) But this was a more narrow than the actual idea of trust in the books of Musar. Musar expanded the idea of trust to this world and the next. That is even in terms of the next world the idea was to do your best here and to be confident that things will go OK up there. I was thinking that you could even expand the idea to learning Torah itself. You just do the learning as best as you can and accept that what you understand, you understand and what you do not, then you just go on.

[This would be like you see in the Gemara in Shabat 63 and also in tractate Avoda Zara לעולם לגרס אדם אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר forever one should just say the words of his learning  even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying. I had seen this idea in a secular context but at some point I got to know Reb Simcha Wasserman [the son of Reb Elchanan Wasserman] and he gave to me the Musar book אורחות צדיקים The English title I am not sure of. It might be Paths of the Righteous--maybe. (That book goes into this in great length in שער התורה).]

 Part of the reason Americans feel betrayed by the Establishment is that many Americans went to high school and know the  basic principles upon which the USA was founded.  And they know these principles have been betrayed.

The Constitution of the USA is a good argument for Trump.

That means protection of your life and family and property is the only job of government. To protect the plain old working guy from crime from within society and from foreign invaders. Certainly it is not to bring in foreign invaders and to take your taxes to pay welfare. Nor is it the job of government to take your money and give it to people that refuse to work. [Nor is it the job of government to force people to pay for the queer choices of others. If they want to get Aids and die that is their choice. The government has no business forcing to to pay for it.]



The establishment has violated these principles.  That is both the Democrats and the G.O.P., in a way that the average working class American can feel extremely betrayed.

And the Constitution has halachic validity as it is a contract. Contracts are valid documents and have legal force in Torah law.

And outside of that it can be shown that the Constitution has philosophical validity as it embodies principles that are defensible by means of reason. That is it takes the best from Pericles's Athens, John Lock and Montesquieu and combines them in a way that bring these principles into action.

Part of the reason Americans feel betrayed by the Establishment is that many Americans went to high school and know the  basic principles upon which the USA was founded.  And they know these principles have been betrayed.

And for the general public I should mention that the basic principles of the USA are actually well founded philosophical principles. But more Americans are aware of them because many people learned about thee ideas that got incorporated into the Constitution when in high school. Just for  a fast refresher that means limited government, private property, civil space of private affairs where government has no business [Hobbes], rights to your own stuff and family. Even the USSR never had free stuff. If a person did not work in the USSR he did not collect an unemployment check. He went straight to jail.  [Check it out. I ought to know.]
Everyone was required to have a workbook that showed his present employer. A month that nothing was written there was enough to send  a person to a soviet work camp. And believe me when people had to find work they found all kinds of creative ways to do so.

I was looking at my notes on Bava Kama [in the little booklet that God granted to me to write on the Talmud] and I noticed that there was some points about the Rambam I had not made clear. I might try right now to clarify them but without any Gemara I can not check my work. In any case what I wanted to say was this.

Talmud Bava Kama 19b.
The case is a chicken with a string attached to its foot. A vessel gets caught in the string and breaks.
The Rambam deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the string on purpose. The other case is when the string has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the string on purpose.



What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the Rambam. One is both pay half. (This would be like Rabi Natan on Bava Kama page 59.) One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.

The problem that I addressed in my notes was that the Rambam does not correspond to our Gemara at all. I did not even bring up the issue of these last two possibilities because there is nothing in that Rambam which fits with our Gemara. The way I dealt with that was at first to try tofind some way to get them to fit together. Then I saw the Gra wrote about this Rambam "it is not understandable" I realized there was no way to get them to fit. [The Gra wrote that in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch which brings the words of the Rambam word for word.]

So what I wanted to say now was the I thought either the Rambam had a different version or that because of the question I wrote at the end of my notes that he decided himself the true version was different than what was in front of him. Based on that I reconstructed what I thought was the Rambam's version.

