Troubles in the Musar movement

One of the flaws of the Musar movement was that it emphasized the Ethics and Morals of Torah without the underlying philosophy of Torah. I mean to say they did not learn along with the Jewish Ethics of the Middle Ages also the Guide of the Rambam (the Guide for the Perplexed), the  אמונות ודעות of Saadia Gaon {Doctrines and Faiths} and a lot of other of the Jewish sages from the Middle Ages that dealt with השקפה world view issues. [Joseph Albo, Abravanel, Ibn Gavirol etc.] But you can not have ethics without world view.  The principles of Ethics have nothing to stand on.

One result of this is the Musar movement itself more or less fell into oblivion. The representatives of the movement were ipso facto the "spiritual advisers" in the Litvak yeshivas which simply did not and do not earn much respect.[Not just that most of them are not anything near the level needed to be a decent rosh yehiva, but even in terms of Musar itself they have nothing of interest to say. They have no idea of the background and world view of the mediaeval writers of Musar.

The trouble to a large degree is that the rishonim themselves that were writing on the world view of Torah were well versed in Aristotle and Plato and Plotinus. Without that background, a lot of what they say is incomprehensible.

Even with that background what they say can be hard to understand.
[See the discussion of the Rambam why no predicates apply to God and see Hegel's treatment of the same issue.]

[In fact to come out with a intellectually rigorous moral system s exactly what the Rishonm were doing and in my opinion they did a great job. Much better than any moral theories developed after the so called Enlightenment--a misnomer if I ever heard one. [A better term would be the Endarkenment.]

The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married.

The best way to ruin a good relationship is to get married. I had a friend who was a Russian physicist who was friends for many years with one girl, and then eventually they got married, and that was the end of it. I have seen this plenty of times. If, after all, the Torah does allow a Girl friend פילגש, why be more strict than the Torah itself? Is it is not enough what the Torah forbids that we have to add on extra restrictions?
[The  Rishonim in general allow a girl friend. The two well know examples are the Ramban and Raavad, (also the Gra) but there are many more if one takes the trouble to look them up. The Rambam in this case is the opinion of one against many.]


Caleb ben Yefune is the only person in the entire Old Testament upon who it says the unique phrase "וימלא אחרי השם" he went totally after God. It never says anything like that even about the greatest of tzadikim righteous. On others its says "He walked after God" and all other kinds of phrases, but never does it use the word "totally." And Caleb had at least a few girl friends and a few wives. See the Chronicles chapter 2; verses around 46. דברי הימים פרק ב' פסוק מ''ו   

However it is good to be married and if one can find the right person for that I am all for it. In fact I would still be married today if i had  stayed away and kept my wife away from Torah scholars that are demons (which nowadays pretty much means all of them). It is hard to find a Torah scholar nowadays that  is not mixed up somehow or other with the Dark Side.

If  people had taken the advice of the Gra and listened to what he wrote on the letter of excommunication, then things would be different.[And there s no reason to think the excommunication is not valid legally. One would have to not only assume the Gra was mistaken but also that that mistake would invalidate the whole thing. But in fact the Gra was not mistaken and even if he had been the cherem would still be perfectly valid.]

Bava  Batra page 18-b. The third Tosphot on the page מכלל דר. יוסי סבר וכו'  Tosphot suggest that the first questioner on the page did not know that R. Jose holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו because if he had known this he never would have had a question. The question was that R Yose says one can put mustard next to bees because each hurts the other. The question was if Rava is right  that הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול אינו  סומך then how could the situation with R Yose arise at all? The answer would be that R Yose holds that על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו and that bees cause no damage to mustard and therefore the owner of the bees was allowed to put his bees next to the border. Rava never said a ניזק can not put something next to the border, only the מזיק.
But in this case, I have a question on the last Tosphot on the page where he brings Rabainu Chananel that says the way the Gemara reads is אלא אמר רבינא and from that he concludes that Rava has to have gone back on his entire assumption.


I think the reason for Rabainu Chananel is he wants to question to apply  even if the mustard was first.

[It might be a good idea to mention the fact that each of these three Tosphot have a completely different idea about what this Gemara means. The First Tosphot is the Ri. The second is obviously different but maybe it is from one of the later authors of Tosphot. The last is Rabbainu Tam.
The fact that the first and second are different threw me off course for a while until I was ready to give up on what the second one was saying.]



בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב. תוספות השלישית בדף "מכלל דר' יוסי סבר וכו',. תוספות אומר כי השואל הראשון בעמוד לא ידע שר' יוסי מחזיק שהניזק מרחיק את עצמו, כי אילו ידע זאת לא היתה לו שאלה. השאלה היתה שר 'יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים, כי כל אחד מזיק השני. השאלה היתה אם רבא צודק כי הבא לסמוך אצל הגבול לא יכול איך המצב עם ר' יוסי בכלל להתעורר? התשובה היא שר' יוסי מחזיק כי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ודבורים לא גורמות נזק לחרדל ולכן בעל הדבורים הורשה להניח את דבוריו ליד הגבול. רבא מעולם לא אמר ניזק לא יכול לשים משהו ליד הגבול, רק את מזיק. אבל במקרה זה יש לי שאלה על תוספות האחרון בדף שבו הוא מביא רבינו חננאל שאומר את הנוסח של הגמרא הוא אלא אמר רבינא ומכאן הוא מסכם כי רבא חייב לחזור על כל ההנחה שלו. אבל גרסה זו באמת אומר כי התשובות של רבינא ורב פפא הן עצמאיות וזה בדיוק מה תוספות שלנו אומר. אבל תוספות שלנו אומר את זה בלי לגרום לרבא לחזור על מה שהוא אמר..

