The problem of the Rambam.
The problem is that it looks like that if you take the Rambam together with the Gemara you get a different halachic decision than if you take him on his own.


This seems to be the problem that Reb Chaim Soloveitchik is coming to answer.
An example is the Rambam in laws of forbidden sexual relations. In the case a person jumps into a mikvah before his is dipped for the sake of avdut (slavery) then he becomes free- but only if he was bought from an Akum (gentile). The problem is that the Rambam says if he is bought from an Akum the Israel still has kinyan Haguf (possession of the body). To put in arbitrarily the distinction of a mikvah like the Kesef Mishna does does not seems very much like it according to the simple peshat in the Rambam. But Reb Chaim makes a distinction here that makes sense. If the Israel buys the Akum from himself he has Kinyan Haguf completely because the akum can sell himself. But buying from another Akim he buys the kinyan Haguf that gives him the right to dip the akum into the mikvah for the sake  of advut.

So the Rambam comes out exactly like he says. The simple peshat (explanation) in the Rambam is the true peshat (explanation) and yet it is accord with the Gemara also!

This is according to my basic impression that the Rambam wanted to be able to be read on his own without looking at the Gemara.


In spite of the fact that the Rambam wanted to be learned on his own still people that read the Rambam without the proper Gemara background have just enough knowledge of Halacha to mix everything up without knowing they are doing so. And it is easy reading. A million times easier than the Talmud. So people can pretend to understand and fake their way.
Perhaps the Rambam was addressing an audience of people that already had basic Gemara concepts. and could read Gemara simply and plainly as opposed to the general Baal teshuva today.

Motivations and world view are two intertwining issues.
People have some control over their motivations and this often depends on their world view.
When it comes to morality most philosophers are mostly interested in motivation. Schopenhauer thinks all motivations come under three headings: egoism, malice and compassion.
I there are more than just these three. And I think that they are to some degree subject to ones own choice.
But I also think that one can only follow a small number of principles. So while you might have open to you a number of principles or prime directives in your life, I do not think you can hop between them.



Each one of these people was apparently aware of the need to have a prime principle in ones life and also believed the choice of this prime directive is subject to choice. But they each choose a different prime directive not just for themselves but also to claim that thus and thus prime directive is the true one for all men.

This principle we find in political philosophy also. John Locke felt the protection of natural human rights is the proper Prime directive of government and that the way to protect peoples rights is by one main method-to protect their property from other people and from the government itself.  To Hegel and Marx, this is all ridiculous and they have another basic principle for government--"the State" which embodies the General Will. All individual interest is to be subjected to the State. This is now sadly the acting principle of the American government in direct opposition to the Constitution. [I don't want this to be a polemical peeve because I have not decided against Marx at all. Sometimes I feel in a situation the playground is occupied by bullies that a large degree of power granted to the State by Marx is important. 

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

Classical Torah Theory is I believe a good system. I think it is clear that Classical Torah theory of people like Maimonides and Saadia Geon is advocating a morality that is logical, objective and humane.
This is however very different from Chareidi Jewish ethics of the modern era.
These two systems are so different it is not like comparing apples and oranges.

And I think the doctrine people believe in has a great influence on their actions

On the other hand I see Classical Torah theory as highly moral.


In response to this I recommend a return to learning Classical Torah Theory--starting with the Guide of The Rambam and the Emunot and Deot of Saadia Geon.
And when we find that our attitudes are different from those of the Rambam or Saadia Geon I suggest that the mistaken attitudes should be the ones to go.

The issue here is that the Conservative and Reform Movement have left the works of Musar and Medieval Jewish ethics in the hands of the Orthodox. This has given the Orthodox a monopoly in defining what Musar says. This was a bad mistake.

I would like to argue for a renewal of the idea of Israel Salanter about having a small Beit Midrash in every city for the sake of the study of Musar-Jewish Ethics.

But I am going to do this in such a roundabout way that it might not be obvious what I am advocating.



This one word made everything clear to me, but I realize it might not for people reading this blog.
So I will elaborate.

Classical Torah Theory as developed rigorously by Maimonides and the other Jewish thinkers of the Middles Ages is different in Orthodox Torah Theory. The area of difference is in Meta Ethics.

Orthodox Judaism today does not seem to have one theory of Morality but many. It slides between these theories seemingly almost at random.,- according to perceived interest of the group. The way it slides is by supposing that the many conflicting approaches do not conflict. But for lack of time I will not go into this right now.


 [To say things are good because God commands them means that mitzvot are arbitrary conventions established by God for no rhythm or reason. If so the Torah is not good. It is arbitrary]  Or because God is stronger than us and can punish  us if he wants to. Or that it is in our nature  But it is far from clear that we ought always to act in accordance with our nature. Suppose it were discovered that I (an aggressive male) am naturally adapted to fighting other people. I presume it will be granted that such a nature is possible--I could, for example, have naturally quick reflexes, physical strength, and an innate bloodlust; I might even have a naturally fearsome visage, suited to intimidating my opponents. Would it follow from this that I ought now to go out and attack people physically?





Now what I want to ask about this situation is, would Nazism be a good form of government, or would it still be bad? Surely this would be a case of establishing Halacha conventions according to which  Nazism  is good, if there were any such thing?  Yet here Nazism  would still be just as bad as it always was. The fact that something is generally practiced, obviously, does not make it right; that is why it always makes sense to doubt whether current practices are right. It always makes sense to try to establish better conventions, to find conventions good or bad, and so on, which it could not make sense if there were no possible standard of value independent of the conventions themselves.