This is all old hat. I wrote all of this before. But what I wanted to add was two points. The first I already added to my notes. It is that according the version I think was the Rambam' version it does come out that both would pay half so full damages would be paid. [But this is still debatable. Even in my version it could be that since it is a Not common thing the total amount would be half damages.]
But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like Rabi Natan on page 59 and that is a good result.
________________________________________________________________________________

The רמב''ם deals with two cases. One is when the string has an owner in which case the owner pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose. The other case is when the חוט has no owner. Then the owner of the chicken pays half if someone tied the חוט on purpose.

What if the string and the chicken both have owners?
There are several possible meanings of the רמב''ם. One is both pay half. This would be like רבי נתן on בבא קמא דף נ''ט . One is that the owner of the string alone pays half.

But furthermore if both pay half then this comes out like רבי נתן on דף נ''ג and that is a good result.


הרמב''ם עוסק בשני מקרים. האחד הוא כאשר לחוט יש בעלים ובמקרה הזה הבעלים משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. המקרה השני הוא כאשר לחוט אין בעלים. ואז בעלים של העוף משלמים חצי אם מישהו קשר את החוט בכוונה. מה אם החוט ואת העוף לשניהם יש בעלים? ישנן מספר משמעויות אפשריות של הרמב''ם. אחת הוא שכל אחד משלם חצי. זה יהיה כמו רבי נתן על בבא קמא דף נ''ג. האחרת היא כי הבעלים של החוט לבד משלמים חצי. לפי מה שכתבתי שהיא גירסת הרמב''ם יוצא כמו רבי נתן.

Some people concentrate on the Chafetz Chaim's books of ethics. This is a good idea. It apparently was something Reb Israel Abuchatzaira [Bava Sali] was thinking. Bava Sali did not have pictures of tzadikim in his home except for one alone. The only picture in his home was of the Chafetz Chaim.

His books can certainly be taken as a part of Musar, but they are not the whole picture.

Reb Elchanan Wasserman incidentally told the Chafetz Chaim about a yeshiva he was starting  someplace. The Chafetz Chaim asked him if the students learned Musar. Reb Elchanan said "No." The Chafetz Chaim then said, "If so,  it is better if there was no yeshiva."


I should mention that Reb Elchanan's work the Koveitz Shiurim is very common in yeshivas. I used to hang out with Reb Elchanan's son, Reb Simcha Wasserman. (That is I went there after school and also during the summers and ate by him on Shabat, etc.) But I never got into the Koveitz Shiurim. When I was younger, I mainly concentrated on the Achronim from that middle period, like the Pnei Yehoshua, the Maharsha, etc. I admit today that I probably should have looked more at the basic gedolai Lita [sages of Lithuania] like the school of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and the Koveitz Shiurim.[Today I think even one essay from Rav Shach, or Reb Chaim or Reb Elchanan contains already inside of it a good deal of Shas.]

Reb Shmuel Berenabum [the Rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY] learned the Musar books of the Chafetz Chaim during the Musar sessions.

The granddaughters of Bava Sali started a session in their schools (where they were students) to have a whole list of people that would agree to learn the Chafetz Chaim every day and that list was xeroxed so everyone on the list after their learning would pray a short prayer for all the other people to find their true Zivug [spouse]. From what I heard at the time most people on that list got married in short order.
[The words "Chafetz Chaim" is inter-changeable with the person or the book.]

For the Public: Chafetz Chaim means a book about the law of the Bible-  not to slander. [Leviticus.] The author wrote more than just that one book, so I refer to the larger set in the above essay. His actual name was Israel Meir HaCohen. Bava Sali refers to a person that was a saint. Many people went to him in the last years of his life for advice and blessings and his name is very well respected. Elchanan Wassermann's book is on the Talmud and it is considered easier  that the Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. I find Rav Shach's book to have that same quality of being deep but also easy to read.

Musar/Ethics

Israel Salanter's Musar Movement was to get people to learn Musar which means a basic set of medieval books on ethics. That is about just four books. Then in the penumbra a larger set of about 30 books. written during the Renaissance. Then a even wider penumbra of books that got added to that original set by his disciples. Isaac Blasser. Joseph Yosel Horwitz [the Alter of Navardok], Simcha Zissel from Kelm and the Alter of Slobadka.



