24.10.16
23.10.16
Fad-Driven Synagogues
… The dictionary defines a fad as "a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal." This could just as well be a description of congregational life of many Jewish synagogues today.
There is a new book, a new program or a new emphasis every year or so. It’s all anyone can talk about; - for a while. Then, as quickly as it came, it's gone. As eagerly as it was received, it's abandoned and forgotten.
The trouble is the religious world is filled to the brim with false teachers and people that consult with the dead and bring proofs that that is supposed to be OK and in accord with Torah. Almost as soon as you get to an authentic Litvak yeshiva there is some one there to try to convince you that some alternative cult is better.
Welcome to Fad-Driven Synagogues.
At first this might not sound like a problem. Some Jews can remember when the synagogues didn't jump from bandwagon to bandwagon every year or two. But for others, this is all they have ever known. For them, it is hard to imagine what the synagogues would be like without the constant ebb and flow of fads. For them, the long list of fads represents their personal history. Some fads come and go, some come and stay. A few are genuinely harmless; most contain serious error. All are popular - while they last In the fad-drive "exaggerated zeal” has replaced simple plain Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot.
I've examined the recent fads. I am always surprised - not by the fads themselves, but by something else. I am always surprised by how uncritically people accept a fad, how enthusiastically they embrace a fad and how carelessly they abandon a fad. That is why this article isn't about the fads themselves, but about the kind of people that accept, embrace and abandon fads.
The Life Cycle of a Fad
Every fad has a life cycle. The fad is first accepted, then embraced and finally abandoned. For the fad driven, this life cycle is a way life.
The cycle begins with acceptance. The fad-driven person is practiced at this. Too close an examination of the fad at the outset might raise too many questions. "After all, this book is a best-seller!" "Thousands of people are doing it, how can we go wrong?" Accept first, examine later, if at all. This acceptance may come through the active promotion of some or through grassroots popularity. Either way, the fad spreads like wildfire in the congregation.
The cycle continues with enthusiastic embrace. By "enthusiastic" I don't mean excitement or emotion, although those things may be involved. What I mean is that the fad-driven synagogue embraces its latest fad with creedal intensity. While the fad has currency, it is an article of faith. Belief in the fad becomes a mark of loyalty. During this phase of the fad's life cycle, critics of the fad may be dismissed as unloving, judgmental or unconcerned for others. At the very least, they are viewed as troublemakers and obstacles to the mission. During this phase, in some cases, the fad may dictate what is taught, the content of study or even the focus of congregational life.
The life cycle ends with the abandonment of the fad. Some fads have a built-in expiration date... most simply linger until something better comes along. The fad-driven person may cling with a martyr's fervor to the fad while it lasts, but everyone knows that its days are numbered. Sooner or later it will have to be abandoned. Accept the fad, embrace the fad and abandon the fad. This is the life of a fad-driven person. There are exceptions to this life cycle. In a few cases a fad doesn't die; it grows into something bigger than a fad. It grows into a movement... I have often been critical of fads at the height of their popularity. After several encounters with fad defenders, I noticed something. The seasoned member of the fad-driven congregation will defend his fad today. But he will happily abandon the same fad six months from now. I realized that the fad itself is inconsequential; everyone knows that it will be forgotten sooner or later. People caught in the cycle of fads must defend a particular fad, because by doing so, they are defending their willingness to accept, embrace and abandon fads in general. They are defending their fad-driven-ness.
A Lack of Discernment
The need of discernment about idolatry is one of the most frequent admonitions in Torah.\
The Torah is supposed to stand immovable against “every wind of doctrine." By contrast the fad-driven Jewish synagogue is a windsock. If you want to know which way the wind is blowing, the latest teachings, the newest programs or the most current methods, just look at the fad-driven Jewish synagogues. If you want to know what the fad-driven Jewish synagogues will be doing next, just walk through your local Jewish bookstore or page through a Jewish publisher's catalog.
In the fad-driven synagogues, books, programs and seminars are evaluated primarily by their sales, popularity and attendance records, rather than on their merit "False teaching? Why would so many people be reading this book if it contained false teaching?"… Can millions of Jews be wrong? Yes, they can.
Ironically, the fad-driven Jewish synagogue often excuses its lack of discernment in the name of saving souls. It justifies its appetite for fads: "Whatever it takes" is the creed of the fad-driven Jewish synagogues. "Whatever it takes to reach the lost" is supposed to be a courageous new strategy. But "whatever it takes" is not a strategy. "Whatever it takes" is an admission that you have no strategy. "Whatever it takes” is just another way of saying, "Whatever people want," or "Whatever everyone else is doing." Rather than seeking the lost, the fad-driven Jewish synagogue is just seeking its next fix.
Some advocates of Jewish synagogue fads take the "Eat the meat, spit out the bones" approach to false teaching. They claim that practicing discernment means spiting the “bone?” of error while eating the "meat" of truth. There are several problems with this approach. First, it assumes that a fad contains only isolated false teachings, like so many bones in a fish. But many fads don't just contain false teaching; they are based on false teaching... Second, the "bone spitting" approach assumes that the errors of the latest fad will be obvious to everyone.
The "inexperienced" are still infants in the Torah. Would you give an infant a fish to eat knowing that there were bones in it?
Finally, the "bone spitting" approach fails to recognize that a continuous stream of fads will erode the synogogue 's ability to discern truth from error. With every new fad, the fad-driven Jewish synagogue grows less able to recognize the truth. In time, the fad-driven Jewish synagogue is unable to discern the true Torah.
This is the bottom line. A Jewish synagogue willing to tolerate some false teaching will eventually tolerate any false teaching - even a false Torah, a false spirit.
Desperation
The idol of relevance accurately describes the mentality of the fad-driven Jewish synagogue:
Rather than making the Jewish synagogue more relevant, this mentality only makes the fad-driven Jewish synagogues more susceptible to fads and more desperate;
Relevance without truth encourages “the herd" mentality and the "age of the crowd"
Feverishness is the condition of an institution that has ceased to be faithful to its origins. It is then caught up in "a restless, cosmopolitan hunting after new and ever newer things.
They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. [Jeremiah 2:11-13]. This explains the short life span of so many fads. It is the result of desperation. The fad-driven Jewish synagogue's new cisterns are broken. They can't hold water. Even while the last drops drain from the old cistern, the fad-driven synagogue must desperately dig a new one. But the new cistern is as leaky as the old one, so the digging must go on.
Nothing to Offer; Nothing to Say
"Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next." Take away the fads, and what is left in the fad-driven Jewish synagogue? In some cases, what's left isn't the Torah at all, but a collection of principles, practices and ideas that don't add up to anything resembling the Torah faith. Rather than Torah there are only the remnants of past fads.
In the name of saving the lost, the fad-driven is trading the Torah for the newest gimmick. If such a Jewish synagogue does reach the lost, will it have anything to say? ...Will the fad-driven Jewish synagogue give authentic Torah, or the latest fashion?
And for the member of the fad-driven Jewish synagogues who has known nothing but fads, will these fads leave her a Jewess on her deathbed (or will she be left wondering what that whirlwind of best-sellers, seminars, video sermons and three-ring binders was all about?)
The Jewish synagogue that wraps its identity and mission around the evanescent desires of finicky consumers, will run the risk of creating a Jewish synagogue as ephemeral as those desires. In its "exaggerated zeal for things new, will it hold fast to the unchanging message of the Oral and Written Law?"
Fad or Faith
We live in an age of pious distractions. We live in an age of fads. The fad-driven Jewish synagogue has structured its life around the trends and innovations of the day. Jewish publishers and the gurus are ready to provide something new as often as the masses demand it.
The Torah has something better than any fad. The time has come. Ears are itching. Ears are turning. The Jewish synagogues must take up authentic Torah. -And throw out all the books of pseudo Torah.
22.10.16
the Written and Oral Law [the Law of Moses and the Talmud] along with Physics and Metaphysics are the necessary and sufficient conditions
In math you have necessary and sufficient conditions. I think the Written and Oral Law [the Law of Moses and the Talmud] along with Physics and Metaphysics are the necessary and sufficient conditions to come to what one must come to in this world.
This ideas come from the Rambam who considered Physics and Metaphysics of Aristotle to be what the Gemara was referring to in מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה
I do not expand the set outside of the Rambam's definition. But I also do not limit the list to only the Oral and Written Law. I do think one needs those two additional subjects from the fact that I have seen the need for them in people that ignore those subjects.
This ideas come from the Rambam who considered Physics and Metaphysics of Aristotle to be what the Gemara was referring to in מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה
I do not expand the set outside of the Rambam's definition. But I also do not limit the list to only the Oral and Written Law. I do think one needs those two additional subjects from the fact that I have seen the need for them in people that ignore those subjects.
21.10.16
Simchas Torah in a Lithuanian Yeshiva
Simchas Torah is really a yeshiva festival. Simchas Torah in my first Litvak yeshiva in New York was an experience enough to last a lifetime.
