talking with God--as opposed to praying to God.


Serving God is to pack a lunch and get oneself hiking gear and go off into the wildness for an entire day and talk with God the whole day.

 And this has nothing to do with meditation.

The question on this comes from Tana Deve Eliyahu vol. I chapter 9.  Hezekiah the king prayed to God that his capital city Jerusalem should be saved from Sennacherib.The prophet got a message from God. and went to the king. he said it is the custom of the world that when one talks to someone greater than himself that he is filled with fear and you talk with God like he was your friend?





דביקות and devekut is the purpose of the mitzvot. [See Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 20] Even though it is also counted as one of the number of mitzvahs, but also it is explicit in the Torah that it is the purpose of the mitzvot. Same as the Rambam did not count living in Israel as a mitzvah because it is the teleological purpose of the mitzvot. And the mitzvah of attachment is different from the actual emotion of being attached to God. The mitzvah is to be attached to a Torah scholar. To patronize his store, and to marry to him your daughter. etc. That is not the same thing as when the Torah says to do the mitzvahs in order to be attached to God.
Talking with God as you go about your daily business is better after all than not talking with him. Talking with him is being attached with Him, and not talking with him is not being attached with Him. Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 20  says do the mitzvahs in order to get to Deveikut (Attachment with God).

There was another time I was having a problem understanding some drasha (explanation) of the Sages about a verse about returning lost objects. [I know a lot of people have questions understanding how the Sages derive things from verses.] This was an usually difficult problem because it seemed to me very much not like the verse in question. And he showed to me how the verse in question was impossible to understand simply. It was about a lost object that some had been hired to watch (in Exodus 22). And the verse then goes on to say כי הוא זה, "A person loses an object like this." Where is the this if the object was lost? After that I began to notice things myself of why or how the Sages make a drasha (explanation). The book that deals with this is the Torah Temima by the son of the Aruch Hashulchan. But the things that I noticed were in cases where the verse changes the way it treat a noun as male or feminine.  Or leaves out a necessary "את" "Et." Without the sages saying so they will see in these cases a reason to look at why the verse changes the gender of something.

The redemption of the wise son

Self- Reliance is a value to that at first glance might seem different than trust in God.
But it is not. Trust in God  means you do your obligations and trust in God that as long as you are doing your part, he will do his part.
And there is an element of doing nothing for ones own needs, but simply sitting and learning, and God will take care of the rest.

But I want to claim that this approach is predicated on the idea that the highest ideal one should strive for is to be learning Torah all the time. A very Gra type of idea. And I don't disagree with it. But I do say  that learning self reliance and survival skills is one of the things that is in the category of a mitzvah that can't be done by others. חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא. One must be more strict about things that could potentially cause harm more that things that are forbidden. [Gemara Chulin]. (תיקון הגוף קודם תיקון נמפש) And trusting in the "system" must definitely be the greatest source of harm I can imagine. Don't let trusting in the system you live in  be confused with trusting in God.


  Thus, to make a long story short. Prepare a survival kit. Get off grid. Send your kids to the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts to learn outdoor skills, beside their regular Torah education. And as the Sages said--teach them  a hard core skill that people will pay cold, hard cash for.
Teach your boys to be men. And what is a man? Is it someone who know a lot of Talmud? No. Learning Torah is very important. But it does not define what a man is. A man is someone you want to have next to you while you are in a WWI trench or in the heat of battle. Someone you can rely on. Some whose honesty and integrity and competence is beyond question. Not someone simply using the group for their own benefit.
And these qualities depend on trust in God. For without trust in God people lie and cheat and are not trustworthy because they think by that they can get ahead or gain advantage. When you trust in God you are not afraid to keep your word.



What trust in God is. It  means doing your job --doing what the Torah requires of you and then trusting that God will make things work in the way he knows is right.

When Hezekiah (חזקיה) the King prayed to God when Sennacherib came to destroy Jerusalem. He said, "King David could trust in you with sword in hand. Solomon could trust in you in prayer. But I can do any off that. I have to trust in you will I go to sleep."
That is King David could do effort but that did not reduce his trust in God. Hezekiah  was saying that if he himself would do any effort that could possibly take his focus of the main idea that everything depends on Gods will. So he did no effort. Even the effort of praying he was afraid could cause him to think his salvation came from his prayers. So he went to sleep and in the middle of the night God destroyed the entire army of Sennacherib.

