Some people concentrate on the Chafetz Chaim's books of ethics. This is a good idea. It apparently was something Reb Israel Abuchatzaira [Bava Sali] was thinking. Bava Sali did not have pictures of tzadikim in his home except for one alone. The only picture in his home was of the Chafetz Chaim.

His books can certainly be taken as a part of Musar, but they are not the whole picture.

Reb Elchanan Wasserman incidentally told the Chafetz Chaim about a yeshiva he was starting  someplace. The Chafetz Chaim asked him if the students learned Musar. Reb Elchanan said "No." The Chafetz Chaim then said, "If so,  it is better if there was no yeshiva."


I should mention that Reb Elchanan's work the Koveitz Shiurim is very common in yeshivas. I used to hang out with Reb Elchanan's son, Reb Simcha Wasserman. (That is I went there after school and also during the summers and ate by him on Shabat, etc.) But I never got into the Koveitz Shiurim. When I was younger, I mainly concentrated on the Achronim from that middle period, like the Pnei Yehoshua, the Maharsha, etc. I admit today that I probably should have looked more at the basic gedolai Lita [sages of Lithuania] like the school of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and the Koveitz Shiurim.[Today I think even one essay from Rav Shach, or Reb Chaim or Reb Elchanan contains already inside of it a good deal of Shas.]

Reb Shmuel Berenabum [the Rosh yeshiva of the Mir in NY] learned the Musar books of the Chafetz Chaim during the Musar sessions.

The granddaughters of Bava Sali started a session in their schools (where they were students) to have a whole list of people that would agree to learn the Chafetz Chaim every day and that list was xeroxed so everyone on the list after their learning would pray a short prayer for all the other people to find their true Zivug [spouse]. From what I heard at the time most people on that list got married in short order.
[The words "Chafetz Chaim" is inter-changeable with the person or the book.]

For the Public: Chafetz Chaim means a book about the law of the Bible-  not to slander. [Leviticus.] The author wrote more than just that one book, so I refer to the larger set in the above essay. His actual name was Israel Meir HaCohen. Bava Sali refers to a person that was a saint. Many people went to him in the last years of his life for advice and blessings and his name is very well respected. Elchanan Wassermann's book is on the Talmud and it is considered easier  that the Chidushei HaRambam of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. I find Rav Shach's book to have that same quality of being deep but also easy to read.

Musar/Ethics

Israel Salanter's Musar Movement was to get people to learn Musar which means a basic set of medieval books on ethics. That is about just four books. Then in the penumbra a larger set of about 30 books. written during the Renaissance. Then a even wider penumbra of books that got added to that original set by his disciples. Isaac Blasser. Joseph Yosel Horwitz [the Alter of Navardok], Simcha Zissel from Kelm and the Alter of Slobadka.



I was thinking of finding an argument to prove the point of Reb Israel Salanter that learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics] is important. It occurred to me that we can not know our "self." We can know our "self" exists but not what is going on deep inside. Our motivations--what causes us to act or think things is hidden from us. Not only that when we think we know our motivations we come up with contradictions.. One motivation is wrapped up inside of another. One day we think our motivation is one thing and then next day we find ourselves acting in ways that completely and directly contradict what we thought was motivating us the day before. We know the self exists but we do not know what is going on down there. We however know its surface. It is like an ocean. The depths are hidden but the surface we can see plainly. We know if we feel hot or cold, happy or sad, etc. Reb Israel thought the way to penetrate and effect the self is by learning Medieval  Ethics.

Not by prayer or talking with God as in a conversation. Conversing with God is not that different than talking to yourself. You are only reaching the surface level. You know what you are thinking and feeling an that is what you are commuting to God. There is nothing there that penetrates into the hidden levels of the self to change one from evil to good.

We can know one thing about our "self" we know our commitments. We know of we are committed to the Ten Commandments or not. We know if we are committed to keeping the Moral Law. And this commitment is strengthened by learning Musar.


I am borrowing ideas of Kant here.