The basic idea is that when you spend the whole year trying your best to learn and keep the Oral and Written Law, then when Simchas Torah comes along, it is a deep experience inside you. The dancing is simply an outflow of an internal source of holiness. It comes from the inner self.
What you generally see on Simchas Torah is on the other hand mainly a farce. It is making a show of dancing trying to show joy that is not internal.
My recommendation is not to go to any synagogue on Simchas Torah. Either stay home, or find an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva. Either find the real thing, or nothing. But don't go for fake joy.
The ingredients of an authentic yeshiva are simple but not sufficient. You need a kind of spirit of Torah to make it work..
The basic idea is that when you spend the whole year trying your best to learn and keep the Oral and Written Law, then when Simchas Torah comes along, it is a deep experience inside you. The dancing is simply an outflow of an internal source of holiness. It comes from the inner self.
What you generally see on Simchas Torah is on the other hand mainly a farce. It is making a show of dancing trying to show joy that is not internal.
My recommendation is not to go to any synagogue on Simchas Torah. Either stay home, or find an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva. Either find the real thing, or nothing. But don't go for fake joy.
The ingredients of an authentic yeshiva are simple but not sufficient. You need a kind of spirit of Torah to make it work..
Islam by its very nature tends to violence.
My impression is that Islam by its very nature tends to violence. I mean to say that let's take as an opposite example a Catholic nun. If she becomes more and more religious she will becomes more and more spiritual. Or take a Buddhist monk. He will mediate more and more. But Islam is different. The more religious a person is the more they will follow the example of the founder of their religion.
Natural rights
Natural rights was a development from Natural Law. Natural Law was introduced I think by Saadia Gaon and later Maimonides. Then Aquinas developed it into a whole system--which I sadlly enough did not get a chance to study. In any case this led eventually to the John Locke concept of individual rights as being things the government could but should not interfere with. From what I can tell most people want their freedom. This seems clear. But Brett Stevens is noting when rights get out of hand to be demands for free stuff and calling these demands rights.
So my feeling is that rights are important but as limitations of what the government can do--not of what it must provide.
[The basic John Locke idea is the individual gives up certain aspects of his rights in order to create a political entity that is safe to live in. But not all his rights. See the Two Treatises for details.
A later note: I mean to say here that John Locke basing himself on Aquinas and Hobbes made the jump from natural law to natural rights. He was also thinking of state of nature. But his state of nature was slightly different than Hobbes. In Locke's state of nature man has all his natural right and the right to enforce them. But in order to live in society he then gives up some of his right and prerogatives to the government in exchange for the safety of living in a civil society. It is a social contract theory.]
I would love to go into this more but I really recommend to people to learn the Two Treaties by John Locke.
So my feeling is that rights are important but as limitations of what the government can do--not of what it must provide.
[The basic John Locke idea is the individual gives up certain aspects of his rights in order to create a political entity that is safe to live in. But not all his rights. See the Two Treatises for details.
A later note: I mean to say here that John Locke basing himself on Aquinas and Hobbes made the jump from natural law to natural rights. He was also thinking of state of nature. But his state of nature was slightly different than Hobbes. In Locke's state of nature man has all his natural right and the right to enforce them. But in order to live in society he then gives up some of his right and prerogatives to the government in exchange for the safety of living in a civil society. It is a social contract theory.]
I would love to go into this more but I really recommend to people to learn the Two Treaties by John Locke.
20.10.16
Leftist agenda
Leftist agenda was the default position of philosophers in the USA. On the other extreme you had Heidegger and that kind of approach did not seem right to Middle Americans who fought the Nazis. Philosophers were simply not very smart as the affair with the NY Physics professor that got a essay of complete nonsense but with the right jargon published in the most prestigious philosophy journal. It took a long time for people with real talent to start noticing the problems with academic philosophy. The job of philosophers is to learn an obtuse jargon which inspires awe. People think, "Gee golly, you must really smart to understand that stuff!"
Suka [a booth] and the festival of Booths
ענייני סוכה
) במשנה הראשונה בסוכה הגמרא אומרת שאם הסכך והצל שווים על גבי הסוכה אז הצל הוא יותר בתחתית כך שהיא כשרה, כדאמרי אינשי כזוזא מלעילא כאסתירא מלבר. אם אתה במדבר ואתה מנסה לזהות מטוס קרב מתמרן בשמיים, הדרך לעשות את זה היא לחפש צלה. הסיבה לכך היא הצל הוא תמיד הרבה יותר גדול מהמטוס עצמו. התמוה על זה הוא העובדה שנראה שהגמרא שוקלת צל על הרצפה כדי להיות הגורם המכריע בשאלה האם הסוכה כשרה או לא. זה אומר שלהיות שהם שווים למעלה הוא בסדר כי בתחתית הצל הוא יותר. על פי היגיון זה אז סככת העליון יכולה להיות הרבה פחותה מהצל בגלל שבתחתית הצל של הסכך יורחב. זה אומר גמרא זו היא חידה כי זה אומר על גבי סכך והצל צריך להיות שווה. הפתרון שלי הוא העובדה שאין פתרון מתמטי מדויק לבעיה של עקיפה. אני מתכוון לומר שלכל צל תחום אחד שהוא כהה ואזור אחר שהוא חצי אור וחצי כהה. האזור הכהה יכול להאריך עד אינסוף. אז כשאתה אומר הצל בתחתית צריך להיות יותר מן האור, לא ברור מה זה אומר. האזור של הצל יכול להיות אינסופי. לכן הגמרא מחזיקה שרק כאשר הצל וסכך על גבי סוכה שווים זה כשר. אתה אולי יכול גם להציע לקחת את האזור הכהה כגורם מפתח. אפשר לקרוא לזה מאה אחוז כהה ואז כשזה הופך להיות ארבעים ותשעה אחוזים לקרא לזה לא צל. אבל הגמרא לא בחרה בדרך הזו.
Mainly I was bothered by the problem of the shadow being more that the light. The problem I wanted to deal with in that book was that as a rule when one is in a desert and looking out for an enemy spy plane he does not look for the plane but rather for the shadow which is always much easier to spot than the plane because it is much much larger. i really do not remember much but the problem I think is that the Gemara seems to imply that the Suka is kosher if the shadow is more than the sun on the floor. My answer is based on Physics that the solution to the problem of diffraction is not mathematically rigorous. It is a approximation. So in fact the areas are not rigorously defined.
You have I kind of remember two areas of shadow. The one that is a mix can go off to infinity. So in fact the Gemara settles on a kind of approximation.
I do not have the Gemara but it seems that the Gemara takes the idea of the shadow as being more than the sun on the bottom floor as a proof that on top the shadow and sun are equal. But why would that be called Kosher? Should not the shadow on top be more? To answer this I think you could say the bottom is the determining factor
I do not have the Gemara but it seems that the Gemara takes the idea of the shadow as being more than the sun on the bottom floor as a proof that on top the shadow and sun are equal. But why would that be called Kosher? Should not the shadow on top be more? To answer this I think you could say the bottom is the determining factor
There is no such thing as a layman. You either know it or you don't.
The difference between a layman and an expert is something that I was aware of from a early age. In my home my father was very much into STEM. In particular he got his Masters from Cal Tech and went into aerospace engineering. His specialty was inventing stuff. In any case in our home e were getting month a magazine that was directed towards laymen.
I do not think I ever said this to my parents but my degree of frustration was immense. I would read some article about science and realize that there is no such thing as a layman. You either know it or you don't.
But I had no idea how to cross the barrier from not knowing to knowing. I think the first hint of how to cross that barrier came from my first year in yeshiva in Shar Yashuv [New York, Far Rockaway.] There I encountered the first most frustrating thing that every yeshiva bachur encounters--the fact that the yeshiva spent about a week or two per page of Gemara. So one "Zeman" Session from October until April would be spent on one chapter of Gemara--about 15 pages.
Only after much time I began to realize the important foundational principle involve here: To know a basic component of any subject takes total immersion in that subdivision for at least 6 months.
I do not think I ever said this to my parents but my degree of frustration was immense. I would read some article about science and realize that there is no such thing as a layman. You either know it or you don't.
But I had no idea how to cross the barrier from not knowing to knowing. I think the first hint of how to cross that barrier came from my first year in yeshiva in Shar Yashuv [New York, Far Rockaway.] There I encountered the first most frustrating thing that every yeshiva bachur encounters--the fact that the yeshiva spent about a week or two per page of Gemara. So one "Zeman" Session from October until April would be spent on one chapter of Gemara--about 15 pages.
Only after much time I began to realize the important foundational principle involve here: To know a basic component of any subject takes total immersion in that subdivision for at least 6 months.
19.10.16
The reason the Kant School is important is I need to defend the Torah from an intellectual standpoint beside just gut feeling. While you can't actually prove Torah you can at least defend the basic belief system.
This is something that Saadia Geon and the Rambam tried to do but the modern questions are different.
This is something that Saadia Geon and the Rambam tried to do but the modern questions are different.