Appendix:
(1) Self reliance was probably the most important value to my father. Or at least it was the one value that he strove to put into us kids--his boys. But obviously there were other unspoken values in our family like family values, and above all "being a mensch"--(that means in all situations acting like a decent moral human being).
(2) Now being off grid does not mean not to use a computer. There is lots of important work that can be done only on computers. At least for me that is how things are. But what off grid means is have your own solar power source.
(3) Belief  in God is rational.
 Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the second step that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing.) (I mean to say you you take the level of the second step up from an empirical observation to an a priori fact.)
(4)There is a story from Nachman from Uman that taught me something about trust in God, the story about the simple son and the smart son. I could not relate much to the simple son because I just do not share many traits with him. But the smart one really rang a bell in me. In the story he was always asking, "Maybe there is someplace better for me than here."

The story in short: A father had two sons. One smart and one simple. when they were in their teens the father told the that they should go and find some kind of work because he could not support them both any more. The smart one thought what is the main thing? To get married and have children--but there is time for that. Fist I have to see the world. He got a wagon going to Warsaw. He had no money but he offered to work on the way for the owners. He got there and though they were good employers he decided t to drop them and look for better paying work and more honorable. Maybe there are better employers than them. Maybe there is a better place than here. That was his constant refrain. See the end of the story.  But in short the idea of Nachman was that this is a wrong attitude. And it comes from being too smart for ones own good. One should trust that the situation one is in is for some reason unknown to himself, and accept it.

Just to bring the point a little closer to home let me mention the smart son keep on piling up academic qualifications and also learned several professions. then  decided it was time to start making a family and started to travel back home.
the simple son stayed in his home village and learned to make shoes and took a wife and stayed put. and since he was simple or rather dumb he knew the business only partially. So he  made very little money. But his custom was to be happy always. he would get home on Friday night and ask for the Sabbath meal. his wife would cut off a piece of black bread for him. He would ask for the fish. his wife would cut off another piece of black bread. and he would ask for the soup and she would cut off another piece of black bread. and he would go wild over the supreme taste of the bread as if it contained all the wonderful flavors in the world. In the meantime the smart son got back to town and there was no place for him to stay so he stayed with his old friend the simple son. and he was never happy. and he always was complaining about his situation.
One day the czar was going over the records and saw in one of his towns there a census listing someone simply as the smart one and another as the simple one. And he sent for them out of curiosity. The simple one came and the king discovered than he really was not dumb but he was simple by choice and had made an early decision in life not to think about things [that is not to double think anything] but to accept the world the way it is and to depend on God. The smart son decided not to go to the czar because he thought it was a trick. He thought, why should the czar send for just a nobody?" At some point he convinced himself that there really was no czar at all and the county was just ruled by a senate. And he used to go around with a friend trying to convince people that there was no czar. [Rachmana Litzlan, Heaven save us!]
He fell lower and lower because of his smartness and the simple one rose higher and higher because of his simplicity.
The simple one became the prime minister because the czar was so impressed with his simplicity. and the smart son go involved in law suits.His case eventually came before the prime minister--the simple son. And right about that time a Jewish saint [tzadik, a Baal Shem Tov kind of person] came to town. The simple son went to him for a blessing and the wise son just ridiculed the Baal Shem Tov.] This kind of personality shows up sometimes among the Jewish people. No one really knows what makes them tick. But they seem to have amazingly deep insights into the world and miracles pop up around them like jelly beans.



The smart son fell into hell. And the asked the tzadik to help him. And he eventually was redeemed.
So this story could be called the redemption of the wise son.
(5) Go into a forest and talk all day to God while being alone. It is not a public event.

The Lithuanian world and trust in God

I wanted to discuss in a practical way the idea of trust in God. It is not like I have any great revelations about it but I wanted to go a bit more into detail than I did the other times I talked about Navardok.

