attachment with God

The problem with attachment with God is that it is the highest Torah value, so when it decays, it falls into the lowest level of darkness.
So you can see why in Litvak yeshivas there is a certain amount of hesitance to emphasize  attachment with God as a primary value. It is not that they are thinking it is not possible for people to come to. After all, since it is a primary commandment of the Torah, it must be by definition possible for every person to come to. Otherwise, it would not be commanded of every person. But the fact is this high level can decay. ["Better a wall of ten inches that stands than a wall of 100 feet tall that falls."]

[I am thinking here along the lines of a system of values somewhat like Dr. Kelley Ross and the Rambam. With the Rambam you actually have two areas of value--moral virtue and intellectual virtue. And in his system these two areas are connected because the moral area leads into the intellectual area. As he says one's portion in the next world depends on שכל הנקנה acquired intellect.
The related system of Dr.  Ross originates with Leonard Nelson but goes back to Kant and Schelling. I think it was Schelling who proposed not all value is moral value.]
But I do not think one needs to be committed to German idealism for this to be a workable idea. See Thomas Reid. German Idealism is built on shaky foundations. In spite of the fact that Thomas Reid tears the whole thing (German Idealism) apart, still people have wondered what his (Reid's) system actually is. To me it seems that Leonard Nelson got the right idea--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Knowledge that you know not by the senses and not by reason. To me this seems to fit exactly with what Thomas Reid was getting at.]



[The larger world does have this idea of attachment with God directly in certain medieval mystics. Meister Eckhart was one I had heard about, but there were more. The Protestant world more or less however forgot about this entirely. I do not mean there was no value in the Reformation, but still this seems to be a weak spot for Protestants.]

[One thing I did do in this regard was when I was in Israel [Safed] I spent some time daily in talking with God directly from my heart in the forests and fields in that area. That is the idea of prayer towards God that is not scripted, but spontaneous. That is not the same as attachment with God, but when I was in Safed, it seemed to be closely related. The best I can imagine is that attachment with God seems to be  gift that comes from on high--but one can work on being prepared by means of learning straight Litvak Torah e.g. the Avi Ezri. And also private prayer with God. And to act like a mensch in all situations.]

Attachment with God does not get much attention.

Attachment with God does not get much attention as a primary goal in life. Most people do not even know that it is a positive commandment.

I certainly was unaware of its importance when I got to Israel.

Thus when I felt attachment with God in Israel, I did not value it, and after seven years I thought to escape.
I had in fact once before that time learned the Musar book the Light of Israel by Isaac Blazer. And he brings from the commentary with no name on the beginning of the Rambam that all the commandments are to bring one to attachment with God.
I had forgotten that.

[The verse in Deuteronomy says to do the commandments in order to fear God. Another verse says fear God in order to do his commandments. The explanation is there is a lower fear --fear of punishment. And there is a higher fear--awe of God. Thus the idea is to fear God with the lower fear in order to do the commandments; and do the commandments in order to come to the awe of God,-- and that will lead to love and then attachment.]

Later I saw  that just showing up in Israel by itself does not bring to attachment with God. Rather there is the whole learning Torah thing that you have in Litvak yeshivas that apparently is a prerequisite. [Anyway I was there during the last year of the life of  Bava Sali when there was a kind of  time of awakening. That seems to have passed. Thus the best thing to do is just to go about learning Torah in the straight Litvak path. With that-- attachment to God will come again.]

In any case, what you see is that if you are attached with God ((devekut)), then there is no reason to go out of it since that is the primary goal in the first place. The other commandments are meant to bring to that goal.

"Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."

Rav Shach did not think very highly of books about the world view of Torah [השקפה]. He brings the verses that criticize making books "of making books there is no end" עשות ספרים אין קץ, and the end of that verse shows it is all vanity  and a waste of time. On the other hand he brings statements that are indicative that books on Torah are important.

The resolution is books that continue the process of the Oral Law are good. Books that try to get world view issues are a waste.  "Give a philosopher enough paper, and he can prove anything."

[However what would Rav Shach say about the Guide for the Perplexed or the Faiths and Doctrines of Rav Saadia Gaon? Apparently he would have to agree that a certain limited amount of  this kind of study is important.]

Meaning of your life as a whole or per section.

You can ask about the meaning of your life as a whole or also ask about the meaning of particular events and the meaning of certain time periods.
Sometimes certain events are begging for commentary. Sometimes the meaning is all too clear.