I was thinking of finding an argument to prove the point of Reb Israel Salanter that learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] is important. It occurred to me that we can not know our "self." We can know our "self" exists but not what is going on deep inside. Our motivations--what causes us to act or think things is hidden from us. Not only that when we think we know our motivations we come up with contradictions.. One motivation is wrapped up inside of another. One day we think our motivation is one thing and then next day we find ourselves acting in ways that completely and directly contradict what we thought was motivating us the day before. We know the self exists but we do not know what is going on down there. We however know its surface. It is like an ocean. The depths are hidden but the surface we can see plainly. We know if we feel hot or cold, happy or sad, etc. Reb Israel thought the way to penetrate and effect the self is by learning Medieval  Ethics.

Not by prayer or talking with God as in a conversation. Conversing with God is not that different than talking to yourself. You are only reaching the surface level. You know what you are thinking and feeling an that is what you are commuting to God. There is nothing there that penetrates into the hidden levels of the self to change one from evil to good.

We can know one thing about our "self" we know our commitments. We know of we are committed to the Ten Commandments or not. We know if we are committed to keeping the Moral Law. And this commitment is strengthened by learning Musar.


I am borrowing ideas of Kant here.

On a side note Kant thought the ontological proof was not valid. And this goes along with his idea that pure reason can't penetrate into unconditioned realities. But he did write that as far existence goes of the the dinge an sich--we can know it exists. But we cant know it character. Thus a proof of the existence of God is possible. But he did not think the ontological one was very good. And this to some degree shows why I wrote the above proof at the top of my blog  the first cause idea. [Which I really borrowed from Aristotle. Not his first mover idea but rather this very basic idea itself which I saw one a long time ago at the beginning of his set of books called Physics.]

Music for the glory of God

n18  n40 n41 n44   n47 n51 n52 mathematics  r1  q96 E flat major  q96 F major   q1

n90 n89 n87
 n85  n83 n82 n81 n80 n51 r14

a nice utube about counter jihad

Trump on utube  another utube from Judge Jeanine [This last one is very impressive]



I am thinking of what kind of argument can I put forward to support Trump.
I think I would have to approach this from several directions. First the Constitution of the USA. But I do not mean the actual document. I mean this more as what you learn in high school about the principles that went into making the Constitution. But then I would have to  draw on the previous thinkers that their works provided the basis for the Constitution. --Pericles, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes.

Then I would also have to show that the establishment has violated these principles.  That is both the Democrats and the G.O.P. in a way that the average working class American can feel extremely betrayed.

Jewish worldview issues are not divorced from Plato and Aristotle. Most of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages was highly linked to  Platonic and Aristotelian ideas. Thus it is not possible to understand  what the Rambam and Saddia Gaon and the  Rishonim were saying about the world view of Torah without background in Aristotle and Plato. But I have not done enough work in this area I admit. I am only suggesting this as a proper point of investigation.


The problem is the time issue. How much time can you really spend on this and  learning Talmud and a vocation both? Yet without this knowledge of the world view of Torah, what happens is people unconscionably absorb the world view of their surrounding culture.

It must be remembered that someone can inherit social scripts without being self-aware that they are doing so. Everyone can learn a language simply by exposure, knowledge of grammar is secondary and hard won. Unfortunately, this only makes it even more insidious.

And then when they learn the Rambam or Saadia Gaon it sounds foreign because they themselves have absorbed a false world view that they think is Torah.

It is a sign of enormous self delusion if one thinks he understands the world view of the Torah so perfectly so as to dismiss the Rambam and Saadia Gaon as irrelevant and even outright wrong.

Even though it is a hard book probably the best thing in terms of world view issues is the Rambam's Guide with the commentary of Joseph Albo. [That is the regular traditional one that you used to see around in yeshivas.] But it has that quality that I find in many books that the surface layer is outrageous but if you can peel away the surface the inner core is astounding and relevant. [But you need a lot of confidence ("faith in the wise") to believe that sub-level is there in order to find it.]

