It would be a worth while project to defend the basic Litvak path of straight Torah based on the insights of my predecessors. That would mean making full use of  Ari and the Kant and Hegel while not drifting off into mysticism nor sterile philosophy..
This would not be all that different than the Rambam's Guide. But it would need someone of that kind of stature to do this.[I mean to say I would come out with a neo Platonic approach anyway just like the Rambam did.]

My own personal defense of Torah really began with Dr Kelley Ross's web site where he has an approach based on Kant, Schopenhauer, and Fries. It of course did not hurt that I was aware of the Ari's  interpretations of Torah based on the Talmud and his own insights.
But this has all been personal, and rarely do I ever share insights in this regard.
And any serious effort in this regard would have to take into account the important results of Hegel. So even to get the philosophical part of this project worked out could not be easy as it would have to plow a middle path between the Kant School of Dr. Ross and Hegel.--no easy task.

Or one could  just simply depend on the Rambam's Guide which is a perfectly valid approach. But it seems that after the Ari and Kant and Hegel there is considerable work to be done. 

fear and love of God

In terms of coming to fear and love of God, the Rambam's position is not usually considered. It seems paradoxical of the face of it. No one that I have heard of ever thought that learning physics and metaphysics of Aristotle brings to fear and love of God.  No one except the Rambam that is.

They way people usually translate him in the religious world is that he meant something like mysticism even though he refers specifically to the physics and metaphysics of the ancient Greeks which clearly is not the same thing.

I have usually defended the Rambam's based on the idea of the hidden Torah that is concealed in the work of Creation which you do find in the Ari. But that does not mean the Rambam is referring to the Ari.
[The hidden holiness in creation is a fairly big subject mentioned by Reb Nachman.]

And even though I do hold the Rambam was right, I still feel the learning "Musar" the ethical works written during the Middle Ages is important in order to come to fear of God.--

Reb Nachman's own objections to what is called secular learning has to be understood as a reaction to the over-sided emphasis on on secular learning that the enlightenment had. Both the gentile enlightenment and later the Jewish one. As a reaction to that, Reb Nachman's ideas can be understood. Certainly the Enlightenment was not aiming towards fear of God of learning Torah.
My own emphasis of Physics and Metaphysics can also be seen in the light of my experiences in the religious world where I saw over religiosity does not bring to fear of God. Just the opposite. Over religiosity often  comes with exaggerated degrees of wickedness as anyone in the religious world can bear witness to.


[Using Reb Nachman as a source and an authority seems to be an venerable Litvak practice. I never even heard of any Litvak gadol  in Torah claim otherwise. Though there is an an awareness that Breslov is a cult, still people freely borrow and make use of the ideas of Reb Nachman pretty much all the time and I approve of that

The truth is my history with Reb Nachman is long. But the sum total of my observations is easy to sum up. People that become Breslov go downhill very fast. People that stay Litvak and simply learn Reb Nachman privately gain a lot. Nothing could be simpler.

כי הרשב''ם מחזיק אין שמין לגנב אומר לנו שאנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין כאשר כלי נשבר.

In other words, in my way of understanding, הלכה י''ד is complete. The first part deals with the case the כלי went down in value whether it was broken of not and then we go by the time of העמדה בדין. And that is not like the רשב''ם. For the רשב''ם holds אין שמין לגנב tells us one thing that we go by שעת העמדה בדין when the כלי  was broken. It matters not if it went up or down in value before that.

במילים אחרות, בהבנתי, הלכה י''ד שלמה. החלק הראשון עוסק במקרה שהכלי ירד ערך, אם הוא נשבר או לא, ואז אנחנו הולכים לפי זמן של העמדה בדין. וזה לא כמו הרשב''ם. כי הרשב''ם מחזיק אין שמין לגנב אומר לנו שאנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין כאשר כלי נשבר. זה לא משנה אם זה עלה או ירד בערך לפני זה.

And therefore the Rambam can not hold by the opinion of the Rashbam. Then we still are stuck because Rav Shach brings  a proof of the exact opposite.