On the other hand Classical Torah Theory as developed by Maimonides and Saadia Gaon [Ibn Ezra and many other Jewish thinkers from the Middle Ages] is very well grounded.
Their justification of Torah Morality is based on Aristotle and Plato. Saadia Gaon and Maimonides are from the Neo Platonic school (see chapters 3 and 4 from Emunot And Deot) and Ibn Ezra from  Platonism.
Whether in Plato or Aristotle Morality is objective and that is how the Medieval Thinkers understood the Torah to mean. as opposed to Orthodox Judaism today.  What I mean by  "objective" is that their truth does not depend on beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes of observers towards the things evaluated. This provides a reasonable interpretation of the notion of the objectivity of ethics. Assuming the correspondence theory of truth, this view entails values being 'part of reality' or 'part of objective reality.'

The issue here is that the Conservative and Reform Movement have left the works of Musar and Medieval Jewish ethics in the hands of the Orthodox. This has given the Orthodox a monopoly in defining what Musar says. This was a bad mistake.

But The Orthodox are right that morality in the area between man and man is not all what Torah is about.
There is the numinous aspect also. And in fact without this between God and Man aspect it is doubtful how far the moral aspect can go.
This is because as Israel Salanter noted many times we humans can only do good and act decently from a religious motivation., not from a moral motivation.

There is in the Jewish world an existing movement which was intended  to be a mass movement but which never really took off.. It is the Musar Movement of Israel Salanter. It had two parts to it. One was the emphasis on every person to learn a cannon of five Medieval books about Jewish ethics. Another part of the movement developed with new books coming out by Israel Salanter himself and his disciples.
 The Musar Movement  is a very good thing.

But I also have complaints about this Musar movement
[1] There does not seem to be an Meta-Ethical Theory unless you count the books of Jewish philosophy from the Middle Ages..Maimonides and Ibn Ezra and Saadia Geon for examples.
[2] But if you include Meta-ethics then you are almost invariable trust into the world of Medieval scholastics which were not Jewish. If you ignore the scholastics then there is not possible framework to understand Musar expect as pure anti Rational fanaticism. Which is in fact how Musar is understood today.

But the lack of Musar in the Jewish world today means that Jewish people get their morality from whatever is in the air --the spirit of the times and try to find justification for this in the Torah, or they can the world view of  hasidut. None of which is very Jewish. While many Hasidim are not insane, but the world view of Hasidut is insane and when people accept that world view it makes them slowly lose their morality and sanity
Hasidut does make great effort to look Jewish. Everything that is visible and public is emphasized.  Jewish dress,  and extreme observance of rituals that are public. This is good for public image. But Hasidut is a variation of th movement of Shabatai Tzvi. They simply took the basic ideology of Natan from Gaza that he created to justify the claim that Shabati Tzi was the Messiah and Divine, and they used that intellectual framework to say that their own leasers were of similar grandeur. In fact though Hasidut looks original when compared with Jewish books, in fact its entire intellectual structure is taken over from the movement of Shabatai Tzvi

You have an identifiable population in the USA which is openly hostile to America.

Instead of spying on all Americans why not do the simple thing? You have an identifiable population in the USA which is openly hostile to America. They have openly declared war on the USA for all who have stopped to listen. Why not simply send them home? When has there been in history a nation has allowed it avowed enemies to remain in its borders?

My learning partner and I are having a debate about learning Jewish  ethics ( Medieval Books of Jewish ethics ).
He must have noticed my recommending learning Musar {Jewish Ethics} on this blog.
The first Musar book he was introduced to was the Orchot Tzadik. This provoked such a negative reaction that he actually said, "I hate Musar."   The Medieval Books of Jewish ethics gives--a coherent world view.]

The truth be told learning Musar has been a debate for a long time among Lithuanian sages. Volloshin had no musar sessions. Reb Chaim Soloveitchik was openly against the Musar Movement.
The Chazon Ish penned a great critique on it. He brought a case of when people in a  =city were all getting angry at a teacher of children that had come to the city when there was already a teacher there. the Chazon Ish talks about how they would get all indignant about "masig gevul Reehu" [infringing on another's territory.]
But the Halacha says  that the new teacher was right So what good is Musar with no Halacha?

In spite of all this, I still think Reb Israel Salanter was right because of one word "Paradigm." It is gives on the basic world view of Torah. This is not possible with just Talmud alone.


[Ponovitch where Rav Shach was he Rosh yeshiva learns Musar and he even has in his intro to the Avi Ezri some deep praise about Musar.]


Just to be clear: a lot of Gedolai Israel thought  it is best simply to be in a Lithuanian kind of yeshiva all day and by that good values and world view would be absorbed by learning Torah and by the effect of the group.  The reason my learning partner is not happy with Musar is he thinks it lacks insight and depth.  Who am I to place my opinion among these great people? But my impression is for myself that I need Musar and I also wish I could spread the ideas of Musar and Ethics around the whole world because I see them as being good for me and for others. One rav in Netivot said to me something along the lines once about people that don't learn Musar are like nightmares.{Or something like that. He is the rav in Yeshiva HaNegev over there, and we were discussing the issue of students. One student had come to the internet place in Netivot twice and was caught in the act and expelled. He said to me as he was leaving: "It is high time to join the IDF anyway." But in any case this incident got me discussing students with the rav and the subject of Musar came up.

[I can't account for the reason yeshivas tend to throw out people. Shimon Buso [the grandson of Bava Sali once said to me it is a אחריות גדולה לזרוק תלמיד a terrible responsibility to throw out a student]. David Bronson said I have nothing against throwing out students. The question is which students? The trouble is they tend to throw out the sincere and leave in the ones that are there because of "connections" and family relations. Almost as if they are private clubs and not real yeshivas for learning. I admit David Bronson's analysis of the situations seems accurate. I have personally had enough of the Ultra Religious, but my complaints come from more personal directions. I would go to a conservative or Reform synagogue but not the ultra religious.