Universals, Aristotle, Rambam
Avraham rosenblum
Sep 7
to Kelley
Dear Dr Ross. You wrote here : However, a stricter empiricism again creates the difficulty that the apparent "form" of an object cannot provide knowledge of an end (an entelechy) that is only implicit in the present object, and so hidden to present knowledge.
This seems to be the only statement in that essay about the problems with Aristotle.
I thought there were more serious problems with Aristotle like this: from Stanford: Some maintain that Aristotle’s theory is ultimately inconsistent, on the grounds that it is committed to all three of the following propositions:
(i) Substance is form.
(ii) Form is universal.
(iii) No universal is a substance.
This seems important because the Maimonides is considered to be going with Aristotle. It does not seem that he would have missed these problems. Is there perhaps ways to answer these things? Or Perhaps Maimonides was aware of these problems and therefore took a kind of Middle path between Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists. Sincerely Avraham Rosenblum
Dear Mr. Rosenblum,
Aristotle’s forms must be hidden in part, for we cannot tell from the inspection of an acorn what the grown tree will look like. The Aristotelian “form” thus becomes separate from its obvious meaning in Greek, i.e. eidos as image. Since Aristotle wants to be a kind of Empiricist, with the “form” derived in some way from the perception of the object, the universal that is mentally abstracted from the image carries with it things that are not actually visible.
In a Kantian theory, what we know about universals will only apply to phenomenal objects. The status of abstract (universal) objects among things-in-themselves is left open, as with other matters of transcendence. At the same time, hidden features of universals obviously cannot be abstracted directly from perception. Thus, what the oak will look like is a matter of speculation, scientific investigation, or just waiting around for the tree to grow from the acorn. What scientific investigation has learned, of course, is that the form of the oak is determined by the DNA in the acorn. The “entelechy” has a physical basis, but this could be not gathered from the mere inspection of the acorn. Aristotle’s “entelechy” was thus for real, but not in the way he thought.
I would agree that Aristotle affirms (i) and (ii), but I don’t really see (iii). Universals are forms, and forms are substance. I think that Maimonides is actually a Neoplatonist, where the chain of Being is grades of form, and universality, from the four elements up to the One.
So I am curious why you, or anyone, would say that “No universal is a substance” in Aristotle.
Best wishes,
KR
Sep 7
to Kelley
Dear Dr Ross. You wrote here : However, a stricter empiricism again creates the difficulty that the apparent "form" of an object cannot provide knowledge of an end (an entelechy) that is only implicit in the present object, and so hidden to present knowledge.
This seems to be the only statement in that essay about the problems with Aristotle.
I thought there were more serious problems with Aristotle like this: from Stanford: Some maintain that Aristotle’s theory is ultimately inconsistent, on the grounds that it is committed to all three of the following propositions:
(i) Substance is form.
(ii) Form is universal.
(iii) No universal is a substance.
This seems important because the Maimonides is considered to be going with Aristotle. It does not seem that he would have missed these problems. Is there perhaps ways to answer these things? Or Perhaps Maimonides was aware of these problems and therefore took a kind of Middle path between Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists. Sincerely Avraham Rosenblum
Dear Mr. Rosenblum,
Aristotle’s forms must be hidden in part, for we cannot tell from the inspection of an acorn what the grown tree will look like. The Aristotelian “form” thus becomes separate from its obvious meaning in Greek, i.e. eidos as image. Since Aristotle wants to be a kind of Empiricist, with the “form” derived in some way from the perception of the object, the universal that is mentally abstracted from the image carries with it things that are not actually visible.
In a Kantian theory, what we know about universals will only apply to phenomenal objects. The status of abstract (universal) objects among things-in-themselves is left open, as with other matters of transcendence. At the same time, hidden features of universals obviously cannot be abstracted directly from perception. Thus, what the oak will look like is a matter of speculation, scientific investigation, or just waiting around for the tree to grow from the acorn. What scientific investigation has learned, of course, is that the form of the oak is determined by the DNA in the acorn. The “entelechy” has a physical basis, but this could be not gathered from the mere inspection of the acorn. Aristotle’s “entelechy” was thus for real, but not in the way he thought.
I would agree that Aristotle affirms (i) and (ii), but I don’t really see (iii). Universals are forms, and forms are substance. I think that Maimonides is actually a Neoplatonist, where the chain of Being is grades of form, and universality, from the four elements up to the One.
So I am curious why you, or anyone, would say that “No universal is a substance” in Aristotle.
Best wishes,
KR
In my apartment [in Ukraine] besides the home owner here coming in every few days to steal money and any kind of alcohol he had a son who is criminally insane who made it his business to steal from me and break down my door and steal from the other students in this dormitory.
For one one year things went kind of unnoticed. [The criminal was stealing but not too much.] I was basically alone. The second year students started showing up. and the criminal would steal stuff from me and them on a constant basis--a computer, cell phones, money, products in the refrigerator and basically anything of value. [a motor cycle that one fellow bought and lots of other stuff.]. How did it become clear who was doing it? He asked money for the stolen good in order to return them.
Dealing with the criminal made the actual home owner seem like a saint to me.
I told the landlady that her son is a problem, I called him the "Narcoman" because the first year I was here he came up every night with his friends to do drugs.
At one point I asked God for guidance. I have a "girl friend" that invited me to stay with her. There is a pastor in this city that made it clear I could live in his guest room. He had already invited me before, but when I actually had to move it was the winter and he said it was not heated and and he was just then finishing to build it.
[My mental state was such that also because I was going to Reb Nachman's grave site and there is a profusion of insane people that that I was very tense.I like Reb Nachman's teachings but there are kelipot [evil forces] there and I would have to go into the mikveh with my clothing to get off the bad feelings I had from the people there. [I do not go there anymore.]
It was at that time that had begun to learn Musar/Ethics. I asked a fellow from Israel to bring to me a few books of Musar/Ethics.
I saw in a book of Musar/Ethics the idea of trust in God so along with prayer I decide not to move unless actually physically forced to. That is I trusted in God to do for me hat needed to be done. That is trust with no effort.
The land lady asked me to stay when I told her I was thinking of moving. It was she was kind of pleading with me. Not just asking.
For two more years the criminal kept coming up to see what he could steal and I was growing more and more unhappy and getting OCD.. The more he would touch stuff the moire I felt I had to go to the mikveh when I touched something that he touched. That is I felt he is possessed by an evil kelipa.
[Because theft was considered OK to him I did not think he would ever get any better. I think once a person believes theft is OK then nothing will help him.]
Right before Rosh Hashanah he was put into the local home for the insane.
Now I am in a situation of great thanks and gratitude towards God. Ho I feel recovery will be a slow and difficult process.
Thanks for reading this and sharing my experience with me.
I am still very nervous when I hear any kind of male voices outside my door. I should however mention that trust in God and also the fact that God was granting to me to be basically productive in my room caused me to hesitant. God has granted to me great gifts that I am eternally thankful to Him for like Music and learning Physics and Torah and even writing some ideas in Torah.
For one one year things went kind of unnoticed. [The criminal was stealing but not too much.] I was basically alone. The second year students started showing up. and the criminal would steal stuff from me and them on a constant basis--a computer, cell phones, money, products in the refrigerator and basically anything of value. [a motor cycle that one fellow bought and lots of other stuff.]. How did it become clear who was doing it? He asked money for the stolen good in order to return them.
Dealing with the criminal made the actual home owner seem like a saint to me.
I told the landlady that her son is a problem, I called him the "Narcoman" because the first year I was here he came up every night with his friends to do drugs.
At one point I asked God for guidance. I have a "girl friend" that invited me to stay with her. There is a pastor in this city that made it clear I could live in his guest room. He had already invited me before, but when I actually had to move it was the winter and he said it was not heated and and he was just then finishing to build it.
[My mental state was such that also because I was going to Reb Nachman's grave site and there is a profusion of insane people that that I was very tense.I like Reb Nachman's teachings but there are kelipot [evil forces] there and I would have to go into the mikveh with my clothing to get off the bad feelings I had from the people there. [I do not go there anymore.]
It was at that time that had begun to learn Musar/Ethics. I asked a fellow from Israel to bring to me a few books of Musar/Ethics.
I saw in a book of Musar/Ethics the idea of trust in God so along with prayer I decide not to move unless actually physically forced to. That is I trusted in God to do for me hat needed to be done. That is trust with no effort.
The land lady asked me to stay when I told her I was thinking of moving. It was she was kind of pleading with me. Not just asking.
For two more years the criminal kept coming up to see what he could steal and I was growing more and more unhappy and getting OCD.. The more he would touch stuff the moire I felt I had to go to the mikveh when I touched something that he touched. That is I felt he is possessed by an evil kelipa.
[Because theft was considered OK to him I did not think he would ever get any better. I think once a person believes theft is OK then nothing will help him.]
Right before Rosh Hashanah he was put into the local home for the insane.
Now I am in a situation of great thanks and gratitude towards God. Ho I feel recovery will be a slow and difficult process.
Thanks for reading this and sharing my experience with me.