I am really not sure what to make of all this.[I went on later to write about this in Ideas in Bava Metzia, but I do not recall if I was ever able to resolve this issue.] 

A proof that the Rambam holds like Rashi and the Rosh that a thief must pay either money or whole vessels, not שווה כסף [Things that are worth money]

 I think there is a proof that the רמב''ם does not hold like the רשב''ם but that אין שמין לגנב means he must pay כלים שלמים or כסף.
רב חיים הלוי says there is  a doubt about this, and רב שך brings a proof that the רמב''ם does hold with the רשב''ם that the גנב can pay שווה כסף
The proof I have that the רמב''ם does not hold by the רשב''ם is from הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד.
My reason is simple. If the רמב''ם would hold by the רשב''ם then why does he not write simply if the גנב broke the כלי we evaluate it according to the time of העמדה בדין? Why does he divide הלכה י''ד into two parts? One is which the value of the כלי went down and we go by שעת הגניבה and part two is where it went up in value and then he broke it and we go by שעת העמדה בדין?
Part one  by itself is not a question on the idea that that רמב''ם hold from the רשב''ם because it only is referring to a case where the כלי was not broken. But if we look at הלכה י''ד  in its entirely it is obvious something is missing in part one. That is the case where the כלי went down in value and then it was broken. If the רמב''ם really would be holding from the רשב''ם then he would say if the vessel went down or up in value and then it was broken we go by שעת העמדה בדין.
So instead according to the way I see it, אין שמין  has nothing to do with the time of evaluation but the fact that the thief must give back כלים שלמים or כסף.

אני חושב שיש הוכחה שהרמב''ם לא מחזיק  כמו הרשב''ם, אלא אין שמין לגנב אומר שהוא צריך לשלם כלים שלמים או כסף. הרב חיים הלוי אומר שיש ספק לגבי זה, ועוד רב שך מביא הוכחה שהרמב''ם מחזיק כרשב''ם שהגנב יכול לשלם שווה כסף. ההוכחה שיש לי שהרמב''ם אינו מחזיק כרשב''ם היא מתוך הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. הסיבה שלי היא פשוטה. אם הרמב"ם יחזיק כרשב''ם אז למה הוא לא כותב פשוט אם הגנב שבר את הכלי אנו מעריכים אותו לפי שעת העמדה בדין? מדוע הוא מחלק את ההלכה לשני חלקים? אחד הוא מצב שערך של הכלי ירד למטה ואנחנו הולכים לפי שעת הגניבה וחלק שני הוא כאשר הוא עלה בערך ואז הוא שבר אותו ואנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין. החלק הראשון, כשלעצמו, אינו שאלה לגבי הרעיון שהרמב"ם מחזיק כרשב''ם משום שהוא מתייחס רק למקרה שבו הכלי לא נשבר. אבל אם נתבונן  בה בכלל, ברור שמשהו חסר בחלקו הראשון. זה המקרה שבו הכלי נפל בערך, ולאחר מכן נשבר. אם הרמב''ם באמת מחזיק כרשב''ם, אז הוא צריך להגיד אם כלי ירד או עלה, ואז הוא נשבר, אנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין. אז על פי הדרך שאני רואה את זה, לדין אין שמין אין שום קשר עם הזמן של הערכה, אבל אלא כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כלים שלמים או כסף.

Right before I broke my leg, I was thinking that Rav Shach's proof that the Rambam hold like the Rashbam is not a strong proof. I do not know if I wrote my thoughts down anywhere but as far as I recall Rav Shach was building on the idea that the owner of the broken vessel can ask for the pieces back. If the Rambam would hold like Rashi how could that make sense? But the way I see it even if the Rambam hold like the Rashbam this still makes is a problem. If after all the thief owns the broken object, what gives the owner the right to ask for the pieces back? So you have to say this is just a special thing to allow the owner to ask for the pieces back.

I might just mention the important fact that the Rambam does say the thief pays back דמים money. If he would be holding like the Rashbam that at least  seems curious.

