Reb Nachman and Rav Shick's pamphlets

You find at the beginning of Rav Shick's pamphlets that they are "based on Reb Nachman's teachings and they are interspersed with statements from the Old Testament and the Sages."  What is that supposed to mean is a mystery to me.

More than that. The whole religious world holds all kinds of practices that are supposedly based on Torah.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THEM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT they say "it's totally from the Torah! It's one hundred percent from the Torah!". This avoids the real problem, which is that the teaching is merely BASED ON THE TORAH, and not actually Torah.

What's the difference, I hear you ask. Well, have you ever watched a movie that is "based on the novel by...." whoever. And if you have read the novel, you find to your disappointment that the movie that is BASED upon it misses out a lot that is stated, and implies a whole lot more that isn't in the book. It's drawn from the book, it's based on it, but it's NOT the book!

[I have a high opinion of Rav Shick in terms of sincerity. And as an approach to Reb Nachman, it is the only sane one out there. Still because of my respect for him I feel the right to critique him. I would not bother with him otherwise.] 

The trouble seems to be השחתת המידות destruction of good character traits when one gets involved.

the Law of Moses.

Socialism and Communism really are not from the Law of Moses. Not the Oral or Written Law. Someone  mentioned that when people lose their faith (God forbid) then they become socialists. That explanation made a lot of sense to me.  The right to private ownership is much embedded in the Law of Moses.

[Though I was raised as a Reform Jew, clearly there were aspect of Reform that my parents did not hold with like the social justice bit. One way to understand Reform is that Natural Law is a part of Torah.  But Natural Law is  a bit ambiguous --to say the least. When Kant and Hegel got on the scene things became I think even more obscure. I think it was natural to get blown away by Hegel and that is what I think cause a lot of people to go for Socialism. Hegel still is formidable.] In any case I think I would have naturally gravitated towards socialism if not for seeing that the Torah has a different point of view. 


My own view is that Hegel should really not be the focus of attention. Rather when it gets to be time to learn the subject of Metaphysics the best would be Aristotle Plato and Kant. But only after finishing Shas with Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin.

Oral and Written Law, Physics, and Metaphysics.

In math we have necessary and sufficient conditions for certain solutions to apply for some differential equation.  In a parallel vein I have the idea that the approach of Maimonides  is necessary and sufficient. That is the Oral and Written Law, Physics, and Metaphysics. [These last two are  necessary because the Rambam considers them to be what the Sages of the Talmud called מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה the Work of Creation and the Work of the Divine Chariot that are both refereed to in the first mishna in the second chapter of tractate Hagiga. The Rambam is not thinking all secular knowledge is a good thing Rather he has a specific reason for emphasis these last two subjects.

His approach to this Physics and Metaphysics is scattered over many places in the Mishne Torah and the Guide and also in the commentary on the Mishna. The basic idea is that while most people think the Gemara is referring to kabalah the Rambam clearly disagrees. Saadia Geon wrote a commentary on Sefer Yetzira and the Rambam was familiar with everything that Saadia Geon wrote. Still niether him nor Saadia Geon thought the Kabalah was the Work of Creation and the Work of the Divine Chariot.

The problem I have is that the religious world seems to me to be "off the derech (path)." The fanatic religious people from Israel seem to me to be clinically insane. But even the more down to earth rational approach of New York seems a bit off. And I can not figure out what the problem is.  At best I have a workable solution for myself. I try to stick with this basic approach of the Rambam which was clearly also the approach of my parents. But in what way the religious world has gone wrong seems to me to be a mystery.

Some people seem to believe the Rambam gives a blank check to all secular disciples.-even those that are obviously pseudo science. Other think the only added things outside of the Oral and written Law are Kabalah. The Rambam clearly disagreed with both of these opinions.

[Incidentally I met a fellow  who had the entire Mishne Torah of the Rambam as one book. I do not remember if it was the Yemenite version of Rav Kapach. He also had with him the letters of the son of the Rambam  print by the Rav Kook Institute, However at this point in my learning the Oral Law I would prefer to learn the Gemara straight with Rashi Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.]

Jewish religious teachers desire control.

Religious teachers desire control.

Their statements are subtle but the reality is to get you to accept their interpretation as a continual revelation from Hashem {God}  and the need for you to come under their control. The religious teachers present themselves as gurus to Jewish people. To people that are supposed by them, unable to know the truth and understand the times by the Law of Moses, but in need of intense and constant clarification by the religious  leadership of what God is saying to us by what He didn't say. 


The trouble is that people are afraid of calling these religious groups by their proper name: cults.


Besides that above mentioned thought I had a few more thing I wanted to say today that are kind of relevant. One is that cults vary by measures. So for example Litvak yeshivas might seems to exercise  some measure of control but that does not make them a cult but rather human institutions that do their best to teach and keep the Written and Oral Law of Moses. That is legitimate. In my first yeshiva Shar Yashuv there were even more aspects of control, but it was not a cult but rather an effective institution designed and built to further the learning and keeping of the Torah. I have to say I think the level of learning was at least as great as the Mir Yeshiva in NY.

The other thing I wanted to add is that sometimes even a rel cult can be a lot better than other cults. It is all a matter of perspective. So if someone is involved in some Buddhist group that does not bother me when I realize there are many much worse things.  