For the public: Jewish thought was neo-Platonic up until the Rambam. The Rambam people think went radically in the direction of Aristotle. But I am not so sure. He also seems neo-Platonic to me. He had great respect for Aristotle but that was anyway the approach of the Neo Platonics. Plotinus had used Aristotle to get a better idea of what Plato was saying.

It is my thinking that if one could manage to put all his efforts into learning a vocation and learning Torah that things will turn out well. But that  takes much effort. 


 Without the will to do the work, not much can turn out right.. One need drive and a vision and to put your drive and vision in the right direction. Torah with a vocation.

Or if one can manage to put all his trust in God, and then to learn Torah all day, that is an even better option. But it means to actually trust in God, not a kollel paycheck. Most people in kollel think that learning Torah is a valid means to make money. This results in the type of cults that are common.
But if one in fact is trusting in God and accepting a kollel check as what it is (charity) then the kollel option seems good to me.


Where do cults come from?

I believe charismatic leaders correctly note that most people are neither skeptics nor self-motivated, and that many are easily duped by gurus because they want someone to show them the way to live a meaningful life and to get support and  a sex life [shiduch] by being attached to their institution. They offer to show their followers the way to true wakefulness, a state of awareness and vitality which transcends ordinary consciousness. The leader attracts  writers, artists, wealthy widows and other questing souls to work  for him in exchange for sharing his wisdom. They offer numerous claims and explanations for everything under the moon, rooted in little more than his own imagination and never tempered with concern for what science might have to say about his musings.

r13 a minor r13 in midi format  r13 in nwc format

But I got some idea of the world view of Torah by hanging out with my parents and grandparents, Simcha Wasserman [Elchanan Wassermann's son], Reb Shelomo Freifeld the Rosh Yeshiva of Shar Yashuv and Shmuel Berenbaum the rosh yeshiva of the Mir.

The rebuke thing is in fact a difficult subject. It was only recently that I saw in a Musar book called "Even Shelma" אבן שלמה that one should say rebuke even if it will not be accepted. But in any case I have mentioned things to people over many years. So I think I have fulfilled the obligation.

It was in the Shelah [שני לחות הברית] that I first saw this idea of rebuke being an obligation even of you know the person will not accept. 
But to know when or how to rebuke you need to know the Oral and Written Law pretty well to know if something is really right or wrong. And that includes issues of "world view." Because major points of halachah depend on world view. For example when is something idolatry?

 But I got some idea by hanging out with my parents and grandparents, Simcha Wasserman [Elchanan Wassermann's son], Reb Shelomo Freifeld (the Rosh Yeshiva of Shar Yashuv),  Shmuel Berenbaum the rosh yeshiva of the Mir.
But in any case, I have spent some time trying to understand the basic path of Torah. The "World View of Torah" or what is called "השקפה" "World view" was not learned in yeshiva at all. Not in Shar Yashuv nor in the Mir. But I tried anyway to pick it up. When I realized that a lot of claims were made by groups to be keeping the Torah whose main emphasis was to try to show themselves as more religious than others so as to get more charity it dawned on me that these things should not be taken at face value.

The basic issues of world view were first tackled by Saadia Gaon then the Duties of the Heart, Ibn Gavirol, Maimonides, Crescas, Joseph Albo. Most of their works were rejected that thought they knew better. As if we know better than the Rambam of Saadia Gaon what the Torah is about. That takes gall and self delusion.

Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, I knew partly by his classes at the Mir and his shiur klali and the Musar talks that he gave for  a year and by hanging out with him on Shabat and Motzai Shabat at his home.
The same went for Shelomo Freifeld. But Rav Freilfeld did not give classes. but I still hung out with him at his home. [After some years I went to NYU but that was more for the idea of getting a vocation [Physics]. I did not think using Torah for money was a good idea. And in any case I was out of the Yeshiva World at the time. Not that I would not like to be learning Torah. If only I had the merit to do so!
[I used to go to Simcha Wasserman on Shabat. But when it came time to go to Yeshiva I went to NY where the action was. That is where I met Reb Shmuel Berenabum who had the reputation of being the deepest Torah scholar in the world. From what I could tell that reputation was well deserved.

