songs for the God of Israel

q70 [q70 in midi]  q1 [q1 in midi] n1 [n1 in midi] b98 [b98 in midi]   b101 [b101 in midi]  b104  [b104 in midi] b105 [b105 in midi] m69 [m69 in midi] g1 [g1 in midi] g2 [g2 in midi] g3 [g3 in midi]   q67 D major   [q67 in midi] g4 [g4 in midi] orchestra exodus4    

q68 [q68 in midi]
      JS 1 [js1 in midi] Mathematics  n2 [n2 in midi]  n3 [n3 in midi] n5 [n5 in midi]  q69 [q69 in midi]  n8  [n8 in midi]

Kabalah . Much of the formal structure of what we have from Isaac Luria comes from the pre-Socratics, Plotinus and Mani (founder of Manichaeism--the faith that Augustine broke away from).  It does not seem all that insightful when you know from where it comes.  On the other hand  once you have the formal structure, it seems often the mystics themselves had  some great insights. It is not a settled question me.

I made a detailed study of this once. Mainly the idea of the ten sepherot comes from a disciple of Plato. The contraction {"tzimtzum"} was from the presocratics. The "sparks of holiness" from Mani. Adam Kadmon also from Mani.

And most of what passes for divine spirit by so called kabalists seems to me to be mainly kelipat Noga. That is the Middle Zone [heichalai hatmurot] between holiness and unholiness that gives one great powers and knowledge about peoples secrets.


Mainly I think that Kabalah is a way of conceiving spiritual reality. And when one gets into it then the reality becomes real. It is like Kant's idea of the representation   of "the thing in itself." The representation is half supplied by the object and half by the observer. That is the believing in it makes it real. Not just the Kabalah but any spiritual reality system has this quality of being able to absorb people that believe it into itself.

Appendix: (1) Plato's disciple did not actually invent ten sepherot. At first there were nine. Only in the Middle Ages was a tenth added to account for the precision of the north star.  And you can see this scheme in the end of the Eitz Chaim. And while we do not think that the Ari was learning Manichaeism but all of these ideas were common in the Middle Ages when people had been learning Plotinius and Mani's beliefs were also wide spread and almost became the primary world religion at one time. All these ideas were put into the Zohar and that is where the Ari found them.

(2) I do not mean to deny the validity of the Ari. Rather I simply say he was seeing the Torah through the worldview of the time of the Zohar. But in any case if one want to learn Torah I think the best option is simply the traditional Oral and Written Law. That is the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. Not Kabalah.

(3) One of the central beliefs of Manichaeism was the notion that every human being had two warring souls: one that was part of the Light, and another that was evil. This was itself based on Zoroastrianism.  

(4) According to Mani through lust and the sin, the Darkness tries to imprison more and more bits of Light within matter. 

(5) Seeing how much of Kabalah incorporates beliefs of ancient religions made it less interesting to me. Unless I would have thought that Mani was a true prophet. I could keep on making excuses but at some point it seemed more interesting just to go back to learning straight authentic Torah and leave the deluded with their delusions.

(6) To get  better idea of what Torah is about I think it makes more sense to look at Maimonides and Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol, and the Duties of the Heart. Though Ari still gives very important insights, still I would not take that as standard.

(7) Another aspect of Manichaeism that became an important part of  the teachings of the Ari is the שם ב'ן in which there was the breaking of the vessels and then the rebirth of the name מ''ה החדש Adam Kadmon after the tikun of the vessels in the form of the the sepherot that is well known.

In Mani we also find the three stages-the first creation. The breaking of the vessels. Then the second creation with Adam Kadmon being reborn. Then the final Redemption. All very well defined in Kabalah and in Mani.


For me this makes the approach of Saadia Gaon and the basically rationalist Jewsih philosophers of the Middle Ages more interesting than Kabalah. Though I have the greatest respect for the Ari and genuine Mystics still their visions do not define the worldview Torah for me.

