Musar (Ethics)

I want to defend the idea of learning Musar (Ethics).

Musar is as is well known to be not the same thing as Hashkafa (world view) issues. It is also not the same as Halacha (legal) issues. It occupies its own special niche.

 It is mainly about two sub-issues--Fear of God and character improvement.

It is hard to defend because of lots of reasons. We know that Brisk never became  a Musar yeshiva. We know lots of people, even mashgichim (מנהלים רוחניים), learn Musar and there is not apparent character improvement. 

Some people have been in so called Musar yeshivas and were not happy, and perhaps were even treated not well.

Still, I think it is important for its two areas of expertise, a) Fear of God and b) character improvement.
And I think that there is nothing that can replace its utility in these two areas.
What I mean is that sometimes you hear people saying other books have Musar in them.. They in doing this mean well, but are not really interested in what Musar is about.




Musar here refers to the basic medieval set of Ethics books, plus the books of the immediate disciples of Israel Salanter. [Isaac Blazer, Joseph Horvitz, Simcha Zisel, Naphtali Amshterdam were his immediate disciples.]

Appendix:
1) השקפה  world view issues are dealt with in books like Saadia Geon's אמונות ודעות Faiths and Doctrines. Also in the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam. It is a solid rule that only Reform and Conservative  Jews read these books, because everything in them goes against the insane religious world 's major tenets.
2) Musar and world view issues do intersect in certain areas.  Also Musar and the LM  do intersect in some areas. But what I am suggesting is-- that there are large areas where they do not intersect.
3) At least I want to suggest having the basic books of Musar in your home. I think where Musar is there is a invincible force field that protects the place.
4) The argument that Musar is a good and important and indescribably great thing would have to be based on my own experience and on what I saw in the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY and also on my experience with people that don't learn Musar. I don't think I could defend it based on some theoretical value, or insight it gives.

One thing I know about Russia. Anything you are surprised about is planned. It is their primary strategy. If Putin disappears for a week it is because he wants people to be surprised. And even perhaps to rumor that he is not feeling well. And why would he want that? Because he does not want to waste any more time with negotiations. But also because he does not want a slow build up about the Ukraine. He sees the USA is about to send upgraded tech to the Ukraine.  And that would make it hard to retake it. To me it all points to one thing. He is about to launch a full-scaled invasion. If he wants the Ukraine, he knows he has to take it now. The president of the USA is a weak fool.

Communist strategy to weaken and demoralize America has worked thoroughly. The men are all beta males, or mentally confused cross gender nut cases. This is the perfect opportunity for Putin to launch a surprise. And he loves surprises.
But though this sounds like an alarm, I don't think it is  a big deal. Best thing at this point I say is to recognize the independence of the eastern provinces. Remove the cause of war.


It seems to me he might be using a retreat advance strategy also. First advance. Then pretend that he regrets it and is willing to make amends. then advance again.  And so on and so forth. And this applies to the USA also. Not just the Ukraine. There is still the idea of destroying the USA so that Communism can take hold of it from within.
Communism never had a goal to physically destroy the USA. Rather the idea was to morally disable it so that the USSR could take control of it. The idea is that though things like homosexuality would be against the law in Russia they would secretly promote it in the USA by clandestine means in order to erode and destroy the USA from within. And this goal has gone forward.

I had a few interesting experiences in Israel. But they were spread over different time periods.
And some are a bit personal and thus not easy to write about. And each period provides insight into what Israel is about. One period is when I was in a kollel in Safed of Rav Ernster. . That in itself was a very nice period until Baali teshuva started showing up. When they moved into Meor Chaim --and everyone knows how crazy baali teshva are- it became a nightmare.
There was another time period in Jerusalem in which I spent time with Rav Zilverman [the Rosh Yeshiva of Adert Eliyahu] and his father in law Rav Shlanger the Mashgiach of Porat Yoseph and Pertz Aurbach.

The kind of Judaism I saw in Israel is very different from what is seen in the USA.
I have mentioned on my blogs my different points of view about things but I show make clear  that a lot of my opinions are based on what I saw in Israel and it is because of my experience there that I tend to be critical of Judaism in the USA.

In any case  there was another time period in which I spent a lot of time with the family of Bava Sali in Netivot and Jerusalem. Especially the daughter of Bava Sali, Avigail Buso I found to be an amazing personality,

In any case my learning partner has been on a crusade telling me and anyone who will listen to learn the Nachmanides on the Torah.

Demons

This is an argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban'. Maimonides and Nachmanides

The Rambam holds they are not real. Nachmanides hold they are but we are not allowed to worship them.
This came up in learning Sanhedrin. But in my own mind it helps to understand why it is that when people try to do the right thing, things go wrong.
When we understand that there are forces out there angels and otherwise--it helps to understand the irrational element of the world. That things don't make sense and the harder you try to do the right thing the more your feel forces at work against you.