One problem of hanging out with any kind of hasidic groups is that is that the main objective of these groups is to bring one close to their deity. If they would be straight up and forward about their intentions it would not be so bad. But they use Torah as camouflage  to hide what they are really up to. [Also it is bad for one's sanity to hang out with insane people..]

I would like to back this up with evidence. Years horrible experiences should be enough. Seeing what they do to others also should be enough. But there has been some writing about this kind of thing already and it does not change anyone's mind. Also I can not write about negative experiences since then I lose my frame of mind and get upset and can't function.


Plus the problem with this is אבק לשון הרע. The dust of Lashon Hara. That is even if you know what you are saying is true, but it will not be accepted and that will cause you to be suspected of saying Lashon Hara is also a kind of "dust of Lashon Hara" even if true and even if you fulfilled all seven conditions of the Chafetz Chaim.

While on that note I have to mention that the seven conditions are only for obligations between man and his fellow man as the Chafetz Chaim goes into in chapter 7 [vol 1]. As for obligations between Man and God that is chapter 4 and the conditions are different. I have certainly fulfilled all the conditions including rebuke. For people that will not accept rebuke you have no choice but to make their actions known so as to warn others. I would rather have never been in a position to know the truth about this. But after I know the truth I have no choice but to make it known. [If I would not know this then I could simply learn Torah. But now there is nothing to do because silence about the terrible evils of these groups is not allowed because of the verse לא תעמוד על דם רעיך Do not stand by while the blood of innocents is spilled.]

I should add that I think some effort should made in the direction of showing that the Lithuanian yeshiva world is the exact opposite of all the above. While far from perfect it certainly comes close to a moral, decent, wholesome society--or at least as close to that ideal that I have seen.

A nice utube about the USA Army   Not Afraid. Trump

Bill Whittle

r12 g minor

Just for the record I am pro Constitution of the USA for a few reasons. Mainly because I see its principles being in accord with the Torah. The Sanctity of Life. Freedom with Responsibility within the limits set by law. There is a command in the Torah "Thou shalt not steal." And the idea behind that command is there is such a thing as private property that no one has the right to touch besides the owner and to whom the owner gives permission. That is even if some group can get the government to do its stealing for them it is still stealing. That is Socialism is ruled out by the Torah. Abortion is ruled out by the Torah. People taking authority at all is ruled out by the Torah. Not just government. The only authority anyone can have by the Torah is what the laws of the Torah already say or by means of contract. And the Constitution is a contract.

This might be a good idea to defend this thesis in more detail. But in short I am against the Democrats and also the Republicans because I do not think either goes by the Constitution. I would rather see someone like Trump that would clean out the Aegean stables of government.

That is from my Jewish point of view. But there is also philosophical justification for this based on Kant and the autonomy of the individual. I have hid myself in the sand in terms of politics the last eight year because was stunned at what was occupying the White House. But it seems like I am not the last American to remember there is a Constitution and a lot of us are angry at the government for taking what does not belong to them.

[In High School we went through USA History and principles very well. . We had to go through the original documents of many parts of USA history. It was probably the most challenging class I ever took. In any case, I gained a great appreciation of the the USA is, and what made it what it is. Seeing it crumble and its founding principles stomped on by the government has been traumatizing.]

I was trying to figure out a good argument for Lithuanian yeshivas. And it occurred to me that that best argument is not a rational argument at all but something that goes much deeper. There is this idea that the soul before it is born into a physical body sees the glory of heaven. It sees Truth, Beauty and Love. Or it sees the virtues. Then it falls and comes into this world. Then it longs to get back to this wondrous vision. But it can't find anything that reminds it of its blessed state before the fall. So it goes around  empty. It is just going through the motions. Then one day it walks into a Lithuanian yeshiva and feels what it has been missing. Truth, Beauty and Love. It can not rationalize what it feels but it knows that this place reminds him of some blessed place before it fell.