(8) I spent a great deal of time learning the Ari and I think  that after a good solid background  in Talmud the Ari can serve as a kind of conduit for a kind of Divine light. So I do not want to discount its importance. But by and large it just leads people to delusions. That is its effect on 99% of those involved with it.  It gains mastery over men's minds by the astonishing completeness, minuteness, and consistency of its assertions. They lose themselves in it.

(9) For me I should say I found learning the books of the Ari and the Gra in Kabalah to be very helpful. The trouble without these books the world is drained of its mystery and magic. It becomes a secular  world. The world of  The Guide for the Perplexed is a secular world. The world of the Ari is full of holiness and mystery. And  I learned to find the magic and holiness in everything --especially Physics which to me reveals the greatness and wisdom of God.

People may think the concept of demons is a medieval fiction. but whether you agree with it or not it explains a lot. Let me explain: When we do some good deed it makes sense to say that this evokes some kind of special attention from God. But when we sin, we usually think of God as averting his attention from us. So then how do we ascribe punishment to Him as if he is punishing us directly? It is more natural to say that God has placed in the world a natural order of objective morality. We we rebel against it we are being punished by the natural process of what happens when a person disobeys the moral law. This explains we we are sometimes  afflicted with evils that seem to be out of our control. And we think there are angels that are the natural agents of protection.

Ideas in Talmud  Ideas in Bava Metzia  title page for ideas in bava metzia title page for ideas in shas

Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement

I have mentioned a few times about Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement --that is the movement directed towards getting people to learn medieval Jewish Texts about ethics. I mentioned also that I think Musar needs to be coupled with The Guide of the Rambam and the other basic texts of Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages.


Faith with Reason is not so much what I am thinking about but rather Fear of God coupled with Reason. That is  הלא יראתיך היא כסלתיך. (This is a verse from the book of Job. It means, "Is not your fear  your stupidity?)

 But even when I recommend Maimonides or other books of Jewish Philosophy I am not necessarily agreeing with everything they say. All I am saying is their works and texts are important to learn and to try to incorporate in my life.

The way I do that is one thing but others might have a different way of incorporating Fear of God and Reason into their lives. That fact was understood right at the beginning of the Musar movement, Reb Israel Salanter made it clear from the beginning that everyone has a different area of Musar they need to work pon and only they can know what it is. No one can tell them.
My own approach is tailored to my needs. I try to learn a little Musar, a little Talmud, a little Physics. And in each subject I try to find what is most appropriate for me. I suggest others do the same--but find what is applicable to them.

Tractate Shabat page 69. Rambam accidental sacrifices 7:3 and the Avi Ezri on that Halacha [i.e. Rav Shach's book on the Rambam]

I doubt if I can explain this right. But here is at least a first attempt. The way I put this when i was learning with my learning partner was this: we have this idea of Reish Lakish that an accident is only when he forgets that some kind of work is forbidden on Shabat. And if he forgets all 39 types then he brings 39 sin offerings. The Talmud asked then in what way did he remember Shabat? And it answers the Sabbath boundary. The problem the Talmud is addressing is what makes this case any different from when he forgot the Sabbath day completely and then has to bring only one sin offering no matter how many acts of work he did.  Now this is really the question of my learning partner but I am trying to put it in my own words. So the question is how has the Talmud answered anything? He knows Shabat but only in something that is not related to a sacrifice. Just the Shabat boundary. 

Talmud Bava Metzia, pg 104

[I am only here presenting my own ideas and those of my learning partner. I do not claim these books to be the best in "Lumdus" that are around. In my opinion, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach deserves first place in terms of depth of thought.]
The Ideas in Bava Metzia needs a correction "possibility"אפשרות in Hebrew is feminine.  Thus it takes a feminine verb. [You can see this all the time in Tenach where such nouns are considered feminine. But there is an exception I think in Job
[for example in the beginning of the prayer of Havakuk chapter 3.] פלצות in the prayer of חבקוק is treated as feminine.[While on grammar, I think בורא נפשות רבות  are feminine. That it should be וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי, ברוך אתה ה' חי העולמים. That is anyway what I do.]
I also noticed at page 104 the ideas need some clarifications. I was trying to present two ideas. One from my learning partner about the Rambam. And one from me about Rav Papa and how my idea can help understand the Rambam. But I don't think I presented these ideas clearly.






