Keeping the Law the Law of God is mainly a personal matter. The whole public show and dance really has nothing to help in that direction and mainly hurts.When it is public is usually just a show they put on to make pretend they are keeping Torah in order to get the money of secular Jews.
That does not mean that in theory there might be communities around authentic Litvak yeshivas that  in fact hep one to come to and keep Torah.
But mainly the whole show and dance is a scam to get people's money.
Best to stay away from the whole scam.
They love-bomb you to make the whole show seem credible. But if one really interested in keeping God's Law the only way is as a private matter. 

Sometimes people look at this blog that might not know the distinction between true Torah learners and counterfeit Torah scholars that are demons. Usually I assume people know the difference.

But just in case the basic idea is this: true Torah is based on the Gra and regular striaht Litvak yeshivas and false Torah of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] is from the cults the Gra put into excommunication.

Also  have to add for the sake of clarity that Reb Nachman was not included in the excommunication.

[Normally I would not even bother to mention this, but when I see people looking at this blog from Indonesia I feel adding some clarity would be helpful.] [Most of the time the only readers I see I from the USA or the former republics of the USSR and also from Italy.]

One thing you might have noticed--and I did notice when I was still at the Mir in NY was that Rabainu Gershom, one of the commentaries on the page in Bava Batra, holds that the law of saying lashon hara [saying something bad about someone] in front of three people is talking about straight lashon hara--not the dust of lashon hara. It's not just the Rashbam, but Rabainu Gershom also. This law says two things. Not just that if lashon hara has already been said in front of three, then one can go an advertise it further. Also, it says that it is allowed to say it in front of three. This seems to be a proof to Rabainu Yona that lashon hara on true facts is not forbidden unless there is a possibility of collateral damage. Furthermore I wanted to point out that the gemara uses this law of lashon hara in front of three to bring a proof that מחאה is in front of three witnesses. Thus, a clear proof that the law of in front of three means that the one saying it is not one of the three!! The prohibition of lashon hara is as it stands hard to keep and is a serious crime. But that does not mean one should make it more strict that the actual law requires.---------------------------------Rabainu Gershom, )one of the commentaries on the page in Bava Batra(, holds that the law of saying לשון הרע [saying something שלילי about someone] in front of three people is talking about straight ,לשון הרעnot the dust of לשון הרע. It's not just the רשב''ם, but ר' גרשום also. This law says two things. Not just that if לשון הרע has already been said in front of three, then one can go an advertise it further. Also, it says that it is allowed to say it in front of three. This seems to be a proof to רבינו יונה that לשון הרע on true facts is not forbidden unless there is a possibility of collateral damage. Furthermore, I wanted to point out that the גמרא uses this law of לשון הרע in front of three to bring a proof that מחאה is in front of three witnesses. Thus, זה a clear proof that the law of in front of three means that the one saying it is not one of the three. לכן אין קושיא שהיה אפשר לומר להשלשה שנאמר הלשון הרע בפניהם שלא יגלו אותו ועל ידי זה ממילא לא יהיו שלשה מפרסמים -----------------------------------------רבינו גרשום, אחד הפירושים על הדף בבבא בתרא, קובע כי דין אמירת לשון הרע [אמירת דבר שלילי על מישהו] מול שלושה אנשים הוא דיבור ישיר על לשון הרע, לא על אבק לשון הרע. זה כמו הרשב"ם, וגם ר' גרשום. דין זה אומר שני דברים. לא רק שאם לשון הרע כבר נאמר מול שלושה, אז אפשר להמשיך ולפרסם אותו. כמו כן, נאמר שמותר לומר אותו מול שלושה. נראה שזו הוכחה לרבינו יונה שלשון הרע על עובדות אמיתיות אינו אסור אלא אם כן יש אפשרות לנזק משני. יתר על כן, רציתי לציין שהגמרא משתמשת בחוק זה של לשון הרע מול שלוש להביא הוכחה שמחאה היא מול שלושה עדים. לפיכך, זו הוכחה ברורה לכך שהחוק של לפני שלושה אומר שמי שאומר את זה אינו אחד מהשלושה. לכן אין קושיא שיהיה אפשר לומר להשלשה שנאמר הלשון הרע בפניהם שלא יגלו אותו ועל ידי זה ממילא לא יהיו שלשה מפרסמים

In Bava Batra page 18 in Tosphot first words מכלל, Tosphot changes what the meaning of R Yose is. Before Rav Papa it is that the bees stay at the border and the mustard can be put right next to them. After Rav Papa who says the case of the Mishna is when half the field was bought, Tosphot says the case is the mustard is at the border and the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to keep the bees 6 handbreaths away from the border.

[I think I have mentioned this problem before.] Part of the reason is in the language R. Yose uses and another part of the reason is as Tosphot says that before Rav Papa R. Yose is holding the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees next to the border. While after Rav Papa nether did anything wrong because the field had not been sold yet. The language of the Gemara is this: The owner of the mustard says to the owner of the bees "why tell me to keep my mustard away? Keep your bees away!" If the mustard was there first that means he is saying in fact to keep the bees away. If the bees were there first it means that the owner of the mustard is saying he too can put his mustard next to the border.