On a side note Kant thought the ontological proof was not valid. And this goes along with his idea that pure reason can't penetrate into unconditioned realities. But he did write that as far existence goes of the the dinge an sich--we can know it exists. But we cant know it character. Thus a proof of the existence of God is possible. But he did not think the ontological one was very good. And this to some degree shows why I wrote the above proof at the top of my blog  the first cause idea. [Which I really borrowed from Aristotle. Not his first mover idea but rather this very basic idea itself which I saw one a long time ago at the beginning of his set of books called Physics.]

Music for the glory of God

n18  n40 n41 n44   n47 n51 n52 mathematics  r1  q96 E flat major  q96 F major   q1

n90 n89 n87
 n85  n83 n82 n81 n80 n51 r14

a nice utube about counter jihad

Trump on utube  another utube from Judge Jeanine [This last one is very impressive]



I am thinking of what kind of argument can I put forward to support Trump.
I think I would have to approach this from several directions. First the Constitution of the USA. But I do not mean the actual document. I mean this more as what you learn in high school about the principles that went into making the Constitution. But then I would have to  draw on the previous thinkers that their works provided the basis for the Constitution. --Pericles, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes.

Then I would also have to show that the establishment has violated these principles.  That is both the Democrats and the G.O.P. in a way that the average working class American can feel extremely betrayed.

Jewish worldview issues are not divorced from Plato and Aristotle. Most of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages was highly linked to  Platonic and Aristotelian ideas. Thus it is not possible to understand  what the Rambam and Saddia Gaon and the  Rishonim were saying about the world view of Torah without background in Aristotle and Plato. But I have not done enough work in this area I admit. I am only suggesting this as a proper point of investigation.


The problem is the time issue. How much time can you really spend on this and  learning Talmud and a vocation both? Yet without this knowledge of the world view of Torah, what happens is people unconscionably absorb the world view of their surrounding culture.

It must be remembered that someone can inherit social scripts without being self-aware that they are doing so. Everyone can learn a language simply by exposure, knowledge of grammar is secondary and hard won. Unfortunately, this only makes it even more insidious.

And then when they learn the Rambam or Saadia Gaon it sounds foreign because they themselves have absorbed a false world view that they think is Torah.

It is a sign of enormous self delusion if one thinks he understands the world view of the Torah so perfectly so as to dismiss the Rambam and Saadia Gaon as irrelevant and even outright wrong.

Even though it is a hard book probably the best thing in terms of world view issues is the Rambam's Guide with the commentary of Joseph Albo. [That is the regular traditional one that you used to see around in yeshivas.] But it has that quality that I find in many books that the surface layer is outrageous but if you can peel away the surface the inner core is astounding and relevant. [But you need a lot of confidence ("faith in the wise") to believe that sub-level is there in order to find it.]

For the public: Jewish thought was neo-Platonic up until the Rambam. The Rambam people think went radically in the direction of Aristotle. But I am not so sure. He also seems neo-Platonic to me. He had great respect for Aristotle but that was anyway the approach of the Neo Platonics. Plotinus had used Aristotle to get a better idea of what Plato was saying.

It is my thinking that if one could manage to put all his efforts into learning a vocation and learning Torah that things will turn out well. But that  takes much effort. 


 Without the will to do the work, not much can turn out right.. One need drive and a vision and to put your drive and vision in the right direction. Torah with a vocation.

Or if one can manage to put all his trust in God, and then to learn Torah all day, that is an even better option. But it means to actually trust in God, not a kollel paycheck. Most people in kollel think that learning Torah is a valid means to make money. This results in the type of cults that are common.
But if one in fact is trusting in God and accepting a kollel check as what it is (charity) then the kollel option seems good to me.


Where do cults come from?

I believe charismatic leaders correctly note that most people are neither skeptics nor self-motivated, and that many are easily duped by gurus because they want someone to show them the way to live a meaningful life and to get support and  a sex life [shiduch] by being attached to their institution. They offer to show their followers the way to true wakefulness, a state of awareness and vitality which transcends ordinary consciousness. The leader attracts  writers, artists, wealthy widows and other questing souls to work  for him in exchange for sharing his wisdom. They offer numerous claims and explanations for everything under the moon, rooted in little more than his own imagination and never tempered with concern for what science might have to say about his musings.

r13 a minor r13 in midi format  r13 in nwc format