To restart the Musar Movement

One thing you see in the Old Testament quite a lot is that people were going through lots of problems and the general approach of the prophets was that the problems they were having were because they were not keeping the Law of God [תורת משה] That suggests that the question is not how religious a person is but rather being religious in the right way.
Therefore what I suggest is to reopen the idea of Reb Israel Salanter about Musar [Jewish Ethics from the Middle Ages] and specifically setting aside a room for that purpose. The reason is that Musar is like concentrated orange juice. It gives you the basic idea of what God requires of you without going into too many details which can get one lost. But I do not mean this in just a personal way. Rather what I suggest is to completely restart the whole Musar Movement concept all over again.

[That is to say that the general approach of the prophets was not to tell people to pray more or to go to some grave to say Psalms. (דורש אל המתים "Seeking the dead" is a bad idea as you can see in Deuteronomy 18:11) It was almost always a two part idea. First was to stop doing idolatry. The second was to get back to the Law of Moses.] [There are too many examples to go into detail but this is clearly what the prophets were saying.]
That is to say that most of the advice you hear from people about how to get out of your problems is not accurate. It is not what prophets who really were in touch with Divine Reality said. What people in touch with the real thing said was to keep the Law of Moses.


What does that mean in a  simple vein? First of all to restart the Musar Movement would be  a first priority- and this does not  have anything to do with Litvak yeshivas.  Rather it is a whole separate focus. It also does mean just (like it sounds) to start to be careful about the obligations between man and his fellow man-not to lie or steal etc. It also has a lot to do with government which is  unauthorized to a be redistribution mechanism. Keeping Torah is not to vote for other people's money to be given to you.    

Reb Nachman against Torah scholars that are demons

The Jewish religious world is a hotbed of cults. The major problem was foreseen by Reb Nachman from Breslov in many of his Torah lessons where he describes the problem with Torah scholars that are demons. Even though this language sounds harsh it actually comes from the Zohar and the Arizal.
The stereotype of Torah teachers is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim.


The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.

The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language  of the letter.


[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is  a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm. I have to admit that the Na Nach group has a good point in this regard-- as many others have noticed, but have been intimidated from speaking out. I really have no idea why or when the present day situation arose but you have to say it started at least as far back as the time of Reb Nachman. Nowadays the last place one should go for advice is to torah scholars that are demons.] 

Lashon Hara [slander] versus the Chafez Chaim.

I want to suggest an answer to a question that was raised in the Mir Yeshiva in NY on the Chafez Chaim. concerning the laws of Lashon Hara. I think the law of אפי  תלתא [Lashon Hara said in front of three people can be spread further because it is already public] really has to mean that the Lashon Hara is said in front of three people. That does not include the speaker. I think this is really the intent of the law. Yet as far as I recall Rav Israel Meir HaKoken [the Chafez Chaim] allows this even when the speaker is one of the three. I believe he is basing this קולא on the fact that מחאה [objecting to a person that has occupied his property illegally] needs to be said only in front on two  people.[and the Gemara compares the two laws]  He is I think allowing this because in any case he is being strict about this law in saying that it applies only to אבק לשון הרע. So to make up for one חומרא [being strict in one thing] he is adding one קולא [being lenient in another].



The basic question on the Chafez Chaim is this. He allows the קולא of אפי תלתא (in front of three) that is: if one has said slander in front of three people, then any one of the three can go on and spread it further. The one who said it is included. The question is this: Tell the one who is asking the question not to spread it, and then there will no longer be three people spreading the slander.


My reasoning here is simple. If you look at the Gemara you will see באפי תלתא [in front of three] has to mean in front of three other people. So on the law itself there is no question. The only question is on the Chafez Chaim. And my answer  is as I mentioned up above.


Furthermore on a different note I want to suggest that the rishonim that allow straightforward "in front of three" if it is true [not just the "dust of Lashon Hara"] are all deciding the law like Rabbainu Yona in the Shaari Teshuva that there is no Lashon  Hara on truth unless it is because of collateral damage. Otherwise, I can not see why they would all allow it to be spread further just because of באפי תלתא [in front of three].[That would seem to make it worse.]
However if lashon hara for truth is allowed anyway, then why would you need באפי תלתא? So maybe the  whole thing really just applies to the dust of lashon hara and that lashon hara on truth is forbidden without all the seven conditions for בין אדם לחבירו and the other conditions for בין אדם למקום
 I imagine to answer this question you have to say that the whole thing about אפי תלתא  is to say that you can repeat what you heard and it has nothing to do with information you know first hand.

I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform  and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he was attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.{One person called him "good". Jesus said, "Do not call me good. Only call God good."}

You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.

On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of  Slobodka  אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.



[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment  with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is  as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."'  While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.