I am not sure how to say this simply but basically I think there is some proof that the Rambam does not hold like the Rashbam but that אין שמין לגנב means he must pay כלים שלמים or כסף.
Reb Chaim says there is  a doubt about this and Rav Shach brings a proof that the Ramabm does hold with the Rashbam that the גנב can pay שווה כסף
The proof I have that the Rambam does not hold by the Rashbam is from הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד.
My reason is simple. If the Rambam would hold by the Rashbam then why does he not write simply if the thief broke the vessel we evaluate it according to the time of העמדה בדין? Why does he divide halacha 14 into two parts? One is which the value of the vessel went down and we go by שעת הגניבה and part two is where it went up in value and then he broke it and we go by שעת העמדה בדין?
Part one  by itself is not a question on the idea that that Rambam hold from the Rashbam because it only is referring to a case where the vessel was not broken. But if we look at halacha 14 in its entirely it is obvious something is missing in part one--then case where the vessel went down in value and then it was broken. If the Rambam really would be holding from the Rashbam then he would say if the vessel went down or up in value and then it was broken we go by שעת העמדה בדין.
So instead according to the way I see it, אין שמין  has nothing to do with the time of evaluation but the fact that the thief must give back כלים שלמים or כסף.
However Rav Shach's proof is also valid. Thus we are left with a doubt about what the Rabam really holds.

The Torah is not at all exclusive about who can come to true holiness. It does give objective standards, but as far as the Torah is concerned, anyone who fulfills those standards graduates.

(1) Accepting the yoke of Torah is not the same thing as being "Davuk"(attachment)  to God --but it is close.

(2) Some people think their feelings of a spiritual high are automatically classified as being "Davuk" to God. But as a rule,- feelings of spiritual highs are not from the realm of holiness. These come from counterfeit Torah, and counterfeit spirituality. And counterfeit spirituality can be awesomely powerful; and in externals it can look and sound just like real Torah.

(3) Accepting the yoke of Torah does not automatically lead to true devekut ((attachment)) but it tends to protect from the false kind of spiritual highs that are common in the religious world.

(4) Devekut is a part of Torah. The reason it is legitimately ignored by the Litvak world is because it so easily decays into its opposite, and the fact that it has a short half life.  But attachment with God is in fact one of the 613 commandments. [It is mentioned twice in Deuteronomy as being one of the three purposes of the Torah which are to come to (1) Love of God, (2) Fear of God and (3) Attachment with God. ]
(5) But a spiritual high is not the same thing--but it can be from the realm of holiness. It is what is called numinosity. But a spiritual high can be from (1) holiness or from (2) its exact opposite or (3) some mixture of the two (as usually happens to people when they enter into spiritual practices). They get caught in the Intermediate Zone.

(6) One difficulty about all this is the fact that the Torah is not at all exclusive about who can come to true holiness. It does give objective standards, but as far as the Torah is concerned, anyone who fulfills those standards graduates. גדולה לגימא שמשרה רוח הקודש על נביאי הבעל. "Great is bringing in guest for it brings true prophecy even to false prophets."
This idea is brought in the Gra on Shir Hashirim chapter 2, and in a Midrash mentioned in the Talmud that is a set of statements given by Eliyahu the Prophet to an Amora. [It is a well known Midrash, but it is not the same as Midrash Raba or Midrash Tanchuma.]

(7) That is to say the giving of the Torah is a one time event in history, but the standards it sets are set in stone,-- objective morality. Anyone that fulfills its conditions gets the prizes.
Being a part of any group does not count towards holiness. It is how one acts that matters.

(8) The standards of Torah are well defined in the classical Musar books. Musar is not a purely Litvak thing. The daughter of Bava Sali was telling me how important Musar is, along with the basic books of Rav Joseph Karo.
(9) Good character is the basic thing Torah wants. This is explained best by Rav Sar Shalom Sharabi in his Nahar Shalom on the Eitz Chaim.