When you see evil spreading in the world at an alarming rate, it is hard not to agree that there seems to be hidden forces  of evil at work. "Kelipot" so to speak. Evil gods. Can't there be some demon of homosexuality that is taking hold of people's minds in the USA?

In any case my learning partner has been on a crusade telling me and anyone who will listen to learn the Nachmanides on the Torah. [For English speakers there is the Chavel translation.]
My days are constrained so at least I am passing the message to the world in general about learning the Ramban (Nachmanides).

Russia considers  diplomacy as war by different means. To Russia diplomacy is just another way to get what they would rather get by means of war. That means that they will definitely try to take Eastern Ukraine by war. It is just they can play around with diplomacy to fool people. And they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Because to them power is the goal. Not peace. And NATO will definitely not put the amount of money and time and lives into this endeavor as much as Russia is willing to put into it.

If NATO and the USA and the Ukraine are willing to put up the amount of time, effort, and money,  blood and tears to hold onto Eastern Ukraine as the Russians are willing to put up to get it, then I see some purpose in a confrontation.
But they are not. The Ukraine will never be a part of NATO. Negotiations with the Russians is a joke to the Russians. To them its is just words. And words don't mean an thing.

But the way I see it this does not apply to Western Ukraine. Since all the Russians care about is power therefore the East is a good target. Once  they control it politically, then things are back to normal. But the West would be a whole different all game. The West would not buckle down and would be a liability to the Russians. People would make as much trouble as possible and the Russians would find after taking it that the battle has just begun. And they know this. I simply do not think they could care less about Western Ukraine.
 I say let Russia have the East. All Russia wants is people that want to be part of Russia anyway.

And why was it that all efforts by Ukraine to be part of the EU were ignored for the last twenty years? What ever the reason was is there any reason to think now things have changed? I suspect the reason is business ethics. Every time I have rented a place in the Ukraine the owner has always felt free to come into my apartment every day  when I am gone and steal money and what every else he thinks is useful.  There are no exceptions to this rule. The Russians are very well aware of this character flaw and thus feel that whatever good is in the Ukraine is from the after effects of being under Russian rule.

Few people are thinking ahead. Everyone one thinks if they just escalate a little bit the other side will back down. But take my word for it--Russians will never back down. All that will happen is war at the cost of billions of dollars and human life. Are a few dirt poor provinces in the East worth that?
I know no one wants to hear what I have to say. The Russians want  everyone to think they are innocent. The Ukrainians want the Eastern provinces. But to avoid war the Eastern provinces have to be let go of.
It is not that I think Russia is right for what they are doing. It is just that to avoid worse problems we have to accept that they will not stop in trying to get the Eastern provinces.

Rav Eliezer Shach definitely held excommunication of the Gra is still valid and he instilled this attitude into the vast majority of Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel.

If you consider this world to be dangerous in a spiritual way, it then makes sense to come to saint  for advice.
But you would then have to be cautious about who really is a saint.
I would not mention this except for the fact that it seems to me that I have seen this kind of effect in my own life. But I have not mentioned this idea much because people in general go to people that are not saints. For example there is a whole group that comes under excommunication of the Gra. I would suggest that one should not be involved with them and that their so called tzadikim should be considered as תלמדי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים (Torah scholar demons) not kosher.


There is no doubt that Americans have a different approach to this than Israelis. Rav Eliezer Shach definitely held this way, and he instilled this attitude into the vast majority of Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel, Even Porat Yoseph which is Sefardi but has a Lithuanian Mashgiach, Rav Shlanger.

There is one yeshiva in Jerusalem of Rav Zilverman which goes totally with the Gra and that are many carbons copies of that yeshiva. But that is not what I mean here. I mean there is a very basic mindset in all the Lithuanian yeshivas in Israel that is fundamentally different from American Yeshivas. The first time I discovered this I admit I was shocked. But the way I see things today I would have been well advised to listen to Rav Shach. 

Sanhedrin 61a. I was doing a little review on the Talmud. And it occurred to me that  both Tosphot and the Baal HaMeor consider השתחווייה  (bowing) to be inviolate.

That is: I am suggesting a possible way of understanding Tosphot along the same lines of this little piece that God granted to me to write about this Gemara.


