Unless a person has gone through Shas [Talmud] I am not in favor of anyone learning kabalah. But if one has done the proper kind of preparation I think it is a good idea. [The Ari himself says if one learns it without the proper preparation, it kills him.--at least spiritually]
My own hope is to get through all the writings of Isaac Luria.  And if you are starting kabalah that is what I would recommend for most people. Also I hope to get through Yaakov Abuchatzeira's books and the Ramchal's [Moshe  Chaim Lutzatto] and the Shalom Sharabi (note 1).
And if you are interested in Kabalah then only learn it with some descendant of Yaakov Abuchatzeira.

The is to say legitimate kabalah I think needs to be distinguished from kabalah of the Sitra Achra [The Dark Side]
And we know there is Torah from the Sitra Achra and this applies to all four aspects of Torah. It is for this reason I emphasize sticking with the basic Litvak approach based on the Gaon from Villna. My intention is to avoid the Sitra Achra and to help others do so also. [Or at least to warn people.]


(note 1) Shalom Sharabi is the author of the book printed at the end of the Eitz Chaim. He was a Yemenite Kabalist that made his way to Jerusalem.  He wrote a lot more stuff besides that. There is a yeshiva that concentrates on his approach in Jerusalem called Nahar Shalom [and that is in fact the name of his book.] Mordechai Sharabi I think was a descendant of his. There are two prayer books along the lines of kabalah both called Sidur haReshash, a big one and a small one. I used the big one for some years. [I don't know much about that yeshiva. Maybe it is OK. But still my recommendation is to stick with the Bava Sali (Abuchatzeira) approach.]

Sanhedrin 63 the second to the bottom Tosphot. The Talmud brings a baraita that gives different things for which the verse that forbids them is ''don't eat on the blood.''לא תאכלו על הדם R. Yochanan says it also forbids the rebellious son. Then some person [amora] says one does not get lashes for them because there are no lashes for anything in which the same verse forbids different things.

Tosphot asks: "But it can't get lashes anyway because it is a prohibition that could lead to the death penalty. And also in fact it does have lashes."

You can ask on the first question the verse, "Don't eat on the blood"לא תאכלו על הדם does not exempt the rebellious son from lashes  so it can't exempt anyone from lashes. So to find an exemption is only by what the לאו שבכללות a prohibition that includes many things.
But you could defend the question of Tosphot in this way
 it does exempt from lashes because the rebellious son does not get lashes from that verse, but from the verse that is said in its own place. ויסרו אותו. [But for this answer to work you have to assume like the Rambam that when there is stated a punishment you don't need to find a prohibition, you just assume it is there.]



So I gave up. But then we moved on to the second question of Tosphot where it looks like he is in fact saying like I was saying--that the lashes do come from that verse.
So Tosphot is asking on our Gemara from two sides. He is saying if you assume thus and thus, this Gemara makes no sense. And if you make this other set of assumptions, the Gemara still is hard to understand.

In any case, why I bring this to the attention of the public is this. This Tosphot in fact depends on an argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban' [Maimonides and Nachmanides].

To the 'Rambam if there is a punishment you don't need a verse. This is the first assumption of Tosphot. To the Ramban' even if a punishment is stated explicitly you still need to find a verse that forbids the act. And that is the second assumption of Tosphot.
So to sum up what is going on here is Tosphot is saying something that makes a lot of sense. He is saying no matter how you look at this Gemara it comes out difficult "shver." But he just packed this whole long argument (which if I had the energy I would go into more detail) into two short sentences.

a later retraction
I think I have to retract. I think the entire Tosphot is going like the Ramban'.The 'Rambam would deny that either question is valid. Let us think. the first question says that yes we agree with the Gemara that forbidding lots of things would be a reason not to get lashes for that prohibition. but there is a further reason not to get lashes for it--because it leads to the death penalty. The Rambam would say no it does not. Once you know there is a penalty you don't bother looking for the prohibition.the reason for the death penalty might have been that verse "don't eat on the blood"but we don't need it to be and now we know it cant be. the second question of Tosphot does not even begin to the Rambam. To the Rambam the reason for the lashes of the rebellious son is not from that verse because it is a verse that includes other prohibitions.
In any case the Rambam would have to answer the problem of what does Rabbi Yochanan means then and he would say it is just a general hint but it is in fact that the reason for either the lashes or the death penalty.

Pamela Geller

"Muslims say if you offend us we will kill you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdJgqDhbS4

She said "There is a problem in Islam." I say "The problem is Islam."

Not only that but people that are willing to compromise with Islam are part of the problem.


I don't talk about Islam much on this blog because once I was in coming back home through Central Park [NY in Manhattan] one night about 1 AM  and I met a black man who had some very interesting things to say. In fact some very frightening things.
We were talking a little about religion and he had been at a lot of churches and even a lot of synagogues. And perhaps I might relate what he said if I can remember. But he also told me about his experience in NJ in a mosque. This was so long ago that I forgot most of the details but mainly there there another member of this mosque that had decided that Islam was not for him, and soon after the other members of the Mosque came to his house in the middle of the night and murdered the whole family, and as far as the NY police were concerned it was an unsolved crime for unknown motives with no leads.