I would add a few other laws here and there (like electricity on Shabat), but if I have nothing new to say there does not seem to be any purpose. I am generally lenient when it comes to halaka. If there is a posek {Rishon} that is enough for me.. But not achronim. That is in any argument between any rishonim I always decide to be lenient.  And all the more so I pay no attention to any of the crazy added restrictions of the the religious world today which are all pure insanity and have nothing to do with Torah.

But  how can I attack what has no halakic basis (electricity on Shabat is a good example)? If people want to make up restrictions, because it makes them feel holy, what can I do?

Being extra strict I began to notice has no connection with being a normal decent human being. The extra strict types of people I think do not understand the Torah requires both obligations between man and his fellow man and also between man and God.

I also suggest that this is the exact reason why all the great Lithuanian yeshivas  like the Mir learned in a basic seven year cycle the tractates that had to deal with obligations between man and his fellow man {נשים נזיקין} and they learned Musar also [normative ethics].
On BM page 104
I was looking over what I wrote about cleanliness  and leaning. I think at least at the end of that essay I need to explain that when I was putting the opinion of the Ri and Rav Shimshon ben Avraham together I was intending to explain Rashi. That is leaning in the case of a strong  or weak tree with not make the person that is leaned on by the Zav to be unclean. Only if the Zav moves him as in the case of the weak tree.

[I should mention that in Elul usually some other tractates than the major ones are studied. For example in my first Elul period in Shar Yashuv in NY we learned Rosh HaShanah about the way to blow the Shophar. [That is the last page of Rosh Hashana].]



Another important issue in Bava Metzia is on page 100A with the second tosphot and the argument between the Rashbam and Tosphot. The issue is that in Tosphot they are going with the idea found in in Nida 2b) that a "חזקה" steady state of now (חזקה דהשתא) can only defeat a previous steady state חזקה מעיקרא if combined with some other חזקה. That is not how Tosphot understands the gemara in Nida itself on the page over there. But it might very well be in fact how the Rashbam understands this because of his opinion on a divorce document that has witnesses but no time written in it. This last subject is the object of a debate between Tosphot, the Rambam, and the Rashbam. See Rav Shach's Avi Ezri where he goes into this in the Rambam Laws of Gittin chapter 1.
Now you might say in Bava Metzia Tosphot intends his answer to be two separate answers. [I do not have a Bava Metzia to be able to look this up but I hope someday that God will grant to me a Bava Metzia so I can look more carefully in Tosphot to see what he means.]
In any case , just to introduce you to the topic let me mention the basic issue. Rambam Laws of Divorce ch 1:25 says if there are witnesses on the document, it needs to have the  date. The Ramban (Nachmanides) says it always needs the date. The Rashbam says even if it has witnesses, it does not need the date.
The issue is: why is there a date on the document? Because of the daughter of his sister that is brought to court for having sex with another man while being married. Thus, we require every divorce to have the time in it- so he does not write a document after the act with a dater before the act and thus try to show she was not married at the time. But then the question from tractate Nida comes up. She is not married now, so the state now (חזקה דהשתא) goes backwards. In Nida, the Gemara says the state now only can work backwards if it has something else helping it. At any rate, we can see what the Rashbam was thinking -the case of the divorce is the same as the mikve. There is a state of the mikve or the woman  now, but the state of being first חזקה מעיקרא defeats the later state (חזקה דהשתא) unless the later state has some help. Therefore the document is valid, and it is as if it has a time written onto it which is right now. So at least the Rashbam is clear.

I also had to take out one idea on Bava Metzia page 104 that I heard from someone. But now it looks that it really made no sense, so I deleted it.
.