I am still very nervous when I hear any kind of male voices outside my door. I should however mention that trust in God and also the fact that God was granting to me to be basically productive in my room caused me to hesitant. God has granted to me great gifts that I am eternally thankful to Him for like Music and learning Physics and Torah and even writing some ideas in Torah.
Experience frum [religious] world
Experience. I saw the frum [religious] world was not as great as I had thought it was, so I had to reevaluate my priorities to see what is valid and what to disregard. Also further study. That is it was a combination of further study, plus experience. I began to see what is valuable in the Torah path, and also to see a lot of what the frum world is about was not really Torah.
It was a lot of observation and a lot of study.
How to put this in a more simple form? I saw discrepancy between the claims and the reality.
I also saw discrepancy between what the Torah [the Oral and Written Law] actually says and what people were claiming in its name.
The religious world [frum] is kind of a nasty place. That was clear always. Religious fanaticism does not equal moral decency. But the Litvak yeshivas were very different. I had thought that in fact the Litvak yeshiva was a place where human perfection could be attained or at least striven for. That is I was expecting too much from the Lithuanian Yeshivas.
In the realm of thought I also needed to do more learning.
In any case my conclusion from it all was that the Torah path is valuable and touches on a very important realm of value
Abusus non tolit Usum
Abuse does not invalidate use
You are right that my experiencing things caused me rethink my path
I had to sift through things and try to decide what was valid and valuable and hat was not.
Abusus non tolit Usum
Abuse does not invalidate use
You are right that my experiencing things caused me rethink my path
I had to sift through things and try to decide what was valid and valuable and what was not.
However there was some interaction between my thoughts about what I was doing and what I thought my service was about.
In the Mir I was very happy very very happy.
For example sometimes a claim is made for a certain kind of Divine service--that is a service towards God. For example Hisbodadut which is in theory great enough to bring people closer towards human perfection When the actual result is the opposite as can been seen in people deterioration in character this case one to wonder.
It was a lot of observation and a lot of study.
How to put this in a more simple form? I saw discrepancy between the claims and the reality.
I also saw discrepancy between what the Torah [the Oral and Written Law] actually says and what people were claiming in its name.
The religious world [frum] is kind of a nasty place. That was clear always. Religious fanaticism does not equal moral decency. But the Litvak yeshivas were very different. I had thought that in fact the Litvak yeshiva was a place where human perfection could be attained or at least striven for. That is I was expecting too much from the Lithuanian Yeshivas.
In the realm of thought I also needed to do more learning.
In any case my conclusion from it all was that the Torah path is valuable and touches on a very important realm of value
Abusus non tolit Usum
Abuse does not invalidate use
You are right that my experiencing things caused me rethink my path
I had to sift through things and try to decide what was valid and valuable and hat was not.
Abusus non tolit Usum
Abuse does not invalidate use
You are right that my experiencing things caused me rethink my path
I had to sift through things and try to decide what was valid and valuable and what was not.
However there was some interaction between my thoughts about what I was doing and what I thought my service was about.
In the Mir I was very happy very very happy.
For example sometimes a claim is made for a certain kind of Divine service--that is a service towards God. For example Hisbodadut which is in theory great enough to bring people closer towards human perfection When the actual result is the opposite as can been seen in people deterioration in character this case one to wonder.
Introspection can cause insanity.. Though Reb Nachman's idea of hisbodadut and speaking with God from one's heat in one's mother tongue is a great idea but it can be overdone and lead to insanity as we can in fact. The point here is it is possible and desirable to generalize about groups.There is such a thing as a Bell Curve and average behavior. If a group on the average displays a high degree of mental instability then it is permissible and desirable to generalize about it and ponder what is the cause?
18.10.16
introspection of one's self can cause insanity. I think Rav Eliezer Shick must have been aware to some degree of the problems involved with התבודדות.
I think Rav Eliezer Shick must have been aware to some degree of the problems involved with התבודדות. (That is a practice of talking with God in one's own language. This might include prayer but most often simply means talking about one's problems.) One thing you can easily see in his writings is the idea of unifications of the Ari.[[Issac Luria]]
So even if he did not say so openly his must have been aware that introspection of one's self can cause insanity.
That is he certainly saw the importance of prayer and talking to God in one's own language and asking him for help and thanking him for his blessings. Still there is the danger of just talking with God as a friend can get to be just going on and on about one's miserableness and state of affairs.
And besides that he had been learning the Ari. So at some point he realized the unifications of the Ari were just the thing to be doing while spending time with God as a kind of Dekakut [attachment with God in fulfillment of the verse ולדבקה בו].
This seems to me to be an important point. In fact I had been looking at the Ari [Issac Luria] for some time before I got to Israel but did not see how unifications were practical. So Rav Shick's approach to this was an eye opener for me and that is in fact what I spent a lot of time doing In Safed.
Still I should mention I am not overly impressed with Rav Shick. To some degree, I see him as setting a stumbling block in front of people. Going into places where people were learning Torah and getting them involved in the books of Reb Nachman had the effect of getting people to throw away their Gemaras and stop seeing learning Torah as the highest ideal. Plus many many other problems that came along with the whole business, Still from Rav Shick's approach I learned some very important lessons.
Appendix:
Note 1: Unifications is a subject that comes up mainly in שער רוח הקודש. You really do not see it in the עץ חיים itself of the Ari except as simply giving over the different Divine names that are in the interior of each world. And even that he does not get into until Volume II of the עץ חיים.
In any case what Rav Shick noticed in the book of Reb Nachman in Vol I ch 2 was a hint to a simple way of doing unifications. Reb Nachman simply mentioned the 686 lights (תרפו אורות).
Rav Shick realize at that point that simply concentrating on the 686 lights was easy to remember and also provided a way to be thinking about God all the time without the general problem of moaning and groaning about one's problems that even when done in talking with God generally causes a kind of insanity.
Note 2: In short the 686 lights are these:
יוד הי ויו הי
יוד הי ואו הי
אלף הי יוד הי
אלף הא יוד הא
אלף הה יוד הה
So even if he did not say so openly his must have been aware that introspection of one's self can cause insanity.
That is he certainly saw the importance of prayer and talking to God in one's own language and asking him for help and thanking him for his blessings. Still there is the danger of just talking with God as a friend can get to be just going on and on about one's miserableness and state of affairs.
And besides that he had been learning the Ari. So at some point he realized the unifications of the Ari were just the thing to be doing while spending time with God as a kind of Dekakut [attachment with God in fulfillment of the verse ולדבקה בו].
This seems to me to be an important point. In fact I had been looking at the Ari [Issac Luria] for some time before I got to Israel but did not see how unifications were practical. So Rav Shick's approach to this was an eye opener for me and that is in fact what I spent a lot of time doing In Safed.
Still I should mention I am not overly impressed with Rav Shick. To some degree, I see him as setting a stumbling block in front of people. Going into places where people were learning Torah and getting them involved in the books of Reb Nachman had the effect of getting people to throw away their Gemaras and stop seeing learning Torah as the highest ideal. Plus many many other problems that came along with the whole business, Still from Rav Shick's approach I learned some very important lessons.
Appendix:
Note 1: Unifications is a subject that comes up mainly in שער רוח הקודש. You really do not see it in the עץ חיים itself of the Ari except as simply giving over the different Divine names that are in the interior of each world. And even that he does not get into until Volume II of the עץ חיים.
In any case what Rav Shick noticed in the book of Reb Nachman in Vol I ch 2 was a hint to a simple way of doing unifications. Reb Nachman simply mentioned the 686 lights (תרפו אורות).
Rav Shick realize at that point that simply concentrating on the 686 lights was easy to remember and also provided a way to be thinking about God all the time without the general problem of moaning and groaning about one's problems that even when done in talking with God generally causes a kind of insanity.
Note 2: In short the 686 lights are these:
יוד הי ויו הי
יוד הי ואו הי
יוד הא ואו הא
יוד הה וו הה
אלף הא יוד הא
אלף הה יוד הה
17.10.16
The Lithuanian Yeshiva world is asleep
The Lithuanian Yeshiva world is asleep during a time it needs to be the most alert; the following blog will begin by tracing how the yeshiva world has been lulled into this stupor. The Sitra Achra Dark Side poison has devastatingly seeped into most of our yeshivot today.
In the mid to late 1960's, there were profound changes taking place in America - changes to our social, political, and spiritual institutions. The entire cultural landscape was in upheaval. All the old assumptions, i.e., the Western-rational, science-based understanding of the universe and our understanding of social relationships were challenged and discarded by the "elite." There was a concentrated assault on our moral base and on the concept of morality itself.
Relativism was the moral philosophy du jour. Consciousness was being expanded and "raised" by the use of hallucinogenic drugs and forays into the Occult and Eastern Mysticism. This attitude of experimentation was transferred into the yeshivas as many of the young came from the counterculture and brought with them many of the drug and Eastern mystic-induced "revelations" with them.
