People in kollel claim to be astronauts

One problem with the claim that people in kollel are astronauts is that that is irrelevant to the importance of learning Torah.  The basic idea of learning Torah is for everyone equally. There is no more of  a mitzvah for a smart person to learn than for a dumb person. The claim seems to be geared towards creating a kind of elite class of superior beings whom others are in this world only to serve.
[I am not making it up that kollel-leit claim this. These are the actual words they use to justify using Torah to make money and to exclude others from their elite class.]


The other problem is that it does not seem accurate.
 Astronauts  have to go through engineering and math courses and rigorous physical training in order to become pilots in the first place. To be in a kollel, one has simply to be born into the right circles, and know the right people, and have the right friends. It has nothing to do with knowing how to learn Torah.

["Kollel" is where people get paid to sit and learn Torah all day.]
However the question does arise about learning Torah as opposed to worldly pursuits.
The fact that there are unscrupulous people in kollels should not deter one from looking at the basic question of: "What is the good life?" A life of worldly pursuits or a life of learning Torah?

[I have to add that based on the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics are in the category of the Oral Law as the Rambam says in Mishne Torah and in the Guide. The idea would be along the lines of the Hidden Torah that is contained in the work of Creation as Reb Nachman mentions. But there is more to it than that. The Rambam is for some reason not expanding on this theme much. [In the Guide he brings the idea that there must be something that particularizes universals into the spheres. That is to prove Creation Ex Nihilo Something from Nothing. That is he is saying there is a unity between the Divine Mind and Being, (between universals and particulars.)
[The Rambam here is hinting to a connection between matter and form]

The question is really not related to people in kollel or people that work at all. The question is for people that want to choose a proper path in life.  Is it better to choose a life of learning in kollel or a life of work? Which is more nobler? Which is more worthy? Which brings one to the ultimate goal of of attachment with God?

So I am not thinking about one particular kollel or the other but the more basic question of proper direction in life.
I was in the Kollel at the Mir Yeshiva in NY. I believe that if I had stayed there things would have been a lot better for me and my family.  That was a unique kind of place. Other yeshivas and kollels seemed to me to be disaster zones.
Thus the only conclusion I can come to is that learning Torah is important and if you are doing it in a good place then --by all means- continue. But if not, then  just do your learning on your own.

music files u7 u8 u10

U-7 E Flat Major  U-8 D Minor 3-4 time  U-10 A Minor

Trust of the Dark Side?

What is בטחון של הסיטרא אחרא? Trust of the Dark Side? [Something mentioned by Reb Nachman, but not in any other books of Musar]. Is this a case when one imagines to himself that he is trusting in God, but in fact trusting in some organization  [I.e. the system by which he gets the shiduch and kollel check each month].

Because of the possibility of self delusion, I think it is possible that a person might thinking that he is trusting in God, but in fact trusting in "the system."

[That is at least how  some people talk. They say since they are super smart astronauts and the super holy, they deserve to be supported by the community. Trust in God seems to have nothing to do with almost any kollels I have ever seen or heard of. ]


[Too bad Reb Nachman did not go into more detail about what he meant by that tantalizing phrase.]


[There also seems to be a implicit claim of many yeshivas that they posses the knowledge and skill to make people wise and good. This type of claim I think deserves skepticism. The claims o the religious remind me of the opponents of Socrates who  also claimed  to be able to teach wisdom and virtue but in fact were buffoons.

One problem with the claim that people in kollel are astronauts is that that is irrelevant to the importance of learning Torah. The basic idea of learning Torah is for everyone equally. The is no more of  a mitzvah for a smart person to learn than for a dumb person. The claim seems to be geared towards creating a kind of elite class of superior beings whom others are in this world only to serve. The other problem is that it does not seem accurate.
 Astronauts after have to go through engineering and math courses in order to become pilots in the first place. To be in a kollel one has simply to be born into the right circles an know the right people an have the right friends. It has nothing to do with knowing how to learn Torah

Generational mistrust.

Generational mistrust. When youth no longer trust their elders. Someone came to my hospital room yesterday and played the violin. We all clapped when he was done. One fellow {Roman--or Roma for short} commented that no matter what he did, his own father always criticized him. He was never good enough.
I would not have thought anything of this if not for the fact that I noticed that Socrates dealt with the same problem [in Euthydemus]. Two adults that had come to Athens claimed to be able to teach to youth how to become wise and good. Their methods were more effective in created deep mistrust of adults in youth.
And I have seen myself a great deal of what causes the generation gap. Lying to youth  and using them for one's own purposes.

Outside of this I wanted to mention what I think is the best approach. That is, to support what ever is good and to criticize whatever is bad.

[To know oneself what is good and bad is by learning Musar. Learning Musar does not actually make one good, but it does reveal objective morality.]


I think society's disparagement of parents causes some percentage of the problem--but not all. A lot depends on the behavior of the parents

Reason and Faith and outside books. ספרים חיצוניים

Outside books. ספרים חיצוניים The  approach of the Rif and Rosh is these are books that explain the Torah in ways not based on the way the Chazal [the sages] explain the Torah. I wrote about this in short in my little book on Shas.
The issue comes up in Sanhedrin: These are the people that have no portion in the next world...R. Akiva added those who read "outside books."