Therefore after we come to Rav Papa Tosphot means that either one that was at the border first can tell the other one to keep his things 6 handbreaths from the border.
+________________________________________________________________________________

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב  in תוספות first words מכלל, the תוספות changes what the meaning of ר' יוסי is. Before רב פפא it is that the bees stay at the border and the mustard can be put right next to them. After רב פפא who says the case of the משנה is when half the field was bought, תוספות says the case is the mustard is at the border and the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to keep the bees ששה טפחים away from the border. Part of the reason is in the language ר' יוסי uses and another part of the reason is as תוספות says that before רב פפא it must be ר' יוסי is holding the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees next to the border. While after רב פפא nether did anything wrong because the field had not been sold yet. The language of the גמרא is this: The owner of the mustard says to the owner of the bees "why tell me to keep my mustard away? Keep your bees away!" If the mustard was there first that means he is saying in fact to keep the bees away. If the bees were there first it means that the owner of the mustard is saying he too can put his mustard next to the border. Therefore after we come to רב פפא, it must be that תוספות means that either one that was at the border first can tell the other one to keep his things that cause damage ששה טפחים from the border.


בבא דף דף י''ח ע''ב בתוספות ד''ה מכלל , תוספות משנה מה המשמעות של ר 'יוסי. לפני רב פפא זה שהדבורים ליד הגבול ואת החרדל ניתן לשים לידם. אחרי רב פפא הוא אומר שהמקרה של משנה הוא כאשר חצי השדה נרכש, תוספות אומר המקרה הוא חרדל הוא בגבול בעל בעל חרדל יכול להגיד בעל הדבורים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים מן הגבול. חלק מהסיבה היא בשפה שר 'יוסי משתמש וחלק אחר של הסיבה היא כמו שתוספות אומר כי לפני רב פפא זה חייב להיות ר' יוסי הוא מחזיק שהבעלים של הדבורים עשו משהו לא בסדר לשים את הדבורים ליד גבול. אחרי רב פפא אף אחד לא עשה משהו לא בסדר, כי השדה עדיין לא נמכר. שפת גמרא היא זו: בעל החרדל אומר לבעלים של הדבורים "למה תגידו לי להרחיק את החרדל שלי, הרחק את הדבורים!" אם החרדל היה שם קודם, זה אומר שהוא אומר למעשה להרחיק את הדבורים. אם הדבורים היו שם קודם, פירוש הדבר שבעליו של החרדל אומר שגם הוא יכול לשים את חרדל ליד הגבול. לכן, אחרי שהגענו לרב פפא, זה חייב להיות כי תוספות אומר כל אחד שהיה בגבול בראשונה יכול לומר לשני לשמור על מרחק ששה טפחים מהגבול.

U-31 E Minor

Torah scholars that are demons create a bad name for the holy Torah

James Madison opposed a bill that required the State to support teachers of  Religion.
The arguments he used apply just as much to teachers of Torah.
See the actual essay

If there would be an obligation to give money to Torah scholars, don't you think the Gemara would have said something about it? Instead it talks about not sending them out to build a wall around the city but they are obligated to dig a well because they also need water. But in all the Gemaras about charity, there is nothing about an obligation to give money to Torah scholars. Only to poor people.



This is related to what the Gemara says about teaching Torah. The Talmud says: "God said to the Jewish people, 'Just as I taught Torah for free without pay, so must you teach Torah for free.'"

The Mordechai [a rishon who, along with the Rosh, was a disciple of R. Meir from Rotenburg] brings this in Bava Batra and asks, "Then how it is permissible to pay teachers of Torah even for children?"
To some degree this is related to the Rambam who makes this same point about learning Torah.
[The Rambam holds a somewhat radical position in this regard. He wrote about this at length in his commentary on Pirkei Avot and that caused the first wave of opposition to him even before he had written the Guide for the Perplexed.]



The reason I bring this up is that there is a known problem with Torah scholars that are demons and that creates a bad name for the holy Torah itself. If learning and teaching Torah was not a lucrative profession then it would attract less bad apples.
[The phrase Torah scholars that are demons comes from Reb Nachman who brings it from the Zohar and the Ari and from my own experience it's  a fitting epitaph.]

[You can see this theme in the major book of Reb Nachman quite a lot. Sometimes openly but more often in passing. In any case he was obviously aware of this problem and eventually this resulted in the Na Nach group being rightfully suspicious of all religious authorities. I am however not sure what most Na Nach people would say to do except to ignore them. That seems to be the best idea. and certainly if possible to simply make learning and teaching Torah as a voluntary act, not a job that gets paid.]

 I am not saying the problem is the money. Rather that the money is what attracts the flies in the first place. Reb Nachman I think in any case is choosing his terminology precisely, and I do not think he i is just using a term of exaggeration. Besides this you can not say Reb Nachman was exaggerating because then it would be lashon hara/slander. So he has to have meant it literally.

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.]