That is to say: The Gemara suggests learning from  השתחווייה (bowing). That would mean all kinds of service of honor would be liable. Rav Acha asks; "If so then what would איכה יעבדו ("How do they serve?") come to exclude?"
Tosphot and the Baal HaMeor ask why did he not ask the same question when we were learning from זביחה sacrifice? The Meor answers in the last case, איכה יעבדו would have excluded kissing an idol one hugs. That means the Meor thinks זביחה is modifiable and השתחווייה  is not.
Tosphot in fact might be thinking this is the flaw in the reasoning of the Baal Hameor,--the fact that when we learn from one verse we think it can't be modified and when we learn from another it can be. While Tosphot  also agrees that bowing השתחווייה can't be modified, they understand the question of the Gemara differently. They think it means there is no area left to be modified. In other words the question on the Baal HaMeor that I wrote in Hebrew might very well be the reason Tosphot rejected that approach in the  first place.
I  think this is important because we find the Maharsha sticking up for the Baal Hameor and he has a very sensible reason--the language of exclude instead of to include. But that leaves us with the very strange things that Tosphot seems to have missed this. And that is impossible.  Or let's say it is possible but I have never seen anything like it anywhere in the entire Talmud. Tosphot simply does not make logical errors,-- ever. It is like think Mozart would write something not top quality.  I imagine it could be possible we we know for a fact that it is not possible. Same with Tosphot. So I think it is very important that we have seen now a reason why Tosphot had to explain it in the way they did,








סנהדרין ס: אני רוצה קודם כל להציע את הגמרא בקצרה ואחר כך מחלוקת תוספות עם בעל המאור, ואחר כל זה להציע שתי קושיות על בעל המאור. הברייתא אומרת שלומדים עבודה שלא כדרכה מזביחה (היינו מן הפסוק "זובח לאלהים יחרם") שמות כב
רבא בר רב חנן שואל, "למה אין יכולים ללמוד את זה מהשתחוויה ("וילך וישתחווה") [דברים יז]. רב אחא מדפתי שאל על רבא בר רב חנן, "אם היינו לומדים מהשתחוייה, אז מה היה  'איכה יעבדו הגויים האלה את אלהיהם' בא למעט? [היינו מה היה בא לפטור]. והגמרא מתרצת שהיא בא לרבות שלא כדרכה למבוזים

תוספות ובעל המאור שואלים על רב אחא, למה הוא שאל רק על השתחוויה (הִשְׁתַּטְּחוּת)? למה הוא לא שאל גם על זביחה? היינו, אם לומדים שלא כדרכה מזביחה, מה בא "איכה יעבדו" למעט
תוספות עונים ששואלים רק על השתחוויה בגלל שאם משתמשים עם השתחוויה, אז שייך לשאול מה בא "איכה יעבדו" לומר לנו. זה בגלל שמהשתחוויה אפשר ללמוד את הכול, אפילו עבודה כדרכה. האופן לראות את זה הוא לדגש שבשלב הזה הגמרא חושבת שהשתחוויה מכילה גם עבודה של בזיון. רואים את זה מן התירוץ לשאלת רב אחא שהשתחוויה לא מכילה עבודה של בזיון. אבל מזביחה לא היינו מכילים עבודה של בזיון, ולכן שייך לא לשאול למה בא "איכה יעבדו"? הוא בא לומר עבודה כדרכה חייבת. אבל בעל המאור הולך בכיוון אחר. הוא ראה ששאלת הגמרא היא מה איכה יעבדו בא למעט (לפטור). היינו שהיא בא לרבות מה שהוא ולמעט מה שהוא. ובהמשך הגמרא משתדלת למצוא דבר ש"איכה יעבדו" יכול לפטור. לפי ההקדמה הזאת הוא אומר שמן זביחה היינו מחייבים נשיקה למגפפים [עבודה זרה שדרכה בחיבוק]. ואז בא "איכה יעבדו" לומר לנו שאינו חייב
שתי שאלות יש לי כאן על שיטת המאור. אם זה נכון ש"איכה יעבדו" בא לפטור נושק למגפפים, אז למה לא לשאול על השתחוויה (הִשְׁתַּטְּחוּת)? תגיד שהשתחוויה בא לחייב נושק למגפפים.  ותגיד ש"איכה יעבדו" בא לפתור אותו. (תוספות והמאור שניהם אוחזים שאם לומדים מהשתחוויה אז השתחווייה היא דבר קבוע שאיכה יעבדו אינה יכולה לשנות. רק זביחה היא דבר שאיכה יעבדו יכולה לשנות. אצל שניהם יש בקושיה הזאת
שאלה שנייה איך התירוץ עובד? איך היינו חושבים שזביחה באה לחייב נושק למגגפים מראש? אין סיבה לחשוב שזביחה הייתה מכילה נשיקה למגפפים. אפשר לראות את זה על ידי זה שנזכרים שמשתמשים עם זביחה בשביל להרבות עבודות פנים. אין שום הווה אמינא שזביחה היתה מכילה שום דבר אחר. רק השתחוויה חשבנו שהיא באה לרבות כל דרך כבוד