My learning partner is allergic to Musar. [Books of Medieval Ethics and of Israel Salanter's disciples] He thinks it is painting by the numbers.To some degree you can see this in things like the small Musar book of the Rosh "(1)To go away from pride as much as possible (2) Also from lying (3) also from ... (4) also from ..."



My opinion is Musar is important and I think that I can see the results of not learning it.  You certainly do not see anything like the moral standards of places that do learn Musar. This is a s clear as the sun at high noon. 

Once you walk away from some aspect of holiness you can never return. You can try to go through the motions but the inner essence never returns.
 I walked out of the Mir in order to go to Israel. Though I succeed and even did well in some ways--still  the essence of the Mir --the light of inner holiness of learning Talmud in depth I was never able to catch up with again.  Even the fact that God granted to me a few ideas in Talmud here and there only came about because of my learning partner. Same thing when I left Israel. Though I tried to return but I never could and that light and holiness that was part of my first stay there also never returned. The lesson is: if you have something good, hold onto it with all your might. Don't think it will follow you around. [That is at least the lesson for my kind of soul. There are several different types --so my advice here might only apply to me and similar kinds of people.]

Avraham Abulafia [a mystic who wrote many mystic books in the Middle Ages] held Jesus was Messiah ben Joseph.

Avraham Abulafia [a mystic who wrote many kabalistic books in the Middle Ages] held Jesus was Messiah ben Joseph.  The issue of Messiah son of Joseph is a totally different issue than Messiah son of David as we see in the end of the Talmud Tractate Suka, the Ramchal and many other sources.

The main idea is that messiah son of Joseph is a kind of preparation for the redemption in which there will be the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt and the sacrifices of the Torah will be brought again. This later stage has not happened.
Still being Messiah son of Joseph according to Rav Abulafia is not a bad thing. In theory it is good to believe in a great person and bad to follow or believe in wicked people. So if some people believe in a tzadik --even if they overdo it--why complain?

Merry Christmas

So for one day I suggest we all lay down our hatreds and animosity. Let's have the equivalent of the 1914 Christmas truce between the allies and the Germans. Sure we all have good reasons to hate each other. Christians have doctrines and beliefs we can't accept. Many Christians have beliefs about Jews that makes them think us bad people. Let's for one day forget all this. We all believe in One God, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob,  though we worship Him differently. We all believe in the Ten Commandments. So for one day, let's aspire for peace on earth and good will unto men. If we can manage that for one day, who knows? Maybe we will be able to manage it for two? Or three?






Post script: This is not to imply anything in terms of theology. Just it is information for the record.
Clearly Rav Abulafia disagreed with Catholic theology. He went to debate the pope. The pope ordered him arrested when he reached the gates of Rome. The story is mysterious but it seems that no one could touch him.

Plus I might add that Chaim Vital borrowed the unifications of Avraham Abulfia in the last vol of Shaari HaKedusha. And his works were translated completely for the first time in history the 1990's until 2005. [Before that I read some of the microfilm copies in the basement of HU]

 I must add than none of this has anything to do with our basic obligations in the Oral or Written Law. Nor does it have anything to do with theology.] That is because of reasons I have not understood some people think that there is no reason to keep mitzvot plus  they think a messiah must have something to do with theology. None of that makes sense to me. Mitzvot are still mitzvot and Monotheism is still monotheism.


The whole issue is a Midrashic kind of thing. Still the basic sources for the messiah son of Joseph type of issue are in the Talmud at the end of Suka, the Tikunim Chadashim of the Ramchal. the Kol HaTor of the Gra.]