But that is not every soul. There are souls that are attracted to ugliness, evil and hate. And there are plenty of  yeshivas that are full of ugliness, hate and gossip. But those places are not Lithuanian. They are counterfeit yeshivas. But there are still many souls attracted to these counterfeit places because their souls are drawn towards the ugliness and gossip

It is a mitzvah to warn people about evil groups. Furthermore even if they do not listen it is still a mitzvah based on the Gra.

The prohibition about slander does not prevent one from warning his children or anyone that will listen about bad groups. The Chafetz Chaim goes into detail about this. In fact the major thing to warn your children about is destructive groups. This is because of the fact that the group one is involved with has the most influence on how one acts and even how one thinks.

The most common defense on any evil group is, "You can't generalize." But that is a false defense. You must generalize.  Group behavior and group tendencies are real things. We tend to think about Nazis that they acted in certain specific ways. We do not say "You can't generalize."

You could go further to say there is such a thing a group merit or group guilt. That is just by being part of  a meritorious group one gains something, and that being part of  an evil group, one loses.



In fact, generalizing is very beneficial and is used quite successfully in many areas of society - such as when the insurance industry analyzes the average frequency of an event (i.e. a house-fire) in order to offer protection to the individual homeowner while still reliably turning a profit. The government generalizes as well when they pass such laws as speed limits with fines for punishment. It is fully understood that not all of the people will reduce their speed, but most of them will and therefore, it works to keep most people driving at a reasonable speed and makes the roads safer - which is the positive result that is being sought.

The religious world is evil. This is generalization based on many years of experience. Not one or two examples. And knowing this I am obligated to warn others.
[I can not go into details in writing about particular incidents. The reason mainly is based on two things. One is it involves saying bad things. And I would rather not dwell on negative things. I am sensitive to that. I can not function at all when my mood is down. I cant learn, I cant write music. I need to run to a mikveh or a stream or river and sometimes that is not convenient. It takes me hours to relax and get into a kind of decent frame of mind. And thinking about hurtful incidents in the past does terrible damage to my psyche. 

[The other reason is even if I need to say something to warn others, I would rather keep it to a minimum because the idea of Lashon Hara became very ingrained in me.] 

]

religious world

The prohibition to speak slander is popular  by people that speak slander. They feel it gives them a pass for all the evil and damage they cause, but shields them from anyone that would dare speak about them.

However that still does not except one from knowing the laws and knowing when and where one must speak up and when he must not.
The basic conditions are different for בין אדם לחברו and בין אדם למקום. [Between man and his fellow man and between man and God.]

The seven famous conditions of the Hafetz Haim are for the first category. [To see it oneself. To give rebuke, etc.]  In any case, it is precisely because of this that I speak up about the religious world seeing their collective guilt and complicity in great evils.
I have mentioned the excommunication that the Gra signed -but the reason is not because I depend on it, but rather that I have seen in real life how everything he said was correct.

Yet still evil people think they can be shielded by means of the Hafetz Haim.
[Like the chicken in the horse stall that yelled at the horses, "We should all stop moving around so we do not trample on each other.]"]



To understand the Hafetz Haim it is necessary to know his sources.This is because seeing from where he gets the Halacha from sheds light on its application.

One thing you do not see in the Hafetz Haim itself is the difference between the Rambam and Rabainu Yonah. Rabbainu Yona does in fact prohibit Lashon Hara even for true things because he needs certain conditions to be meet. These conditions are the sources for the famous seven conditions of the Hafetz Haim. He does not want damage to be caused to the object more than what would be caused if he was judged in Beit Din according to Din Torah. Reb Elhanan Wassermann noticed that to Rabbainu Yonah, Lashon Hara on truth is not forbidden for itself, but because of collateral damage.

 The Rambam wrote  about the “hidden law.”  He wrote that the Torah forbids actions across the board that which should be forbidden in almost all situations, even though the Torah knows if a dire emergency did arise, good people would act outside the law, do what had to be done. See for example Eliyahu the Prophet on Mount Carmel.