One very important introduction to the subject involves an argument between the Duties of the Heart Chovot Levavot and the Gra about effort. The main idea of the Chovot Levavot is to trust with doing effort. The Gra says no effort.
  But no effort still means to be doing your obligations between yourself and God and between yourself and Man. So no effort still means you are doing something. But not to get anywhere in life. But rather to be doing your obligations.
And for people that might not be aware of it, one obligations according to the Torah are well rounded. They are more than rituals. Obligations of the Torah involve a lot of things that most people would considered just good character. For example not to hurt people in money we know is from the Torah. But also not to hurt them in words is also from the Torah. [See Sefer HaChinuch for all the obligations of the Torah.]
Trust with no effort was the way of Navardok. It was based on the Gra, the Ramban [quoted by Israel Salanter but no one has ever been able to find.] Trust in God is not exclusively a Jewish doctrine. And you would expect that anyway just by the fact that it is an a priori value. So it has to apply across the board.

Mainly trust in God means to do what you know in your heart is right and trust that God will not let you down if you do. It means taking your moral obligations seriously. And this is not necessarily a private or individual matter.

If possible get the two books that deal with it  in detail ---Chovot Levavot [Duties of the Heart by Bachyee Ben Pekuda], and Madragat HaAdam by Joseph Horwitz

Tractate Sanhedrin 62a

There are 42 sins for which one is required to bring a goat or a sheep to the temple in Jerusalem. [Leviticus 4] [The sexual relationships in Leviticus 22, (e.g. sleeping with ones sister, aunt, a male, an animal, etc.) work on Shabat, and a few more.] [You don't get to have a barbecue as you do if you bring regular sacrifices like peace offerings.] The sin offering can only be eaten by priests. There is a 43rd sin that one brings a sin offering for--that is idolatry. But its sin offering is only a she goat. [See this in the middle of the Book of Numbers.]
That is only if one does idolatry by accident. Now I have to say that there are five things one can't do for an idol. The regular four services [offering a sacrifice, burning a sacrifice, pouring wine, bowing,] and the service that is specified for that idol.
So what if one does several services by accident? Does he bring one sin offering or more?
R. Zakai said he brings one sacrifice. R. Yochanan said to bring one for each service.
R. Aba wanted to say this argument is really an argument among the people of the Mishna.
R Josi said why is fire specified on Shabat? To tell us it is only  a prohibition that is all. It is out of the category of the other 39 types of forbidden work. [R. Natan says fire comes to divide.] R. Aba is thinking at this point one doing all the 39 types of work is obligated only one sin offering (goat or sheep).
Rav Joseph said R. Josi might also divide the types of work from the verse when a soul sins נפש כי תחטא [Leviticus 4]   בשגגה מכל מצוות ה' אשר לא תעשינה ועשה אחת מהנה
"When a soul sins in one of the commandments of God which should not be done and he does one of them."
This is all introduction. to a small point. The actual way this verse is understood is אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת. That is the Gemara is thinking about the last three words of this verse there is something extra that is not necessary. So what is it coming to tell us?
My comment here is that there is no way the verse could have said ועשה הנה. And does them. That makes no sense in Hebrew. So while I can agree to the opposite side of things that it could have written ועשה אחת instead of ועשה מאחת. That is fine.And that would be to tell sometimes one is obligated for one forgetting many offerings--like if he forgets that it is the Sabbath day and does many works.
But you can't write ועשה הנה. If you write anything it has to be אחת מהנה. "and does one of them." So what I am suggesting is that the Gemara means you could have left out the whole word!מהנה
And the verse would have read "and does one." And then by the fact that the extra word them is written now we know there is a time one forgets each individual type of work and does many and then he has to bring  a sin offering for each type of work.