This was a time when all institutions and their foundational truths were challenged and if possible changed. The yeshiva leadership was profoundly influenced by the incursion of psychology and the occult with their claim to superior knowledge, while the groups from primarily the occult embraced and mentored these young radicals. The religious teachers found in the new infusion of radical, social, political and spiritual concepts of these young people a fertile field in which to plow their aberrant occult, and to produce a harvest of very strange fruit - fruit that was not Torah in its origin or in its outcome. They eventually came to fill the leading post in synagogues of many of the mainstream groups.
As our society had become more permissive and tolerant, so were these attitudes introduced into the yeshivot. Many in the movements had already experienced this permissiveness and tolerance of a "low-view" of Torah and tradition and had the obvious signs of heresy and lack of sound Torah teaching. The other more traditional denominations maintained a veneer of Torah. However, the inoculation against the truth had come in through the "Trojan Horse" of psychology, permitting every deviancy the counterculture had, challenging Torah and orthopraxy.
They did this in the name of science and with the blessing of virtually every yeshiva leader in America. The seeds of the lie were planted deep within the soil of the yeshivas, the satanic seed of deception, being watered and cared for by the very ones that were looked to as the leaders of God's flock. The false shepherds of the flock of God tended the garden of הסטרא אחרא the Dark Side in the full view of the people and were never challenged. As God has said in the נביאים ,Woe unto those shepherds... ".
With this change of paradigm from a Torah based understanding of man and his condition to a pseudo-scientific understanding (really nothing more than a rationalization which is all that psychology is), came the acceptance of every type of experience into the yeshivas. Because all sources of "truth" were being taught as equal, why not accept those that could only be found in the Occult and Eastern Mysticism as being as valid as any other source of truth?
Marriage today is undergoing some kind of strange transformation
I have no advice but I just wanted to mention that when my wife left me I found it helpful to be very careful never to say a negative word about her to anyone. Since I knew I was going into a period of tremendous turmoil I also found it useful to find one core principle to stick with at all cost and that was to tell the truth always under all circumstances. These two ideas I believed helped me get through the problems..
I have no advice but I just wanted to mention that when my wife left me I found it helpful to be very careful never to say a negative word about her to anyone. Since I knew I was going into a period of tremendous turmoil I also found it useful to find one core principle to stick with at all cost and that was to tell the truth always under all circumstances. These two ideas I believed helped me get through the problems..
16.10.16
Anything to do with Kabalah today is coming from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side].
I see there is critique on Kabalah. Some consider it Occult. Which is true for much of it, and certainly for all modern day people that indulge in it. It surprised me when I found this modern attitude in people that were interested in Kabalah. Where it comes from is easy to see. People are interested in the deeper meaning of the Torah, and then the subtle hints and promises of secret powers gets to them.
[I meant to get into this subject in more depth, but did not get a chance. In any case, I could have to agree with the critique that almost anything to do with Kabalah nowadays is basically coming from the Sitra Achra. ]
Critics typically do not differentiate between types of Kabalah when they are including it in the category of Occult. They are certainly right for the critique on Occult practices. However I must distinguish between what they are criticizing and the Ari (Isaac Luria).
In fact the very word used for Kabalah in the yeshiva world refers to only the Zohar, the Remak, and the Ari. These is not the same things that the critics are criticizing.
There is however a kind of grey area in which even legitimate kabalah gets into the wrong energies.
In essence the Ari, Remak, Zohar, Rav Avraham Abulafia are giving a mystic view of the Torah, not advocating occult or magic practices
Later groups supposedly going with the Kabalah however are defilement from the dark side.
In the realm of witchcraft and the occult, and there are profound scriptural warnings not to remember them or to be "a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer" (Deut. 18:11).
The Jewish orthodox world also believes in the blending of psychology and Torah as if the Torah was not enough. They think the Torah says, "I have placed the good and the truth, Jung and Freud before you this day." And "These are the modern theories of psychology by which a man will live by them."
The Sitra Achra [Dark Side] goal is ultimately to lead to worldwide demon possession.
[I meant to get into this subject in more depth, but did not get a chance. In any case, I could have to agree with the critique that almost anything to do with Kabalah nowadays is basically coming from the Sitra Achra. ]
Critics typically do not differentiate between types of Kabalah when they are including it in the category of Occult. They are certainly right for the critique on Occult practices. However I must distinguish between what they are criticizing and the Ari (Isaac Luria).
In fact the very word used for Kabalah in the yeshiva world refers to only the Zohar, the Remak, and the Ari. These is not the same things that the critics are criticizing.
There is however a kind of grey area in which even legitimate kabalah gets into the wrong energies.
In essence the Ari, Remak, Zohar, Rav Avraham Abulafia are giving a mystic view of the Torah, not advocating occult or magic practices
Later groups supposedly going with the Kabalah however are defilement from the dark side.
In the realm of witchcraft and the occult, and there are profound scriptural warnings not to remember them or to be "a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer" (Deut. 18:11).
The Jewish orthodox world also believes in the blending of psychology and Torah as if the Torah was not enough. They think the Torah says, "I have placed the good and the truth, Jung and Freud before you this day." And "These are the modern theories of psychology by which a man will live by them."
The Sitra Achra [Dark Side] goal is ultimately to lead to worldwide demon possession.
The default position of American youth is "No one can tell me what to do." This is stated as an obvious axiom although there is nothing obvious about it.
It is hard to know what it means. Does it mean no one has the right to tell him what to do.
Imagine a recruit in the Army. That thinks he knows best how to take a rifle apart and clean it. He is taking twenty minutes and still has not figured it out.
The instructor comes over and shows him his mistake. The recruit says to the instructor "No one can tell me what to think." How is this defensible?
Or you have a cash register worker with sticky fingers. At the end of the day money is missing. The store owner asks him about it. He answers "No one can tell me what to do."
Even if one is alone, no one is alone. One's parents have something invested in him. Many parents care very deeply about their children. And in any case no one is alone. Everyone one lives in some groups and everything he does or does not do affects others.Imagine a world with no traffic rules. No one would be safe.
You can have someone walking in front of a moving car and he keeps on walking straight at the car and the car keeps coming expecting him to move of the way. They get within about 20 inches of missing. You tell the fellow, "Don't walk in front of a moving car." He answers "No one can tell me what to do." I am not exaggerating. This is how ingrained this attitude is today.
It is hard to know what it means. Does it mean no one has the right to tell him what to do.
Imagine a recruit in the Army. That thinks he knows best how to take a rifle apart and clean it. He is taking twenty minutes and still has not figured it out.
The instructor comes over and shows him his mistake. The recruit says to the instructor "No one can tell me what to think." How is this defensible?
Or you have a cash register worker with sticky fingers. At the end of the day money is missing. The store owner asks him about it. He answers "No one can tell me what to do."
Even if one is alone, no one is alone. One's parents have something invested in him. Many parents care very deeply about their children. And in any case no one is alone. Everyone one lives in some groups and everything he does or does not do affects others.Imagine a world with no traffic rules. No one would be safe.
You can have someone walking in front of a moving car and he keeps on walking straight at the car and the car keeps coming expecting him to move of the way. They get within about 20 inches of missing. You tell the fellow, "Don't walk in front of a moving car." He answers "No one can tell me what to do." I am not exaggerating. This is how ingrained this attitude is today.
14.10.16
The Modern world developed as a reaction to religious abuse.
Society has become secular. No Numinous value. I can see this as a problem. But numinous value is also confusing. It is hard to find a proper balance. One does not wish religious authorities to have power. I shudder at the thought. The Modern world developed as a reaction to religious abuse. So all we have are two approaches neither of which seems very good.
So my suggestion is to learn Torah --that is the Oral and Written Law of Moses, plus Math and Physics. This approach is based on my parents and it happens to corresponds to what Maimonides said in the Guide. [Maimonides also emphasized Metaphysics the set of books of Aristotle by that name.] [Philosophy and philosophers nowadays are stupid. But there were great thinkers like Plato Aristotle and Kant. ]
[I should mention that the Oral Law is a lot of material to go through and therefore the best idea for a fast introduction is to learn what is called Musar/Ethics. Musar in its essence means medieval Ethics like the Obligations of the Heart, and Paths of the Just, The Ways of the Righteous etc. But to get a better idea of Musar it is helpful to learn the books of Reb Israel Salanter's disciples.]
Musar is based on the Written and Oral Law but extracts the basic aspects of Fear of God and Ethics.
So my suggestion is to learn Torah --that is the Oral and Written Law of Moses, plus Math and Physics. This approach is based on my parents and it happens to corresponds to what Maimonides said in the Guide. [Maimonides also emphasized Metaphysics the set of books of Aristotle by that name.] [Philosophy and philosophers nowadays are stupid. But there were great thinkers like Plato Aristotle and Kant. ]
[I should mention that the Oral Law is a lot of material to go through and therefore the best idea for a fast introduction is to learn what is called Musar/Ethics. Musar in its essence means medieval Ethics like the Obligations of the Heart, and Paths of the Just, The Ways of the Righteous etc. But to get a better idea of Musar it is helpful to learn the books of Reb Israel Salanter's disciples.]
Musar is based on the Written and Oral Law but extracts the basic aspects of Fear of God and Ethics.
