Trust in God

The Altar of Navardok (Joseph Horvitz of Navardok, a disciple of Israel Salanter) was into making yeshivas. This was a secondary theme in his life. The major theme was trust in God with no effort.
The kinds of yeshivas he made were what you would call Lithuanian that were loosely following the path of the Gra.
The yeshiva experience is holistic. It is not just learning Torah but it is living Torah.

And it tends to be an answer to the Enlightenment. On the Enlightenment there were two approaches: for and against. And in the USA the world view is universally that of pro. That is the idea that education is the redemption of mankind. Those that were against the Enlightenment thought education is not the redemption of mankind. They used reason to argue against reason.

But the type of education they were thinking of was divorced from Faith. And that was  approach of the Enlightenment in  the Jewish world also.

The Enlightenment was largely interested in secular education.  {And it was not mostly political as Allen Bloom thought.  But it had a political element.}

Georg Hamann within the group of  German Idealism was the most powerful anti enlightenment thinker and brought out some great points.

But going back to the kind of thought we see in the Rambam and Saadia Gaon it is hard to see a conflict between Reason and revelation. Just the opposite--neither can exist without the other.
And this synthesis is what the Lithuanian yeshivas strove for. But not in an intellectual way but rather as living the Torah in a holistic way.

Given all this you would think I would recommend yeshivas. At least authentic ones. The trouble is cults. They masquerade as the real thing.  They have found it profitable to present themselves as authentic.

I try to combine reason and faith. I try to learn a little Torah and a little natural sciences every day. And I also pray to God in my own words when I need something. And when I am walking on the street I also talk with God and explain my problems to him and ask for help.
But I am not holding myself as a good example for people. If I could I would be learning Torah in Ponovitch or Brisk. But because of bad decisions I am not in the yeshiva world. [However even if I was in the Yeshiva world I would still learn Natural sciences as per the Rambam.]

Trust in God and Navardok-real Torah

I think this is the Yarzeit of Joseph Yozel Horvitz--the Altar of Navardok.
He was a disciple of Israel Salanter. It might be worthwhile mentioning a few things about him. First of all I think the Stipler Rav was his son in law. [That is the author of the Kehilat Yaakov.]
The major point of Navardok was trust in God with doing nothing to get one's needs. You can see this in the book put together by one of his students the מדרגת האדם. I  mean trust in God with no השתדלות

I know people are used to thinking of trust with effort. But the idea of Navardok was definitely opposed to this idea. The Altar of Navardok himself I think got this idea either directly from Israel Salanter or found it in an essay written by Israel Salanter where Israel Salanter attributes this idea to the Ramban.[No one knows where this Ramban is.]

But for sure there is at least one definite source for this idea--the Gra on proverbs 3:5.

What this meant for most people following this path was to learn Torah and not worry about "parnasah" [making a living]. But it does not have to mean that. It mainly means to be doing God's will as defined in the Torah and let God take care of the rest.


[I have to add that I think the main problem with the Musar movement is they did not add Jewish Philosophy along with it. That is Saadia Gaon, Rambam, Ibn Gavirol, Albo and Abarbenal. I don't think Musar works to improve character unless it comes with world view issues that are treated in these works of philosophy.

These great people represent real Torah. The sad truth is the Torah has no true representatives today. And the most dangerous and evil are those who claim to speak in the name of the Torah.

the Dark Side can impart flavor to bad things

If something is interesting does that mean it is good? Kant is not that interesting. True. And that is a negative I admit.  But I also know the Dark Side can impart flavor to bad things. Even more than they would have naturally.

What I suggest is that habit is the ruler. And that one has the knowledge and ability to direct his or hers own will towards things they know are good.
One can direct his will into learning
Math, Physics, learning Torah, etc.
But it helps if there is some kind of numinous [holy] taste in what one is doing. There is luminosity in everything. One can serve God through everything.



Appendix:
This is the quote from that site:

The sublime spiritual sterility of the texts of Kant’s philosophical maturity, for instance, could scarcely provide a more perspicuous glimpse into the personality of perhaps the single most boring man ever to darken a wigmaker’s doorway. The leaden, caliginous bombast of Hegel’s prose was a pure emanation of his grindingly pompous soul. The turgidity of Derrida’s attempts at playfulness were little more than clinical specimens of his insufferable self-infatuation. As a general rule, to put it simply, if one wanders into one’s library in search of mirth, good fellowship, or wit, one does well not to seek out the company of the philosophers.

Most of what is taught today as exact sciences are pseudo sciences

I am not a fan of pseudo sciences nor of "great books" education.
The trouble with most of what is taught today as exact  sciences are pseudo sciences. Even if they can be used for making a living they are still evil. That is psychology, and all it related fields. Obviously they can con people into giving them vast sums of money and have a strong hold over the educational system in the USA even though they have nothing of worth to offer just mirrors and delusions couched in scientific jargon.
People should learn real science and Torah. And when it gets time to get married to learn a honest vocation also. ["Real science" means mainly Physics, Chemistry, Math, Biology. But can include Engineering.] 