בבא מציעא יד: The case is there is a מלווה a לווה and a לוקח of a שדה from the לווה. In case of default on the loan the לוקח collects his improvements from בני חורין of the לווה and the essential price of the field even from משועבדין of the borrower. תוספות asks why is there a second sold field? Why did the מלווה not collect from it? Perhaps we could prove from this "מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה" is not valid?
The רמב''ם in fact answers the question of תוספות  that in fact property that the borrower buys after he received the loan is not obligated unless he wrote it own explicitly.  That is obligation is considered to exist even if he did not write it down, but not for future property.
That is how רב שך explains the  רמב''ם. That is-Rav Shach asks that the Rambam says מה שאקנה משועבד and yet here he says future property of the לווה is not משועבד. He says the Rambam means this last statement for when שיעבוד was not written down.
The two essential הלכות in the  רמב''ם are in הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק י''ח ה''א ופרק י''ט ה''ח
In פרק י''ח ה''א the  רמב''ם says property that the borrower acquired after the loan is not משועבד to the loan.
In פרק י''ט ה''ח he says in a case the the מלווה wrote to the לוקח שני "I will not collect my debt from property you buy from the לווה" that the מלווה can not go collect his debt from the לוקח ראשון because the first buyer can say to him "I left free property of the borrower  for you to collect your debt from." That means the borrower had two fields at the time of the loan and he sold the first one and then the second one.
If the מלווה says to the first buyer דין ודברים אין לי עמך I will not collect from you, he can still collect from the second buyer and then the first buyer can collect from him. [The reason is that at that point the second buyer will try to collect his debt from the first buyer for his loss of the field.] But the opposite way not.
Though I had written that to the  רמב''ם the lender could collect his debt from either field that would have to be only in the case where the borrower had written explicitly what I will buy will be obligated to this loan.

בבא מציעא יד: המקרה הוא קיים מלווה לווה וכן לוקח של שדה מן הלווה. במקרה של ברירת המחדל על ההלוואה הלוקח גובה את השיפוצים שלו מבני חורין של הלווה ואת המחיר הקרן של השדה אפילו ממשועבדין של הלווה. תוספות שואל למה יש שדה שני? מדוע המלווה לא אסף ממנו? אולי נוכל להוכיח מזה "מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה" אינו תקף? למעשה, הרמב"ם עונה על שאלת התוספות, שלמעשה הרכוש שרכש הלווה לאחר שקיבל את ההלוואה אינו משועבד אלא אם כן כתב זאת במפורש. שיעבוד טעות סופר. שיעבוד קיים גם אם הוא לא כתב את זה, אבל לא עבור רכוש עתידי. ככה רב שך מסביר את רמב''ם. שתי הלכות הנוגעות ברמב''ם הן בהלכות מלוה ולוה פרק י''ח ה''א ופרק י''ט ה''ח. בפרק פרק י''ח הרמב''ם אומר כי נכס שהלווה רכש לאחר ההלוואה אינו משועבד להלוואה. בפרק י''ט ה''ח הוא אומר במקרה שהמלווה כתב אל לוקח השני, "אני לא אאסוף את החוב שלי מהרכוש שאתה תקנה מהלווה" כי המלווה לא יכול ללכת לאסוף את החוב שלו מן לוקח ראשון, כי הקונה הראשון יכול לומר לו "הינחתי רכוש חפשי של הלווה לך לאסוף את החוב שלך". כלומר, ללווה היו שני שדות בזמן ההלוואה והוא מכר את הראשון ולאחר מכן את השני. אם המלווה אומר לקונה הראשון דין ודברים אין לי עמך (אני לא אאסוף ממך), הוא עדיין יכול לאסוף מהקונה השני ואז הרוכש הראשון יכול לאסוף המלווה. [הסיבה היא כי בשלב זה הקונה השני ינסה לאסוף את הפסד שלו מן הקונה הראשון על אובדן שלו בשדה.] אבל ההפך לא. למרות שכתבתי  שלדעת הרמב''ם המלווה יכול לאסוף את החוב שלו מאיזה משני השדות זה  רק במקרה שבו הלווה כתב במפורש מה אני אקנה יהיה מחויב הלוואה זו.

The Tosphot in Bava Metzia and also in Bava Batra clearly are not going like this Rambam, but in what ways is not clear to me this minute.This is an area that requires more work.