I see the Alt Right and monarchists are not so thrilled with the Enlightenment. That would seem to be along the lines of Allen Bloom. (Closing of the American Mind). But Bloom takes the critique mainly from the beginning of the Enlightenment up until Kant and then skips over to the modern day American University. So he did not deal with German Idealism nor its offshoots. I am not sure why?
I see a lot of value in German Idealism and the later people like C.G. Jung who built on Schopenhauer and Kant.
Still the overall impression is that none of these people liked the Throne and Altar approach of the Middle Ages.
In any case you can see even in Jung and Hegel the struggle to get out of a Torah Framework.
Certainly not in Kant though.
In any case I am still trying to evaluate the whole thing. I read Allen Bloom about 5 years ago and pretty much what he says makes sense. That is: The Enlightenment and the Anti Enlightenment have both been on a collusion course for some time and now are colliding. The devastation of the Enlightenment is apparent in the modern USA university. But the solution is no where to be seen. He certainly does not think a return to Throne and Altar is a good idea. I also have sen plenty of abuse in religious settings. There is enough abuse for me to shudder at the idea of religious authorities have any kind of power.
I prefer to remain in the Allen Bloom Zone where both the Enlightenment and Throne and Altar approach have some validity and that the best way has simply not been found yet.
Just to be clear I think the modern world got intoxicated with modernity. The best thing is to learn Gemara, Musar [medieval ethics] Math and Physics. Take the best of the holy Torah and science. [Hegel I am not so thrilled with.]
I see a lot of value in German Idealism and the later people like C.G. Jung who built on Schopenhauer and Kant.
Still the overall impression is that none of these people liked the Throne and Altar approach of the Middle Ages.
In any case you can see even in Jung and Hegel the struggle to get out of a Torah Framework.
Certainly not in Kant though.
In any case I am still trying to evaluate the whole thing. I read Allen Bloom about 5 years ago and pretty much what he says makes sense. That is: The Enlightenment and the Anti Enlightenment have both been on a collusion course for some time and now are colliding. The devastation of the Enlightenment is apparent in the modern USA university. But the solution is no where to be seen. He certainly does not think a return to Throne and Altar is a good idea. I also have sen plenty of abuse in religious settings. There is enough abuse for me to shudder at the idea of religious authorities have any kind of power.
I prefer to remain in the Allen Bloom Zone where both the Enlightenment and Throne and Altar approach have some validity and that the best way has simply not been found yet.
Just to be clear I think the modern world got intoxicated with modernity. The best thing is to learn Gemara, Musar [medieval ethics] Math and Physics. Take the best of the holy Torah and science. [Hegel I am not so thrilled with.]
13.10.16
The Social Meme and the Lithuanian yeshiva model. There is a correspondence between what people are doing and what they think they are doing.
Every group has some social meme it is founded upon. Sometimes it is a positive thing and sometimes not. This is the reason I mention the Lithuanian yeshiva world often in a positive light since the basic social meme [the set of core principles] is to learn and keep Torah. All other groups in the religious world are defined by things they hate. For example the very religious in the Jewish world could not care less about Torah. What they hate is hate defines them. They hate secular Jews. They hate the State of Israel. They hate Christianity. And they love the money of secular Jews, They often have some central object of worship that is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
[The Lithuanian yeshiva model at least in the form I saw in New York is amazing. The energy of Torah that fills these kinds of places is astounding. When you are a part of it you really live in order to learn and keep Torah.]
The great advantage of the Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva model is there is a correspondence between what people are doing and what they think they are doing. In that way it can be called true. In the religious world however there is a kind of disconnect. What people are doing has no connection to what they present to others what they are doing or what they themselves think they are doing.
[The Lithuanian yeshiva model at least in the form I saw in New York is amazing. The energy of Torah that fills these kinds of places is astounding. When you are a part of it you really live in order to learn and keep Torah.]
The great advantage of the Litvak [Lithuanian] yeshiva model is there is a correspondence between what people are doing and what they think they are doing. In that way it can be called true. In the religious world however there is a kind of disconnect. What people are doing has no connection to what they present to others what they are doing or what they themselves think they are doing.
Yom Kippur we say the long confession which includes the idea of listening to one's parents and teachers. I think there can be cases in which parents and teachers are not teaching the right things and thus should not be listened to. Still, in my case, I had an amazing set of fantastic parents and amazing teachers. It is however hard to figure out how to balance the lessons I learned from them into one whole.
The way I have tried to do this is by consciously arranged my daily schedule to include the different things I learned were important. That is small sessions. I go with the idea that even a little bit of something important is also important.
[Learning Music, Math, Physics, Gemara, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach would be my idea of a great way to spend the day.]
[There are other subjects which are worthwhile to learn but not on a daily basis. ]
Reform Judaism I should mention is great in terms of the emphasis on obligations between man and his fellow man. But it has change over the years to be mainly a belief in Socialism instead of Torah. In the more religious circles others things are used to replace the Torah.
The way I have tried to do this is by consciously arranged my daily schedule to include the different things I learned were important. That is small sessions. I go with the idea that even a little bit of something important is also important.
[Learning Music, Math, Physics, Gemara, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach would be my idea of a great way to spend the day.]
[There are other subjects which are worthwhile to learn but not on a daily basis. ]
Reform Judaism I should mention is great in terms of the emphasis on obligations between man and his fellow man. But it has change over the years to be mainly a belief in Socialism instead of Torah. In the more religious circles others things are used to replace the Torah.
11.10.16
Darius
Darius is the most confusing person to me. On one hand he did give the order to complete the Temple in Jerusalem according to the Law of Moses. On the other hand he also invaded Hellas right before the Golden Age of Athens and Sparta. Art, Science, Math, Literature, Music, Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Pretty much everything that enriches human life. It is hard to imagine what would have happened if Persia had managed to subjugate Hellas.
Would some of this managed to come about elsewhere? It seems unlikely since it never did at any other time or place, though there were plenty of opportunities.
Would some of this managed to come about elsewhere? It seems unlikely since it never did at any other time or place, though there were plenty of opportunities.
The idea of the Divine light shining on me and my family while we were in Israel in Safed, I admit implies a certain degree of responsibility on my part. I thought I could escape from the presence of God, and that would absolve me of my responsibilities. Kind of like Jonah. But it did not exactly work that way. In any case, apparently from what I can see, that not only was it wrong to run from God's presence, but even though I did so, that did not absolve me of my responsibilities.
The trouble is I have a hard time trying to figure out how keep my obligations. In theory it ought to be simple. Call people to keep the Law of Moses, the Oral and Written Law. It could not be more simple. But in practice it is hard because the world that makes a show of keeping the Torah are just about as far from the holy Torah as a human being could possibly be-- with all the cults and idolatry that they cover up by means of Torah rituals. For one who really wants to keep the Torah in an authentic way, the worst possible idea is to have anything to do with the religious Jewish world. The only exception I can think of is the Lithuanian yeshivas which are great,- except for the problem that the boundary between them and the religious is fluid.
Therefore, what I can do is to recommend the basic Litvak yeshiva approach with a caveat (condition). That is,- this recommendation comes with conditions. While the basic approach is true to Torah to some degree, it still has problems since the border between it and the insane religious world is porous, and also the kollels are simply using Torah as a way of making an income.
The trouble is I have a hard time trying to figure out how keep my obligations. In theory it ought to be simple. Call people to keep the Law of Moses, the Oral and Written Law. It could not be more simple. But in practice it is hard because the world that makes a show of keeping the Torah are just about as far from the holy Torah as a human being could possibly be-- with all the cults and idolatry that they cover up by means of Torah rituals. For one who really wants to keep the Torah in an authentic way, the worst possible idea is to have anything to do with the religious Jewish world. The only exception I can think of is the Lithuanian yeshivas which are great,- except for the problem that the boundary between them and the religious is fluid.
Therefore, what I can do is to recommend the basic Litvak yeshiva approach with a caveat (condition). That is,- this recommendation comes with conditions. While the basic approach is true to Torah to some degree, it still has problems since the border between it and the insane religious world is porous, and also the kollels are simply using Torah as a way of making an income.
10.10.16
Better no Torah than false Torah.
My impression in the 1990's when my wife left me that it was a tragedy on a global scale. That is not that I thought I was special in any way. I know I am not. But for the years we were in Israel for some reason or other God decided to shine his Divine light on me and my family in a really intense way. It was so strong that even visitors to our home would comment on it. You can even ask Rav Peretz Aurbach who was there for a visit and he felt it. So it seems to me my home was a kind of focal point for some kind of Divine energy. When Leah left, I knew this was going to have global repercussions on the entire state of marriage everywhere.
[To be fair to her, it was not really her fault since religious teachers and leaders were putting great pressure on her.] But later when the so called Shiduch Crisis began and then later marriage has fallen apart as an institution and now all religious leaders worship the Vagina I am not surprised.
Nowadays anyone who wants to get married out to have his head examined.