Torah should be learned thus: a fast session Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam--one עמוד  this one side of a page per day. Not a whole Daf. Rather a 1/2 a Daf. That is the fast session. The slow one should be with a learning partner. And that depends a lot on the particular subject.
After one finishes the Talmud then the Ari. (I Luria). But no pseudo Torah.  [All  supposedly mystic books written after the Ari are pseudo Torah. The exceptions are the books of Yaakov Abuchatzaeia and Shalom Sharabi.]
After one has gone through the Talmud once in the above way, the next thing is to do the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way with all the commentaries on the page. The main thing is to say the words and go on. You will understand much more in this way than if you stayed on every little detail. The you go through the rest of the halachic Midrashim. That is one fast session per day. That takes about 40 minutes if you do it with the Maharsha and Maharam. If you have more time you can do more than a 1/2 a Daf per day. But this seems like a lot already.
There should be another short session in the midrashei hagadah in such a way that after a few years one has finished the entire Oral and Written Law (Old Testament). Every last word. This only seems like a lot because I am not talking about reading novels. If I would say to go through a  novel by Tom Clancy  in a few days it would seem like nothing to most people. But all of a sudden when it is Torah it sounds like a momentous task.
_________________________________________________________________
The slow in depth learning I can give any kind of guidance on. The normal way of going about it is to be in a authentic Lithuanian Yeshiva. You prepare for the Rosh Yeshiva's class in the morning. Then the class is he giving over his original ideas on the Gemara. It is not just reading over some one else's  ideas. That is in any case how things were at the Mir. But to get to be able to do this yourself takes more than the regular four years. It might take twenty or more. It is like in the Middle Ages when apprenticeship could last for twenty of more years until one was  a master of the art

Bava Sali

David Abuchatzeira was murdered by Muslims on the 14th of Kislev. That is why I thought to write a few words about the Abuchatzeira family. The major thing that was special about this family was their idea of education. They had the basic approach that you would find in any Lithuanian yeshiva straight Gemara and Musar and Poskim. But their way of keeping Torah was significantly simplified..They were not reading too much Dante I should say. At at a certain point they would get into the Ari-Isaac Luria. But that went along with a good deal of fasting.
Let me mention a few things as samples of the events surrounding them. Israel Abuchatzeira once was  one  a bus going going from one town to the next. It go to be time for the afternoon prayer. {Mincha}. He told the person he was with to ask the bus driver to stop the bus so he could get out and pray. The driver laughed at such a ridiculous request.  So the fellow returned to his seat. Then Bava Sali (Israel Abuchatzeira) told him to get ready to get off the bus. Then suddenly the engine broke down. They got off to pray as the bus driver got out to see of he could fix the engine. Bava Sali took his own sweet time to pray as was his custom. After he finished they got back on the bus and he told the person his was with to tell the driver he could start the bus now. The driver  yelled at him and said can't you see I have been trying to start this thing for the last hour? So he returned to his seat. Bava Sali told him to tell the driver to just put the key in the ignition and see what happens. He did so and the bus started with no problem.

One thing you in Bava Sali--is the idea of authentic  Torah. He was not involved with "Tikunim." That is he was not taking any one particular Mitzvah. His was straight learning and keeping Torah. The oral and written law. The פירוש המקובל. That is the explanation of the Written Torah that was received by the sages of the Mishna and Talmud. Things written later are not the oral nor written law. They can at best explain some aspects of the oral or written law but do not override them and when they go off into their own explanation not based on the oral law then they are ספרים חיצוניים-books that the sages say one loses his portion in the  next world by reading them. [That means most so called Torah books today are in fact ספרים חיצוניים]. See the Rif and Rosh there on the mishna in Sanhedrin.

Bava Sali was not a fan of the "great books" education. STEM maybe but not secular education outside of the natural sciences or straight forwards learning a vocation.

Bava Sali

I thought it would be proper to say a few words about David Abuchatzeira, the older brother of Bava Sali. It is after all 14 Kislev on the Jewish Calendar.
The main phenomenon of the Abuchatzeira family was really located in Morroco.. That is where the family lived until the State of Israel was founded.
This family seemed to be blessed with ascetics. That is they would be married but they would be living the kind of life you would associate with a ascetic in other ways. It is hard to explain.
But without going into too much detail let me at least mention that their general path was what you would call straight Torah and Mitzvah. It would be the same thing as you would have in any Lithuanian Yeshiva. The only difference would be that after some member of the family would have gone through Shas a few time they would begin to learn the writings of Isaac Luria and at that point begin to go up in levels of holiness and separation from this world,--but they would still be married.