 So I am trying to defend the idea that the Torah was given by God to be necessary and sufficient. No need for frauds. No need for magic "sugulot." No need for Occult teachings.Using mitzvot as "segulot" magic means of getting God to do our will is just as much Occult as witchcraft.

To claim a revelation or a miracle represents an attempt, essentially, to add new content to the Torah.

    Many today would affirm a stern rebuke to kabalistic pretenders: "The pretending to extraordinary revelations and gifts of  Ruach Hakodesh [Divine Spirit] is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing." 
 What is the reason ? Simply because, in history, miracles have come to signify the additional revelation of qualitatively new  doctrines, principally, in Torah. To claim a revelation or a miracle represents an attempt, essentially, to add new content to the Torah.
    The modern conflict over the cessation of miraculous gifts has antecedents as old as the fairly sophisticated arguments of Talmud. But the cessationist doctrine found its classic expression in these ways 1) The essential role of the miraculous is  to accredit normative Torah doctrine and its bearers. 2) While God may providentially act in unusual, even striking ways, true miracles are limited to epochs of special divine revelation, i.e., those within the Torah and prophets  period. 3) Miracles are judged by the doctrines they purport to accredit: if the doctrines are false, or alter authentic Torah doctrines, their accompanying miracles are necessarily counterfeit.


The role of miracles in the religious Jewish world is universality in order to add doctrines to Torah and to promote some kind of idol worship of some religious mad man.  The trouble is not the Sitra Achra--miracles from the Dark Side but rather miracles from the Intermediate Zone which is a mixture of good and evil.The fact that it has good in it makes it hard to discern.

I do not want to seem too dogmatic about the basic world view  of Torah. Rather it is when the world view of Torah is replaced by a completely foreign ideology of worship of people and then they call that "Torah," then I get riled up. In any case, I am happy to express these ideas here to give clarity to why the Gra signed the excommunication חרם. I mentioned this before but here I gave a little bit of insight I hope to why he signed it.

(Isaac Luria)

While I have great respect for Rabainu the Arizal (Isaac Luria) , still his path and teachings definitely lead into idolatry and the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] by means of the slippery slope. How many people have you seen that became more compassionate and decent people because of learning the Ari?

The trouble is not that it is liable to misuse and misrepresentation. Rather that it almost automatically falls into misuse and delusions.


The truth be told I have no idea how mysticism got to be considered a legitimate part of Torah. The fruits seems to be uniformly bad. What is wrong with just learning and keeping the Law of Moses straight and simple? [That is the written Law of Moses plus its Oral Commentary, the two Talmuds Bavli and Yerushalmi.]


The trouble is that there is a difference between Torah and mysticism. Torah is not about mystic experience. The whole inner essence of what it means to learn and keep the Torah is  opposite of mystic experience. And yet the mystic approach is the default position of the religious world.
[That is either to gain mystic experience; or to believe in some religious crazy person;s ecstatic experience and revelations. That nut case's delusions then become so important they take the place of authentic Torah. They become more authoritative that the holy Torah]



I saw plenty of "kabalists" and teachers but never the slightest bit of truth or even simple human decency in any of them. With no offence intended towards the Ari himself, I think it is best to avoid.

When Bava Sali came from Morocco to visit Jerusalem [cira 1970] and accepted the people for blessing and advice he gave instructions to not let any "kabalist enter."

The trouble is today all teachers along supposedly along the lines of the Ari are deceivers and frauds and know little if anything about the holy Torah or even the Ari's system. It is all part of the New Age Movement.


The basic ideas of the kabalah are not all that original. The "sparks of holiness" idea is from the Gnostics. The "Tzitzum" is from the pre Soctratics. The ten sepherot from Ptolemy, etc. That does not invalidate it, but it certainly to me makes it a lot less interesting.

And why people appeal to its authority? That is in order to get people to worship their mini gods, religious people that they follow. The do this by pretending to some secret knowledge.


 The answer to this is from the Gemara circa Sanhedrin 65. "What is the difference between him and us?" [The Gemara there brings an argument. If a  person says "serve me" he obviously gets the death penalty for being a seducer to do idolatry. The question is if someone says "yes." One opinion is the person that said "yes" was just making fun of him because "What is the difference between him and us?" The other opinion is the one who said "yes" does get the death penalty. ]

The trouble is nowadays there are too many false religious leaders that have been absorbed into the intermediate zone. The kelipa that is a mixture of good and evil.

The trouble seems to be השחתת המידות destruction of good character traits when one gets involved.


 The Zohar itself was accepted by sincere people. Still it is not from R.Shimon Ben Yochai as אם כל דא is a medieval expression invented by the Ibn Tibon family and it appears all the time in the Zohar.


Some suggest it was written by גילוי נשמת ר' שמעון. That does not seem much better because of the problem of דורש אל המתים. In any case the fact that sincere people were fooled does not mean it is legitimate.

People do have  a world view whether they like it  or not. See the CPR of Kant. Kant's ideas can be further expanded by means of Howard Bloom. That is besides the eye glasses that we must see the world by [space an time and the categories,] there are world views that we adopt. Bloom uses the idea of the meme. That is a constellations of beliefs around a central belief. This does not have to be conscious. The more pervasive and powerful the beliefs are the more one is unaware that he has them. They seem simply obvious.


You  could use this idea to provide an argument for learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics.] That is to learn the classic books of the middle ages חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים שערי תשובה along with the writings of the Gra, and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. That is in order to gain a Torah perspective.