Appendix the problem with all this is this gives to Jews for Jesus or any of their different varieties an excuse to try to convert Jews to Christianity. And that is not my intent. The reason is that Jews for Jesus exaggerate the importance of  the issue of the messiah. They think that if one accept a particular person as their "lord and messiah" that that means they are going to heaven. They accept the Trinity. These doctrines are mistaken. But not necessarily bad. The best thing is to be a simple Jew and learn the Oral and Written law and not follow any person but God alone. Judaism is not about worship of any person but worship of God according to the Written and Oral Law, {Old Testament, and two Talmuds}

The positive side is that everyone needs some picture of human perfection to aspire to. If they don't have Jesus, they  find often someone that is evil, or a mixture of good and evil. So following Jesus as Christians do is a lot better option than what the vast majority of what people do and whom they follow. Still in my opinion it is best to sit and learn Talmud and have  a kosher vocation and be a simple Jew. If I have any ideal of human perfection, it is my two parents

I mentioned the basic idea of the above essay to my learning partner and he opened up the Rambam in the 13 principles of faith and after that the last two halachot in Mishne Torah. On most of the above he wrote the exact same thing that I wrote. That is even if one would believe in Jesus as a Messiah son of Joseph   that would not be any reason to worship him nor would it have anything to do with keeping the commandments of the Torah. However he does have  negative opinion about Jesus himself. And I am sure most rishonim would agree with the Rambam. However on the opposite side there is Rav Abulfia and Yaakov Emden.
There is a practical side to all this. I often find that when I need help, Believing Christians are the only ones that will help me. Others of my own people ignore me or throw me from the top of the staircase and then there are Muslims who try to kill me.  I am certainly not the only one with these kinds of experiences.

Music for the glory of the God of Israel

e55 e72 n1  n10 e67 e68 e69 b101 p120 mathematics js  mmog    q86

Concerning an idea of Isaac Luria.

See the beginning of the Eitz Chaim and the ארבע מאות שקל כסף of Rabbainu the Ari.







The tzimtzum (condensation of the infinite light) was in all the traits.

That can help understand the problem of evil, and the existence of free will.
Thus: the problem of evil to some degree can be understood as Mark Friedman said that for there to exist a moral realm at all there must be free will.
So what we have is this: the traits of God, each one was infinite before the condensation. Then he condensed his light and removed his presence from a certain area in order to create all the worlds.
So he also contracted his compassion and his knowledge. One he contacted his compassion evil and cruelty can exist. But evil could not exist unless there is free will. For there to be free will he also contacted his knowledge.


This relates to Kant's idea of the critique of pure reason. There are unconditioned realities where reason can't go.  God contracted pure reason. The Gra said a similar thing that everything has a hidden and an open aspect where reason can not penetrate.

Anaximenes

The tzimtzum is really a modified idea of Anaximenes and comes with a basic Neo Platonic background. I personally have no trouble in fitting the Ari into the regular kind of neo Platonic approach Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol,  Abravenal, and Joseph Albo.

And I believe there is a close connection between the way a person acts in this world and where they end up in the next world.

Feser thinks that everything good about Kant and later people can all be found in scholastic philosophers. This is true to some degree. [Especially with Scotus]. The trouble for Jewish people is that they were defending Christianity . What has been my suggestion  is to take the Jewish equivalent of the Scholastic philosophers. That is Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Aberbnal, Albo. Ibn Gavirol.  [But not that alone. I say to learn both Musar (Ethics) and the Jewish Scholastics. That is I do not think to separate Jewish Philosophy from action. One needs both Musar (Ethics) and also the great Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages. There is no substitution for Musar, Everyone who has tried to substitute something else in place of Musar fell flat on their face.
There are people that think one does not need to learn Ethics. If one has great parents like I had that might be true. But in general I think it is an  error. Maybe Musar itself has gone off in fanatical directions but the basic idea of Israel Salanter is still valid.




This might even have the advantage that  you don't have to defend the Trinity.

To make a synthesis of the Jewish scholastics and Kant is a worthwhile endeavor in any case.





You might say that this is the equivalent of identity politics. That is a true critique, but in any case the Jewish scholastics have  a lot to teach us anyway (as the Christian scholastics noticed anyway).

To Feser philosophy after the Middle Ages has been devoted to repeating mistakes. That much is true. But I think to make an exception for Kant and Kelley Ross.