But this is not a new idea. I wrote this down here a few day ago--in short hand fashion.
After all this I wanted to think about this whole Gemara from a broader perspective. Just think about it. At first it starts off trying to make an argument between two Talmudic sages into an argument between two sages of the Mishna. That is just plain classical Gemara thinking. But then things start happening I don't understand. It gets to a point where the two sages of the Mishna agree about division of work on Shabat.
So should that all by itself not be a proof for Rabbi Yochanan? I mean is that not what you would expect?Why does the Gemara not jump at the first opportunity it gets to help out Rabbi Yochanan? It instead runs to bowing [Deuteronomy 17].
I want to suggest that it is interested in helped Rabbi Yochanan and that that accounts for the fact that after it takes care of the argument between Abyee and Rava about serving idols from fear of love that it jumps back to division of work to suggest from this same verse it used for Sabbath and tries to use it for idolatry.
And that is my idea for today.This not what you would call ''lumdut.'' [in depth learning]. In a way it is completely and utterly trivial. Still it is just something that I am trying to understand in this Gemara.


Appendix
It is Rabbi Josi who learns from the verse. and later R Yonatan explains how. He said it is from אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת/
It seems he is learning thus--it could have said one but instead said from one. so we learn even if one does not do a complete work like "shem" from "shimon." And it could have said them, but instead said from them to tell us not just from the 39 types of work but also the generations--subcategories of work.
And then from the fact that both words could have been skipped entirely we learn "one that is many" he knows it is shabat but forget many kinds of work, he is obligated many sacrifices. And many that are one--if he forgets it is shabat but knows all the types of work then he is obligated only one sacrifice.

How to learn Physics and Mathematics.

1) How to learn Physics and Mathematics. My suggestion is to have one session right when you wake up in the morning. 20 minutes minimum, but it should be an hour. It should be in the way that the Talmud  Shabat 63a says-- always one should  גורס say the words  and then review even though he forgets and even though he does nit know what he is saying." Don't review. But the next day you can review if you want. And in fact if you want to review the same material a lot of days in a row (e.g. forty days in a row), then that session will count as an in-depth session.
In any case, you need one in-depth session and one fast session. That fast one is also like the first, except you take a text of math or physics, and just say it from the beginning until the end, and you do that again until you have finished it four times.
The idea is that when you say the words a kind of outer light אור מקיף is formed around you. But you don't understand because the outer light has not come into you yet. So you have to say the whole textbook at least four times for the light to come in.




2)This should be learned with books of ethics and fear of God - before and after. Because the entire purpose of this is to bring one to see the wisdom of God as revealed in his creation. But for that to work, ones vector has to be towards God. And words don't have a lasting effect without fear of God.

 3) This is really the exact same thing as Talmud learning. Except for the Talmud if possible you need to get yourself a learning partner. But if that is impossible, then you do the same as I wrote here. You take one page of Talmud with the Tosphot and Maharsha and do the whole page--just saying the words. And the next day you go back and do it again for about forty days. Or until things start becoming clear. [That is the in depth session. The fast one is the same except the  next day you go to the next page. I mean here what is called an half page.עמוד. A whole  two sides is a lot to do with Tosphot. So I am asking only for one side of a page.] [Don't go to any synagogue to do this. Do it at home.]

4) In the morning I used to have a coffee or tea until I heard of the idea of Bava Sali (Israel Abuchatzaira) to have coffee and tea in the same cup.- [I mean to say the first twenty minutes after you wake up are critical. You can take a few minutes to get the coffee and tea and learn Musar/ (books of ethics and fear of God). But this hard core Mathematics learning has to be the first thing. Before breakfast, before school, before davening (prayers). But obviously you say the "Shema Israel" right when you wake up.]

5) The most important thing to remember, a little bit is also good. Even if you do not learn a lot of you are not great at it doing a little Physics is also good.

 And not to be stubborn about it. Don't worry if you don't understand at first because eventually you will understand.

Especially I hold from the forty days in a row thing. I would sometime stake one chapter or a few chapters and read them word for word forty day in a row and often not understand anything until the day day when it would instantly all become clear.

That is if you do this you will certainly know a lot more Physics than you do by giving up on it, or learning second hand trivial stuff.