The solution to this problem is clear. The Law of Moses says if one keeps to Torah, things will go well. If things are not well in the world, we can only blame ourselves. But the question remains, what part or aspect of the Law are we not keeping? I can venture a guess for myself. Listening to our parents, speaking the truth at all cost, not touching what does not belong to us, learning Torah, not doing idolatry towards people.
[Obviously staying away from the religious with all their forms of idolatry and cults makes a lot of sense. Better no Torah than false Torah.]
[To be fair to her, it was not really her fault since religious teachers and leaders were putting great pressure on her.] But later when the so called Shiduch Crisis began and then later marriage has fallen apart as an institution and now all religious leaders worship the Vagina I am not surprised.
Nowadays anyone who wants to get married out to have his head examined.
The solution to this problem is clear. The Law of Moses says if one keeps to Torah, things will go well. If things are not well in the world, we can only blame ourselves. But the question remains, what part or aspect of the Law are we not keeping? I can venture a guess for myself. Listening to our parents, speaking the truth at all cost, not touching what does not belong to us, learning Torah, not doing idolatry towards people.
[Obviously staying away from the religious with all their forms of idolatry and cults makes a lot of sense. Better no Torah than false Torah.]
I saw with Rav Shick the idea of being attached to a tzadik and pantheism. He must have felt both of these ideas were the most important things to hold onto. I can see the importance of holding onto some basic trait, but neither of those two things seem to be worthwhile goals, or to lead to any kind of human perfection or even improvement.
The Gemara itself seems to exclude any kind of idea of attachment to a tzadik as being a good thing, as it says in Sanhedrin circa 63b, "What is the difference between him and us?"
That is:-- the teaching of the Sages: If one says, "Serve me," he gets the death penalty for being one that tries to seduce another to do idol worship. (מסית ומדיח). That is to all opinions. Then there is a question if one answers that person and says, "Yes." Does he also get the death penalty? Some say "Yes." And others says "No" because all he meant was to make fun of the person asking for worship. After all מאי שנא איהו מינן דידן? ("What is the difference between him and us?").
[All the movements stemming from the Baal Shem Tov got heavily into pantheism, and have tried to sell it as the legitimate viewpoint of the Torah. (I do not think the Baal Shem Tov himself was responsible for this, but it came out of misunderstanding his intention in some of his statements.)
With Rav Shick the worship of a human being slipped into Vagina worship and with all religious leaders of this generation. [I mean worship of women which is the basic orientation of all religious leaders.]
My impression is the main thing to hold onto is the Law of Moses. And I can agree that there are particular things which can help to concentrate on. But attachment to a tzadik is at least one thing that seems to profit no one. The only results I have seen from that kind of approach are the destruction of good character. And the same goes for pantheism.
The Gemara itself seems to exclude any kind of idea of attachment to a tzadik as being a good thing, as it says in Sanhedrin circa 63b, "What is the difference between him and us?"
That is:-- the teaching of the Sages: If one says, "Serve me," he gets the death penalty for being one that tries to seduce another to do idol worship. (מסית ומדיח). That is to all opinions. Then there is a question if one answers that person and says, "Yes." Does he also get the death penalty? Some say "Yes." And others says "No" because all he meant was to make fun of the person asking for worship. After all מאי שנא איהו מינן דידן? ("What is the difference between him and us?").
[All the movements stemming from the Baal Shem Tov got heavily into pantheism, and have tried to sell it as the legitimate viewpoint of the Torah. (I do not think the Baal Shem Tov himself was responsible for this, but it came out of misunderstanding his intention in some of his statements.)
With Rav Shick the worship of a human being slipped into Vagina worship and with all religious leaders of this generation. [I mean worship of women which is the basic orientation of all religious leaders.]
My impression is the main thing to hold onto is the Law of Moses. And I can agree that there are particular things which can help to concentrate on. But attachment to a tzadik is at least one thing that seems to profit no one. The only results I have seen from that kind of approach are the destruction of good character. And the same goes for pantheism.
Trust and truth
You can not hide who you are or what you do. Believe me everyone knows. Everything is revealed. If if you take what does not belong to you in secret, everyone can feel the kind of person you are, and they do not trust you, so they will not hire you for any kind of job that requires trust. You have to get into the habit of always speaking the truth and never touching what does not belong to you and they you will begin to radiate an atmosphere of truth and truth around you that people can feel.
9.10.16
to repent on my sins
Since it is right before Yom Kippur and I understand the need to repent on my sins and the need of others also. Yet I realize that just like I am stuck in certain patterns of behavior that may or may not correspond the the Oral and Written Law of Moses it seems that changing my ways in a way that would be objectivity considered as Teshuva [a true return to the way of the Torah] is probably impossible. This is a problem the Musar books deal with and their suggestion is to bring merit to many. That would probably translate to making yeshivas along the lines of Narvardok that empathizes good character trait [being a mensch] Fear of God, Trust in God and learning Torah.
The idea seems sound to me but there is a drawback that most places called yeshiva are really just private country clubs that learn Torah for show but they are not authentic.
The type of yeshiva I would recommend would be the traditional Lithuanian yeshiva but with this difference.
The only difference would be Physics and Math that the Musar yeshivas did not have in them, and for some reason unknown to me they decided to ignore the Rambam. Maybe it is the same reason the Gra's signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored. Some people just ant to be religious fanatics and the more stupid rituals the better.
[Just to make it clear what I am saying: If you go through books of Ethics you will find that they deal with the problem that sometimes one finds he can't repent. Their idea is that this comes from כל המחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקים בידו לעשות תשובה (from heaven they do not let repent anyone who causes many to sin). And their cure for this problem is כל המזכה את הרבים אין חטא בא על ידו ( no sin comes about through anyone who causes many to do a good deed or a commandment.)]
Then the problem is that what most people do to bring merit to many is usually the source of terrible sin. As a rule it is better for people to pursue selfish ends rather that do things they think are a mitzvah. The most horrible thing come into the world through people that want to help the world. The more sincere they are the worse their effect.
The idea seems sound to me but there is a drawback that most places called yeshiva are really just private country clubs that learn Torah for show but they are not authentic.
The type of yeshiva I would recommend would be the traditional Lithuanian yeshiva but with this difference.
The only difference would be Physics and Math that the Musar yeshivas did not have in them, and for some reason unknown to me they decided to ignore the Rambam. Maybe it is the same reason the Gra's signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored. Some people just ant to be religious fanatics and the more stupid rituals the better.
[Just to make it clear what I am saying: If you go through books of Ethics you will find that they deal with the problem that sometimes one finds he can't repent. Their idea is that this comes from כל המחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקים בידו לעשות תשובה (from heaven they do not let repent anyone who causes many to sin). And their cure for this problem is כל המזכה את הרבים אין חטא בא על ידו ( no sin comes about through anyone who causes many to do a good deed or a commandment.)]
Then the problem is that what most people do to bring merit to many is usually the source of terrible sin. As a rule it is better for people to pursue selfish ends rather that do things they think are a mitzvah. The most horrible thing come into the world through people that want to help the world. The more sincere they are the worse their effect.
Determinism is self refuting.
three-arguments-against-determinism
https://sydneytrads.com
Determinism is self refuting.
But we wouldn’t say that the snowfall is “true” or “false.”
I should mention that Allen Bloom mentioned briefly this idea. Also John Searle I believe has a book along the same lines. I am not surprised to see a professor at a NY university putting together such an excellent essay.
https://sydneytrads.com
Determinism is self refuting.
But we wouldn’t say that the snowfall is “true” or “false.”
I should mention that Allen Bloom mentioned briefly this idea. Also John Searle I believe has a book along the same lines. I am not surprised to see a professor at a NY university putting together such an excellent essay.
8.10.16
To have some learning session in Kabalah. There was an opening of Divine Light on me for the years I was in Israel before I pushed it away. So I do have a great deal of confidence in the Ari himself that learning him does prepare the soul for a higher kind of light--if done for the intention of learning Torah.
Because of the fact that young people -when they get interested in Torah also get interested in Kabalah is not a surprise. They do first need to get the idea that it is kosher. If not for that crucial step, even the most secular Jew would reject the idea of having anything to do with it.
(1) To me the Ari seems important. But a lot of the Dark Side got mixed into the general books of Kabalah especially after the Baal Shem Tov. Not that this as the fault of the Baal Shem Tov, but rather the fact that the basic approach of the Shatz got into all mystic books after the 1700's.
The focus of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) became the possession of religious teachers, and from there it was easy to subvert the rest of the Jewish people.
(2) Without the Kabala,h the Torah looks to modern eyes rather empty of significance. So it is natural to look for what is going on under the surface. This is the same as when you read Chaucer, you look for the deeper meanings. But in Kabalah people expect they will find the feeling and knowledge of numinous value.
(3) My position on this is that the Zohar is not from R Shimon ben Yochai. But that does not invalidate it. It was common for souls of people to reveal things to the living as we see with Joan of Arc and many others.
(4) I do think the Ari [Isaac Luria] is important but almost nothing that was written in Kabalah after him. The only two schools of thought after the Ari that I consider kosher are Yaakov Abuchatzeira and Shalom Sharabi.
