Ann Rand

It is hard to defend capitalism because of several things. John Locke is the beginning of the empirical school of thought [that all knowledge comes through the senses] which is in close connection with his political ideas. Since there is knowledge that does not depend on the senses a serious foundation of his system is lacking.

The intuitionists Michael Hummer and Caplan are great thinkers but there is a certain quietism about their system.

I think Capitalism and Libertarian ideas [the Tea Party] can be defended by only by the  Kant who sees the individual as the  key. Autonomy. Authority must come from within. That is Kant's Dinge An Sich.

Ann Rand was amazing writer and defender of freedom and democracy, but one needs to defend this system from a philosophical rigorous point of view. It is not enough to defend it vigorously. The reason for this is people are not stupid. They see thinkers of great caliber defending Marxism. The whole structure of leftist Marxism has an array of powerful thinkers.  Freud, Rousseau. They pack a punch. These are very sophisticated thinkers all used in defense of Modern Marxism. The sad thing is they are defending the most murderous corrupt system ever devised by man.

It is not as if you could not support capitalism, freedom and democracy by a similar array of even more powerful thinkers and even more sophisticated--Maimonides, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant,

I know one person that was interested in converting to the insane religious world . He was talking in glowing terms about the frum world (the insane religious world ) to his father and his father said, "They probably have a few skeletons in their closet."  He did anyway convert. But it is interesting to notice the analogy. Sometimes something looks squeakily clean because they have put all the skeletons away where you can't see them.

Personally, I must admit that when I was planning on going to yeshiva, my father probably said something along the same lines to me.
I also did not listen.
In any case, the places I did go to were probably a lot better than most. But still there is something about my own experience in the frum would which I think indicate that there is something funny about it.
My own approach to this is to say "Well, they are just not keeping the Torah." And I did notice a lot of the teachings of the Shatz have become an integral part of the insane religious world  by way of pseudo Kabalah. In any case, I do think that the insane religious world  is mainly not very kosher. That is as a general rule. But Lithuanian yeshivas and communities founded upon them tend to be very good. So if you want to keep Torah--and that is a good idea--it is important to find a decent Litvak Yeshiva.
But the danger is there are lots of bad influence outside the doors of the yeshiva.

Some of the ways I don't agree with the insane religious world  are in Halacha. Other areas are about the State of Israel. Another area is concerning ethics,- [things that Musar was supposed to correct.]

Israel Salanter

I am pretty sure that Musar is important. One piece of evidence  is that my brothers and myself are on  different paths of Torah. My older brother tends towards the Reform side of Judaism. And yet when I mentioned to him about the book Duties of the Heart (the Chovot Levavaot) (חובות לבבות)  and Fear of God as a principle he was quite positive that that is the right path.
That is even though on the official level there are differences between different branches of Judaism, but for simple Jews there is little doubt of what the basic path is. Fear of God and living like a mensch. [not depending on charity, living according decent moral standards.]
My younger brother is goes to a conservative Shul but I am pretty sure that in essence he agrees with this approach also, though he might not have heard of any particular Musar book.


[I mean on the outside of the spectrum you can find insane Jews that are against the State of Israel.  The extremists don't define Torah. Only Torah defines Torah.



Musar itself  has been hijacked by extremists.
What I think is to stick with the core set of the classical Musar books [חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים] and the writings of the direct disciples of Israel Salanter: Isaac Blasser, Joseph Horvitz, Simcha Zisel, Naphtali Amshterdam.
Isaac Blasser wrote the neoclassical Musar book אור ירשאל

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.