Fear of God is a good thing according to Isaac Blazer. I mean to say it is more than good--it is beneficial. It helps to solve human problems.  At least that is the idea I got from reading the first page of his book אור ישראל The Light of Israel.
The idea is that to work on fear of God solves at least some of the problems that people are looking for answers to.

That is it is not just a good thing but that it has practical benefits --even beyond what people would automatically think.

And it is a truism that reality is often different from what common sense dictates. When farmers are interested in fattening their pigs they fed them non fat milk. Who would have thought?


I could bring some further proofs for this but let me say that this is a theme that comes up in the Old Testament also. In the Old Testament it is mentioned a few times that all God wants from a  person is to fear him.

But we know that coming to fear of God  has lots of obstacles in front of it.


My suggestion is this to create something like Israel Salanter's Beit Musar. That is a study hall that is for learning Classical Musar only. Or even better to have a study hall that is for Musar and Gemara. Nothing else is allowed. Nor is anyone paid to learn. Paying people to learn makes Torah into a business. The worst kind of business because it is based on fraud.  We know learning Torah for money is a sin. So because try to pretend there is some mitzvah in this. If you have to pay someone to learn Torah then their Torah is not worth a penny. And not only that but then they will try to get rid of people that are learning Torah for its own sake and say they are not getting paid because they are not on their high level of learning. It is one big disaster. The main thing to know is by giving people money to learn Torah you are just making things worse. If on the other hand you see someone who is learning Torah for its own sake--to them it is  mitzvah to help.

The seventh year. Shemitah. The argument between Rav Shach and Rav Isaac Soloveitchik. Trumot I:5

I wanted to say over again the argument between Rav Shach and Rav Isaac Soloveitchik. What I want to make clear is the fact that Rav Soloveitchik has mainly two things in the Rambam which indicate that he is right.

The actual argument between them is about what is the area of the Land Of Israel obligated in in those areas that were not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. To Rav I.S. those areas are obligated in all obligations of the land of Israel. Rav Shach agrees with that but adds those areas are also obligated in tithes to the poor.

The proof of Rav I.S. is that the Rambam says Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor.  And he is clear that Amon and Moav are not the same thing as the area of the Land Of Israel  that was not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. [That means we can't use Rashi nor Tosphot to answer this Rambam. ] The other proof of Rav IS is when he says what obligations those areas of Israel are obligated in he says they did not "patur" (make not obligated) them from Trumot and maasrot. This is in clear relation to areas that they did "Patur". So from the straight reading of the Rambam it looks like Rav IS is right. But when you trace things back to the Gemara it looks like Rav Shach is right.

The Gemara brings the statement that is a halacha le'Moshe MiSinai that Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. But then as a proof it brings this statement דאמר מר הרבה כרכים כיבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשו עולי בבל שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית. To the way of Rav IS this does not seem to make any sense. How do you know Amon Moav give maasar ani? Because some cities in other areas give ספיחים. Not only is there no connection but the the sense of it is why is there a decree to give in place X? Because they did not make a  decree in place Y! To Rav Shach the connection is simple. In both place one gives tithes to the poor. 

I am getting more and more convinced about the idea of making a מקום תורה [place of Torah] and place of Torah in every city. The idea of learning Torah at home just does not seem practical.  I think there might be different reasons why the idea of making a place of Torah does not usually work. Yeshivas as we know are rarely places of Torah, and shuls never. But the reason for that is because they don't want to be. Kollels are just ways of making money by pretending to be a benefit to some community.

None of these things have anything to do with Torah. Not because it is hard to make a makom Torah--[place of Torah] but because people don't want to learn.
 If people would want to learn Torah for its own sake [not for pay] then it would be the simplest thing in the world to make a makom Torah.

A nice picture I found on the internet

Islam does not want to be reformed

The most serious sin in regard to Torah is to attempt to redefine Torah according to one's preference.
It matters if one keeps Torah also. But even if one does not keep all or any of the commandments, the worst sin to to try to change Torah according to ones tastes. This was the reason that Gra  signed the  excommunication.
This also makes clear what is so wrong with the the insane religious world  today which consists of many groups that have subverted the Torah to their own whims and have now tried to represent themselves as traditional.

Since it is hard to get a good idea of what Torah is about nowadays I recommend going into what is called "Rishonim." Rishonim  are people that lived in a period before all the falsification of Torah began and spent their time and efforts in trying to verify and clarify what the actual approach of Torah is.

You could start also with the Geonim.

But in any case what I suggest to begin is what is called Musar. That is a generic term for medieval books of classical Jewish ethics. What makes them interesting is not the time period they were written in but the fact that their efforts were to understand what the ethics of the Written and Oral Law is without trying to falsify the subject to make it conform to their own tastes.

Where Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and Rav Isaac Zev Soloveitchik disagree about the seventh year in Israel seems to be in this: Rav Soloveitchik  holds land that was conquered by Jews coming out of Egypt but left by Jews coming back from Babylonia is obligated in all obligations of the land of Israel. And when it says They did not sanctify the land that means so the poor could have the fruits and vegetables that grow by themselves on the seventh year. Rav Shach does not like this. To him those lands are obligated also in tithes to the poor --not just ספיחים things that grow wild.

The way he gets to this  like this: We have a Halacha to Moshe from Mount Sinai that Amon and Moav have to give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. This Rav Shach understands to be relevant to a time that those lands will be part of Israel from the Torah. That means to say that even in the future when that land will be part of Israel  and obligated in all obligations that Israel is obligated in Trumah and Maasar etc still they will be required to give tithes to the poor in the seventh year. And also when such land is not part of Israel, still they have to give tithes to the poor because of a decree. From this we can understand the Gemara in Yevamot 16a. עמון ומואב מעשרים מעשר עני   בשביעית דאמר מר הרבה כרכים כבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשו עולי בבל דקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה לא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית

Amon and Moav gives tithes to the poor on the seventh year because many cities were conquered by those coming up from Egypt, but not by those coming up from Babylonia, and they left them so the poor would be able to depend on them in the seventh year.

That is the areas of עולי מצרים are  required to give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. That is a proof that Amon and Moav also do so.




I wanted to point out that according to this way of understanding the Rambam Trumah I:5 you don't need the land to be obligated from the Torah. And we know that that is good because if we would need that that would conflict with what the Rambam says in the end of the  chapter. This way we have the basic step of a halacha le'Moshe MiSinai and then a decree כעין התורה like the Torah that just like Amon and Moav would be liable in all obligation but added to that would be tithes to the poor so land of Israel proper but not conquered by עולי בבל  has the same law because of a decree.




The main point that Rav Soloveitchik has I think is the fact that in מתנות עניים  we doing find that the land of עולי מצרים is obligated in tithes to the poor. He only mentions Amon and Moav. On the other hand there are a few points that bring support to Rav Shach. One is the Gemara itself in Yevamot 16a. If we read it like Rav Soloveitchik it is a bit strained: "Amon and Moav give the tithe of the poor. How do we know this? Because the Jews coming up from Babylonia did not sanctify many cities so the poor would have support from them on the seventh year." According to Rav Soloveitchik what support do the poor have on the seventh year? Only the ספיחים what grows by itself. And when they returned there was no decree on the ספיחים anyway!
The wording of the Rambam is ולא פטרום.  The idea in itself seems to be relevant to the next Halacha in the Rambam where we have that Beit Sh'an and Ashkelon were פטרed- left to be not obligated. So here the Rambam is saying in opposition to that that the area of עולי מצרים  they did  not פטר.