Though the charlatans called kabalists abound nowadays, still this family was different. They were the real thing. And their powers came from the side of Holiness. {There are plenty of people with powers from the Dark Side, and you need a certain degree of talent to be able to spot them.}

There was a time that you could go anywhere in Israel and just mention the name of Bava Sali and someone would have a story to tell you of how they went to him with some problem and it was magically solved afterwards.

The stories were astounding. And it seemed impossible to say they were all lying or had some agenda.

We have the Rambam in laws of accidental sacrifices 7:3 :  If one does a work on Shabat and he knows it is Shabat but he forgot that kind of work is forbidden or else he forgot the punishment then he brings a sin offering.  Even if he did all 39 he brings 39 sin offerings, Someone asked Avraham the son of the Rambam in what way did he remember it is shabat? {That is needed in order so that this does not deteriorate into a simple case when one forgot it is Shabat and he brings just one sacrifice.}

Avraham said the beginning of the halacha is not connected to the end or he remembered the branches of the work.

The  point of Rav Avraham. The end is not connected to the beginning. For all 38 kinds of work he could have forgotten both or just the עונש, but when we get up to the 39th one it can only be he forgot the עונש. If he forgot both and for all 39 works then that is שכחת שבת and he brings only on sacrifice.

The question of the Beit Yoseph of the son of the Rambam is this: Let us start out at the beginning. He he forgot a work and its punishment, or just the punishment he brings one sin offering. Keep going. He forgot 38 works and their punishment or he knew they were all forbidden but forgot the punishment. He brings 38. Then what? It is no longer symmetrical We can't have he forgot 39 and their punishments because in what way did he remember Shabat?


Later note: The question on the Rav Avraham is simple. The Rambam wrote over there in laws of Shabat [7:8] that even if one forgot all 39 kinds of work he brings 39 sin offerings.There is no scenario where he  does not know some kind of work but knows its punishment. So when the Rambam says he forgot all 39 that has to mean both the works and their punishment. This is a direct contradiction to the son of the Rambam.

_____________________________________________________________________________




We have the רמב''ם in הלכות שגגות ז:ג :  If one does a work on שבת and he knows it is שבת but he forgot that kind of מלאכה is forbidden, or else he forgot the עונש, then he brings a חטאת.  Even if he did all ל''ט he brings ל''ט חטאות, Someone asked רב אברהם the son of the רמב''ם in what way did he remember it is שבת? That is needed in order so that this does not deteriorate into a simple case when one forgot it is שבת and he brings just one חטאת.

רב אברהם said the beginning of the הלכה is not connected to the end, or he remembered the תולדות of the מלאכות.

The  point of רב אברהם. The end is not connected to the beginning. For all ל''ח kinds of work he could have forgotten both or just the עונש, but when we get up to the ל''ט  one it can only be he forgot the עונש. If he forgot both for all ל''ט מלאכות then that is שכחת שבת and he brings only one sacrifice.

The question of the בית יוסף of the son of the רמב''ם is this:
 The question on רב אברהם is: The רמב''ם wrote over there in laws of הלכות שבת ז:ח that even if one forgot all ל''ט kinds of מלאכה he brings ל''ט חטאות. There is no scenario where he  does not know some kind of מלאכה but knows its עונש. So when the רמב''ם says he forgot all ל''ט that has to mean both the מלאכות and their עונש. This is a direct contradiction to the son of the רמב''ם.


הרמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז: ג אם אחד עושה עבודה  בשבת והוא יודע את זה שהוא שבת, אבל הוא שכח  שסוג הזה של מלאכה אסור, או שהוא שכח עונש, אז הוא מביא חטאת. גם אם הוא עשה את כל הל''ט הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. מישהו שאל רב אברהם בנו של רמב''ם באיזה אופן לא הוא זוכר את זה הוא שבת? (למה צריך את זה כך שזה לא יידרדר למקרה פשוט שאחד שכח שהוא שבת שהוא מביא רק  חטאת אחת. רב אברהם אמר שתחילת ההלכה אינה מחוברת לסוף, או שהוא זכר את תולדותיה של מלאכות. הנקודה רב אברהם. הסוף אינו מחובר להתחלה. לכל סוגים ל''ח של עבודה יכול חהיות שהוא שכח את המלאכה או רק העונש, אבל כאשר אנחנו מגיעים  לל''ט יכול להיות רק שהוא שכח את העונש. אם הוא שכח גם לכל הל''ט מלאכות, אז זה שכחת שבת והוא מביא רק קורבן אחד.

השאלה של הבית יוסף של בנו של רמב''ם היא זו
 הרמב''ם כתב  בדיני הלכות שבת ז: ח שאם אחד שכח את כל הל''ט מיני מלאכה הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. אין תרחיש שבו הוא לא יודע איזה סוג של מלאכה אבל יודע את העונש. לכן, כאשר רמב''ם אומר שהוא שכח את כל  הל''ט זה שהוא שכח את המלאכות ועונשן. זוהי סתירה ישירה לבן של רמב''ם