(5) Besides those to schools of though I think everything else is basically from the Dark Side.
[Clearly Yaakov Avichatzaira and Bava Sali held very highly of the Ari and the Remak. The trouble is clearly not from them but from later demonic teachers that got to be commonly accepted as tzadikim who were clearly not so.]
Th danger is also that people that learn kabalah think they have Ruach Hakodesh and or the ability to do miracles. They imagine anything they think come from the realm of holiness.
(6) My own position you have to realize comes from a balance of a lot of things. I really liked the Eitz Chaim of the Arizal which I learned in the Mir Yeshiva in NY [between sessions] before I went to Israel, and in Israel I learned zero Kabalah, but visited the grave of the Arizal. [I mean in NY the basic thing was to learn Talmud and so I learned the Ari only between sessions--I think. I might have done some during some sessions.] In any case, there was an opening of Divine Light on me for the years I was there before I pushed it away. SoI do have a great deal of confidence in the Ari himself that learning him does prepare the soul for a higher kind of light--if done for the intention of learning Torah. If it is done for the intention of getting spiritual powers it definitely causes one to fall into the Dark Side. I also look at the Ari from the standpoint of Kant that there is a an area of value that reason can not know. The realm of the dinge any sich.
(1) To me the Ari seems important. But a lot of the Dark Side got mixed into the general books of Kabalah especially after the Baal Shem Tov. Not that this as the fault of the Baal Shem Tov, but rather the fact that the basic approach of the Shatz got into all mystic books after the 1700's.
The focus of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) became the possession of religious teachers, and from there it was easy to subvert the rest of the Jewish people.
(2) Without the Kabala,h the Torah looks to modern eyes rather empty of significance. So it is natural to look for what is going on under the surface. This is the same as when you read Chaucer, you look for the deeper meanings. But in Kabalah people expect they will find the feeling and knowledge of numinous value.
(3) My position on this is that the Zohar is not from R Shimon ben Yochai. But that does not invalidate it. It was common for souls of people to reveal things to the living as we see with Joan of Arc and many others.
(4) I do think the Ari [Isaac Luria] is important but almost nothing that was written in Kabalah after him. The only two schools of thought after the Ari that I consider kosher are Yaakov Abuchatzeira and Shalom Sharabi.
(5) Besides those to schools of though I think everything else is basically from the Dark Side.
[Clearly Yaakov Avichatzaira and Bava Sali held very highly of the Ari and the Remak. The trouble is clearly not from them but from later demonic teachers that got to be commonly accepted as tzadikim who were clearly not so.]
Th danger is also that people that learn kabalah think they have Ruach Hakodesh and or the ability to do miracles. They imagine anything they think come from the realm of holiness.
(6) My own position you have to realize comes from a balance of a lot of things. I really liked the Eitz Chaim of the Arizal which I learned in the Mir Yeshiva in NY [between sessions] before I went to Israel, and in Israel I learned zero Kabalah, but visited the grave of the Arizal. [I mean in NY the basic thing was to learn Talmud and so I learned the Ari only between sessions--I think. I might have done some during some sessions.] In any case, there was an opening of Divine Light on me for the years I was there before I pushed it away. SoI do have a great deal of confidence in the Ari himself that learning him does prepare the soul for a higher kind of light--if done for the intention of learning Torah. If it is done for the intention of getting spiritual powers it definitely causes one to fall into the Dark Side. I also look at the Ari from the standpoint of Kant that there is a an area of value that reason can not know. The realm of the dinge any sich.
7.10.16
Socialism or any Rousseau based system I do not like. The way I see it the Constitution of the USA would work perfectly well if not for the New Deal and the Great Society and black influence. The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal government and no more. All other powers and right remain for the States or for the individual.
This really goes back to Hobbes that government is in order to protect civil society.
From the aspect of Torah, Socialism has two problems. Two are from the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. From the aspect of Torah the Federal government has a problem because it is limited by contract. The contract in this case being the Constitution. It is in violation of this contract because it has usurped power not given to it and reserved only for the states or individuals. No one can believe in the Old Testament and still hold with socialism.
This really goes back to Hobbes that government is in order to protect civil society.
From the aspect of Torah, Socialism has two problems. Two are from the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. From the aspect of Torah the Federal government has a problem because it is limited by contract. The contract in this case being the Constitution. It is in violation of this contract because it has usurped power not given to it and reserved only for the states or individuals. No one can believe in the Old Testament and still hold with socialism.
I was learning Shabat
I was learning Shabat while engaged to my future wife and spent that year learning Shabat and then Aruvin during my first year of marriage and then Pesachim. While a lot of my learning Shabat was done with Tospot and the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua, still some parts I did with a learning partner that wanted to concentrate on Halacha so we did the Gemara, Rashi, and some Tosphot and then the Rosh and Rif and Shiltei Giborim on the Rif and the Tur and Beit Yoseph. When it comes to the laws of Shabat, that is about the only way I have ever heard that gives a clear understanding of the material.
I am not saying I liked that last approach. It as the approach my learning partner insisted on. But I admit when it comes to Halacha that the only way to understand Halacah is by doing the Gemara with the Tur Beit Yoseph. But if it had been up to me, I would have rather just done the Maharsha, Pnei Yehoshua and Tosphot. On my own I not only learned the Maharsha, but the book Maharsha HeAroch which combined five commentaries on the Maharsha.
I can not say which approach is better. When I was starting out learning, I combined both approaches. But by the time I got to the Mir, I was pretty set on "Lumdus," = learning in depth with intense analysis of Tosphot. Though I was ignorant, still the deeper levels of the Gemara were what interested me. But I guess what happened was at the Mir, the group that was doing Shabat that year were "halacha oriented" so I just went along with it.
To me "learning" still just means Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin. Everything else is extra credit.
[As for the actual laws of Shabat, I am lenient about things like the public domain needing 600,000 as Rashi and Tosphot both say. Also electricity and writing in English as per the Rema that in Hebrew in the actual prohibition. Muktze also according the the later Mishna in chapter Beit Shamai where the Gemara turns the mishna around, so the school that allowed mutzah was Beit Hillel. I am not going into these subjects here, but just stating in what areas I am lenient. It is OK to be more strict,-- as long as being strict does not cause one to do less of what he should in obligations between man and his fellow man.
One important point is that there is little reason to be strict unless one knows he or she is taking the strict opinion. But often people think the more strict opinion is the only opinion. Being overly religious is not a substitute for being a decent human being.]
I can not say which approach is better. When I was starting out learning, I combined both approaches. But by the time I got to the Mir, I was pretty set on "Lumdus," = learning in depth with intense analysis of Tosphot. Though I was ignorant, still the deeper levels of the Gemara were what interested me. But I guess what happened was at the Mir, the group that was doing Shabat that year were "halacha oriented" so I just went along with it.
To me "learning" still just means Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin. Everything else is extra credit.
[As for the actual laws of Shabat, I am lenient about things like the public domain needing 600,000 as Rashi and Tosphot both say. Also electricity and writing in English as per the Rema that in Hebrew in the actual prohibition. Muktze also according the the later Mishna in chapter Beit Shamai where the Gemara turns the mishna around, so the school that allowed mutzah was Beit Hillel. I am not going into these subjects here, but just stating in what areas I am lenient. It is OK to be more strict,-- as long as being strict does not cause one to do less of what he should in obligations between man and his fellow man.
One important point is that there is little reason to be strict unless one knows he or she is taking the strict opinion. But often people think the more strict opinion is the only opinion. Being overly religious is not a substitute for being a decent human being.]
6.10.16
The group that the Gra put into excommunication.
The Shelah [שני לחות הברית] says there is a mitzvah of rebuke even if you know the person will not accept it.
Later I saw this in the Gra in the book אבן שלמה that is there is a commentary on that book that brings the actual words of the Gra from his commentary on mishlei an kohelet etc. There I saw this.
Therefore I wanted to take the opportunity to warn people about the group that the Gra put into excommunication. This is completely ignored by the entire Jewish world for reason unknown to me.
I would make an exception for Reb Nachman and the Baal Shem Tov himself as you can see in the actual words of the document they would not be included. The actual document that the Gra signed specified a specific group.
My opinion about that group is they are the Sitra Achra [pure evil] itself and anything they touch becomes unclean. Just to not mince words: I do think they are a cult of idolatry, and should get the death penalty. It does not matter if they pretend to keep Torah.
Later I saw this in the Gra in the book אבן שלמה that is there is a commentary on that book that brings the actual words of the Gra from his commentary on mishlei an kohelet etc. There I saw this.
Therefore I wanted to take the opportunity to warn people about the group that the Gra put into excommunication. This is completely ignored by the entire Jewish world for reason unknown to me.
I would make an exception for Reb Nachman and the Baal Shem Tov himself as you can see in the actual words of the document they would not be included. The actual document that the Gra signed specified a specific group.
My opinion about that group is they are the Sitra Achra [pure evil] itself and anything they touch becomes unclean. Just to not mince words: I do think they are a cult of idolatry, and should get the death penalty. It does not matter if they pretend to keep Torah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)