Philosophically, the Yeshiva approach is the equivalent of hiding one's head in the sand to save oneself from danger. If it would work, then by all means, do it. But it is an illusion. Philosophically what happens is that by not engaging with philosophy people pick up their world view from post modernism and think that they see it in Torah.  Joseph Soloveitchik picked up existentialism from Kierkegaard and Sartre..Most of the people that we were expecting would teach us Torah values instead taught us false gods and idols.  But they were doing lots of  important rituals and dressing in black coats so they must have been OK.

Appendix: 1) I am not sure that everything in Kant was in the scholastics. Individual autonomy  seems to me to be new, and even an improvement. But this is based on my first impressions. I have sadly not had the time to do a thorough study of Kant,  Aquinas or Scotus. Not that I would not like to. It is just I have not yet merited to do so. I after all have to do my regular Talmud and natural science studies. After that, I just can't seem to find the energy or time.
 2) My idea about Musar {Jewish Ethics} from the Middle Ages is based on the idea that in the next world what matters is a person's actions in this world.  And I believe there is a close connection between the way a person acts in this world and where they end up in the next world. So building up political movements or religious movements I see as the work of the Devil that is meant to distract a person from what really matters--menchlichkeit.--being a decent human being. Not lying or cheating and working honestly for a living and not depending on charity. If a person's actions in this world are not decent, then I do not think that they are going anywhere but to hell surrounded by demons created by his actions, no matter what his beliefs were.

Feser thinks that everything good about Kant and later people can all be found in scholastic philosophers. This is true to some degree. [Especially with Scotus]. The trouble for Jewish people is that they were defending Christianity . What has been my suggestion  is to take the Jewish equivalent of the Scholastic philosophers. That is Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Aberbnal, Albo. Ibn Gavirol.  [But not that alone. I say to learn both Musar (Ethics) and the Jewish Scholastics. That is I do not think to separate Jewish Philosophy from action. One needs both Musar (Ethics) and also the great Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages. There is no substitution for Musar, Everyone who has tried to substitute something else in place of Musar fell flat on their face.
There are people that think one does not need to learn Ethics. If one has great parents like I had that might be true. But in general I think it is an  error. Maybe Musar itself has gone off in fanatical directions but the basic idea of Israel Salanter is still valid.




This might even have the advantage that  you don't have to defend the Trinity.

To make a synthesis of the Jewish scholastics and Kant is a worthwhile endeavor in any case.





You might say that this is the equivalent of identity politics. That is a true critique, but in any case the Jewish scholastics have  a lot to teach us anyway (as the Christian scholastics noticed anyway).

To Feser philosophy after the Middle Ages has been devoted to repeating mistakes. That much is true. 

Philosophically, the Yeshiva approach is the equivalent of hiding one's head in the sand to save oneself from danger. If it would work, then by all means, do it. But it is an illusion. Philosophically what happens is that by not engaging with philosophy people pick up their world view from post modernism and think that they see it in Torah.  Joseph Soloveitchik picked up existentialism from Kierkegaard and Sartre.. Rav Shick picked up Pantheism from the Bahavagad Gita. Most of the people that we were expecting would teach us Torah values instead taught us false gods and idols.  But they were doing lots of  important rituals and dressing in black coats so they must have been OK.

Appendix: 1) I am not sure that everything in Kant was in the scholastics. Individual autonomy  and the whole Kant  approach seems to me to be new, and even an improvement. But this is based on my first impressions. I have sadly not had the time to do a thorough study of Kant, Fries, Aquinas or Scotus. Not that I would not like to. It is just I have not yet merited to do so. I after all have to do my regular Talmud and natural science studies. After that, I just can't seem to find the energy or time.
 2) My idea about Musar {Jewish Ethics} from the Middle Ages is based on the idea that in the next world what matters is a person's actions in this world.  And I believe there is a close connection between the way a person acts in this world and where they end up in the next world. So building up political movements or religious movements I see as the work of the Devil that is meant to distract a person from what really matters--menchlichkeit.--being a decent human being. Not lying or cheating and working honestly for a living and not depending on charity. If a person's actions in this world are not decent, then I do not think that they are going anywhere but to hell surrounded by demons created by his actions, no matter what his beliefs were.