The trouble that I see is that most books in the religious world explain the Torah not based on דרשות חז''ל the way the sages understood it.
But I have avoided this subject for the very fact that it to me is ambiguous. I have no idea how far to take this. In any case, I am allergic to all books in the religious world. But those are easy. The Gra already made this clear by his signature on the letter of excommunication. But how far to go with this?

After you get to yeshiva a lot of these books are considered OK. No one ever takes the Gra seriously expect the Silverman Yeshivas.

What I think the Chazal [Sages] were referring to were the books of the schools of Alexandria. You can see that basic approach in the books of Philo and you can also see what the Chazal thought was wrong.
It is not the synthesis of Torah with Plato but the way Philo was going about it.
The Rambam and Saadia Gaon had no problem making a synthesis between Reason and Faith based on Aristotle and the neo-Platonic School.

[The fact that Gedolai Litva did learn the books of Reb Nachman is not relevant to this since he was never in the category of the excommunication in the first place. ]

music files u4 u5 u6

U-4 A Major  U-5 G Major U-6 G Major 3-4 time

Devakut [attachment with God]

You can not make a scientific study of devakut [attachment with God]. But you can examine it.
The first time I was aware of this fact was when a friend in Safed offered to me  a shiduch and I mentioned to her my experience in Safed of devukut. She mentioned that she had seen a study on this subject. [It probably was in Germany where she had been before that.]

I myself was not aware of this, and my education in high school never got up to Kant, and in yeshiva I had been discouraged from learning Kant. But if I had been aware of Kant, I might very well have been aware right at the beginning of how to deal with this subject. [Reason can not penetrate into the realm of the Ding An Sich--the thing in itself. ]

Later I had a chance to read a lot about Eastern cults which also gave me a certain perspective.
[I might mention there were people there that  had powerful connection with the Dark Side which gave them awesome powers. The failing of the religious is that they think they are immune from this kind of thing because of their exactitude in rituals. From what I have seen the more exacting in rituals they are the more they get caught in this--because of the very fact that they think they are immune.]
An even when the religious are not in religious delusions at least they have the cult of personality--worship of deluded leaders. The best approach to avoid these problems in my opinion is to learn Torah in a Lithuanian type of yeshiva where both phenomena are discouraged (both religious delusions and the cult of personality).


I might as well mention right up front my basic conclusions. [To expand on this I would recommend doing the same readings that I did.]

(1) Devakut is desirable, and in fact one of the 613 mitzvot. [It is mentioned I think twice in Deuteronomy.] One place to see this also is in the Musar book by Isaac Blazer [a prime disiple of Reb Israel Salanter] who brings down the idea from a commentary on the first four chapters of the Rambam.

(2) It is far too easy to imagine one has devakut with God when in fact it is devekut of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I have seen this all the time. There is just too much religious delusion out there, but that does not mean that authentic devekut is impossible. [Reb Nachman actually mentions on a related note the idea of trust of the Sitra Achra that people mistake for real trust in God.]

(3) I believe the path to real devekut is through Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot--even though this learning does not always bring abut this result.


These are my simple conclusions without expanding on it. But at least I ought to mention that I consider it is one of my primary sins that I rejected devekut after about 7 years in Safed. I do not expect to make up for that mistake, but I do hope to bring about awareness of this important subject.

I am not saying that Litvak yeshivas are wrong for discouraging this. From what I have seen interest in spiritual enlightenment never leads to real enlightenment but delusions that just are well hidden until eventually they are revealed. I have never seen an exception to this.  My own attachment with God never came because I was trying to get it. It was a total surprise. I only mean to bring out the fact that if one that has it, he  ought to appreciate it.

[Further reading: I found Aurobindo and his treatment of the Intermediate Zone very insightful:
"For this intermediate zone is a region of half-truths - and that by itself would not matter, for there is no complete truth below the supermind; but the half-truth here is often so partial or else ambiguous in its application that it leaves a wide field for confusion, delusion and error.  The sadhak thinks that he is no longer in the old small consciousness at all, because he feels in contact with something larger or more powerful, and yet the old consciousness is still there, not really abolished. He feels the control or influence of some Power, Being or Force greater than himself, aspires to be its instrument and thinks he has got rid of ego; but this delusion of egolessness often covers an exaggerated ego. Ideas seize upon him and drive his mind which are only partially true and by over-confident misapplication are turned into falsehoods; this vitiates the movements of the consciousness and opens the door to delusion. Suggestions are made, sometimes of a romantic character, which flatter the importance of the sadhak or are agreeable to his wishes and he accepts them without examination or discriminating control. Even what is true, is so exalted or extended beyond its true pitch and limit and measure that it becomes the parent of error. This is a zone which many sadhaks have to cross, in which many wander for a long time and out of which a great many never emerge."
 He is referring to people that supposed themselves perfect gurus but I can think of others to whom this characterization would apply.