6) And as for the desirability of this I defer to Maimonides in his Mishna Torah and More Nevuchim and my parents.
Though some people disagree with the Rambam in this, I feel they can't override him. In minor things or individual laws  I do admit one should take the Rambam in the context of all the Rishonim [medieval authorities]. But an area that was a major thesis of his, I feel no one can override him. It is a heavily weighted variable for him.
I did not say anything about solving  problems because I am addressing the need for general knowledge. As for individual problems, that is a whole other ball game.
Even for people that learn Torah all day,  Physics and Mathematics are essential. See the introduction to the translation of Euclid by Baruch from Shkolov-the disciple of the Gra (Elijah from Vilnius). And the Rambam הלכות תלמוד תורה פרק א הלכה י''ב

7) I wanted to add that you don't have the right to claim you don't understand a physics or math textbook until you have read it--word by word, cover to cover, four times.

 8) The way to understand this is to see that there are hidden levels of the human soul. And "makifim." מקיפים "surrounding light". . But I would rather take an idea from the Ari and  The idea is that when you say over the textbook--even if you don't understand it, you have one makif מקיף. a surrounding light that has gotten close to you by your saying the words. When you say the whole text again the outer light gets close  to you. And when you do this in an environment where there are others also engaged in this the effect is stronger.

American judges are a serious problem. Many problems that people have in their individual lives to corrupt judges. I don't intend to go in detail into this, but let me say that I have seen this a lot. My impression is that Constitutional Law is mostly involved in Supreme Court decisions. As if that has anything to do with the Constitution. You don't encounter many judges that have actual read the Federalist Papers that explain what the Constitution is all about. This might seem like something you can ignore if you are not actually in court. corrupt judges destroy the entire society. See the last of the thirteen stories.

The basic idea of that Torah lesson is about faith in God and that when people  have a lack of faith, they fall into problems that nothing can cure not medicine, or merit of ones parents, or even calling to God in prayer. It is a long lesson but the basic idea is that if people try to get back to faith it is the corrupt judges of a a society that make it impossible.  And I definitely saw this in NY.



Now to some it is easy to critique any religious leader because you always know you have secular society to fall back on.
But what would you do if secular society itself would break apart?

This problem is similar to utilitarians that can rely on the fact that they live an a Judaic Christian society to assume everyone has a common sense idea of morality that they can safely attribute to common sense.
[The assumption of higher and lower pleasures is fundamental to Mill. And he uses this distinction to come out with a Society that looks suspiciously like one based on Torah values. ]

This is of course obviously wrong. We only think it is common sense because we grew  up in a society founded on Judaic Christian values. A society based on utilitarianism without Torah would be a society of pigs--even in theory it has to come out that way--to the LCD lowest common denominator..

So we need Torah and we need teachers of Torah.. And this applies even to the larger American society as much as to the Jewish society.

But authentic teachers of Torah? They are hard to find because in the first place anyone with ordination already has by definition a little bit of fraud mixed up with them. Maybe some more than others. But in any case true ordination died out 2000 years ago. The last people to have it were rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehuda ben Levi, early amoraim. Anyone that allows themselves to be called  rabbi after that is by definition a fraud.
So this is a little different from the Catholic church or Zen Buddhism where you need ordination fir anything you do or say to have validity.
[Just as one cannot become a Catholic priest without a bishop putting hands on a head, one cannot become a Zen teacher without having been authorized by a Zen teacher. And almost always that authorization is “vertical,” teacher to student.
If someone wants to be a Zen teacher, they must be made one. And that ceremony is public or has a major public aspect to it. And for the most part there are written documents involved. And on those rare occasions if there aren’t documents, there are witnesses.
If you ask someone who claims to be a Zen teacher who authorized them and they throw you out, you may safely assume that person has made it up. If that person says the question proves you’re not enlightened, then this suggests that person has made their credentials up. If they say it is none of your business, they are probably a fraud.]

In Torah things are just the opposite. The word Rabbi has a very very specified definition according to absolute objective standards. And the Talmud itself says those standards no longer exist for anyone. So according to the strict definition of Halacha anyone called a rabbi is a fraud.
The Sefardim never had this problem until recently. Their teachers were always "the sage" the Chacham חכם
And for a long time Ashkenazim never had such a problem either.. Who ever was the most learned was the one who gave the class in Mishna between Mincha [afternoon prayer] and Maariv [evening prayer].