While I am on teh subject I think his complain about churches was that he did not find God in them. And his complaint about synagogues I don't remember. But one thing that sticks out in my mind--about the blue string--the Techelet that people do not put on their garments. I tried to tell him about the yeshivas of  the Gra in Israel and Breslov. But I admit he is right that when teh Torah says openly to put on a blue string and we don't listen--that is a problem. In any case I don't think the kind breslov uses is right. There is the Tifrach kind I think is the proper one. And it is the kind that Zilverman in the old city uses.

I suggest something very different. It is talking with God. You can see this custom to some degree in psalms. King David was in fact doing this. But also he was able to write down his prayers. And it is probable that most people that have some feeling towards God do this once in a while.

But what I am suggesting here is to make a goal of this. To in fact take the long way to work and back so that you can spend more time talking with God or at least trying to talk with him.

[This idea was to some degree written about Lawrence, a lay monk. 

Jewish Ethics. Without Musar, people make up their own pseudo Torah

What I have wanted to do is to start something along the lines of Israel Salanter. A kind of Musar [Jewish Ethics] Movement that would stick to the original plan. Musar got to be sidetracked. For people in training in different fields it became about those fields. In some ways it became about being extra frum religious. But in it original conception it was about a kind of service towards God based on the classical books of Jewish Ethics. Of course, it was discovered that this in fact meshed well with yeshiva life. and it was difficult to do this program outside of a yeshiva context.

But I still think it is worthwhile renewing this program of learning the 30 or so books of classical Musar.
[Musar does have an aspect of keeping externals and internals. It is in find  a kind of complete program for serving God based on the Oral and Written Law. But it is  amazing how side tracked it got to be.
The basic Torah path has  mitzvahs, but it also gives a weight to each mitzvah. That is how much every mitzvah ought to be emphasized. When people pervert the Torah, the first step is to change the weight of the mitzvot. It is like you have a row of bottles. Each bottle represents a mitzvah, and the water in the bottles represents the weight or importance of each one. To find out the proper weight of each mitzvah is is necessary to learn Musar. Otherwise, one tends to emphasize minor things at the expense of major things. Without Musar, people make up their own pseudo Torah and present it as the real thing.

Peter Lloyd at the Daily Mail has an excellent article on men no longer marrying: “Why men won’t get married anymore: Women complain chaps today won’t settle down. Sorry, ladies, but it’s all your fault, argues a wickedly provocative new book.” He mentions Men on Strike and quotes me (though he states I am a lecturer at the University of Tennessee but I am not):

For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him. And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike.Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater.

‘Ultimately, men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,’ says Dr Helen Smith, a lecturer at the University of Tennessee and author of Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream.

‘They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.

‘Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.’

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/04/20/men-arent-wimping-out-by-staying-unmarried-or-being-commitment-phobes-theyre-being-smart/#ixzz3ZN8EbXek



My advice is to only marry the daughter of a true Torah scholar. This is known in the Talmud as a "Bat Talmid Chacham." It is the only way to come as close as you can to a guarantee your marriage will stay together and you will have good children. It does not help if you learn Torah. And it certainly does not help if she learns Torah. You need that her father learns Torah.

But not hasidim. There is specifically an excommunication of the Gra against marrying into the cult of hasidim. And from I have seen there is a good reason for  this. Maybe people were not aware of it for a long time but from what can tell the Gra was right on the money.

  I want to suggest that people think too much about understanding what they learn.
In school this can come across in a powerful way. Your whole grade depends on how well you know the material. And this gets transferred to some degree in the yeshiva world in Israel. Tests to see if you know the material are a part of the story there.

But what I want to suggest is that this is the wrong approach to learning.

Certainly we know that when it comes to learning Torah--that that is an obligation on every male Jew from young to old sick or well, and it makes no difference if they are smart as Einstein or a dumb as a door knob.

Not only that but there is a specific obligation to go through the entire Written and Oral Law. This we find in a few places and I don't remember where. But the basic thing that is brought is this:
When one gets to heaven and has to give an account of his deeds the first thing God asks him is on his learning and then after that on his deeds. [This is because deeds flow from what one thinks is right. If you learn Torah your deeds will get better. Rav Shach and Shmuel Berenbaum said today there is no advice but to sit and learn Torah.  Nothing else can help--and nothing else is necessary. If you learn everything thing else will fall into place.]

Did you learn the Old Testament?

Did you learn Mishna?

Did you learn Gemara?

Dito the Work of Creation (which the Rambam says is Physics)

Dito the Divine Chariot (which the Rambam says is Metaphysics)
[Nowadays people are inclined to say the last two mean Kabbalah. I would say that it is true that one should learn all the Ari [Isaac Luria] and Moshe Cordovero, the Rashash and the Ramchal and Yaakov Abuchatzeira. But I don't think that cancels what the Rambam says.

But here I want to bring the idea that in learning all one needs is simplicity and to say the words in order and go on.