For me it seems better to look at certain time periods as defined by geographical location.


However if I try to define the meaning of certain time periods, I find they contradict. [Or they seem to contradict.]

If I look at the period I was in the Mir in NY-the lesson seems awesomely clear--learn Torah. But if I look at later periods the lessons seem to get lost or at least diluted. The answer to this contradiction I find in the period I was growing up in my parent's home --that is the lessons of balance and to be a "mensch" Or as the Sages put it טוב תורה עם דרך ארץ and דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה
Good traits and manners comes before Torah. Torah is good with good traits.


Even though listening to hints from what happens to you in your life is one good lesson, still there is  a larger issue of figuring out the meaning of your life in terms of whole sections. The time you were in high school, and later on periods.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls.

A suka on the roof with only poles for walls. The lower walls are considered to extend upwards.
But only if the poles are on the edges. From where does this law come from?
Reb Haim (HaLevi) holds from Shabat since the version of the Geonim in Suka only writes the argument is in the middle of the roof. So there is no proof from there.

The Raavad holds differently because of the Gemara in Suka page 4.






Reb Haim Soloveitchik holds גוד אסיק מחיצתא only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from Shabat 89 that the law  גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that it is from there that the Rambam learned the law  to Sukka

Rav Shach disagrees. He brings the law from Eruvin that one who stays on a mound that is 100^50 yards wide and 10 hand-breaths in height or less can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in Sukka that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא is applicable only when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to Sukka.

What I wish to think about is the Gemara that if you have a pit ten hand-breaths deep and 4^4 wide and long that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The Rashba brings Rav Hai Gaon for one answer why this is and another answer is you need מחיצות הניכרות.This last opinion seems to confirm Reb Haim HaLevi. Perhaps Rav Shach is holding like Rav Hai Gaon, and Reb Haim like the other opinion in the Rashba?
_________________________________________________________________________________

In  חידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה י''א

רב חיים הלווי holds "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" only applies to מחיצות הניכרות. He gets to this in a slightly round about way. He brings  from שבת פ''ט that the law גוד אסיק applies for the edge of a roof. He writes that is is from there that the רמב''ם derived  the law  to סוכה.

However רב שך disagrees. He brings the law from עירובין that one who stays on a תל that is מאה על חמישים אמות wide and עשרה טפחים in height can carry in that area. That proves his point.
So when we find in סוכה that the law גוד אסיק מחיצתא only is applicable  when there are מחיצות הניכרות that has to refer only to סוכה.

What I wish to ask is from the גמרא that if you have a pit עשרה טפחים עומק deep and ארבעה על ארבעה length by width  that is filled with fruit and one throws an object into it, he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. The רשב''א brings רב האי גאון for one answer why this is. Then he brings another answer that one  needs מחיצות הניכרות. This last opinion seems to confirm רב חיים הלווי. Perhaps רב שך is holding like רב האי גאון, and רב חיים like the other opinion in the רשב''א?

בחידושי הרמב''ם של רב חיים הלווי הלכות סוכה. רב חיים הלווי מחזיק "גוד אסיק מחיצתא" חל רק על מחיצות ניכרות. הוא מביא מן שבת פ''ט שהחוק גוד אסיק חל על קצה גג. הוא כותב כי משם  הרמב''ם גזר החוק בשביל סוכה. אולם רב שך חולק. הוא מביא את החוק מעירובין כי מי נשאר על תל שהוא מאה על חמישים אמות רחב ועשרה טפחים גובה יכול לשאת באותו אזור. זה מוכיח את הנקודה שלו. אין שם מחיצות ניכרות. לכן, כאשר אנו מוצאים בסוכה שהחוק גוד אסיק מחיצתא הוא רק כאשר ישנן מחיצות הניכרות זה מתייחס רק לסוכה. מה שאני רוצה לשאול הוא מן הגמרא שאם יש לך בור עשרה טפחים עמוק וארבעה על ארבעה אורך ברוחב שהוא מלא פירות ואחד זרק חפץ לתוכו, הוא אינו מחויב להביא קרבן חטאת. הרשב''א מביא רב האי גאון בשביל תשובה אחת למה זה כן. אחר כך הוא מביא תשובה נוספת כי צריך מחיצות ניכרות. הדעה האחרונה זו נראית לאשר רב חיים הלווי. אולי רב שך מחזיק כמו רב האי גאון, ואת רב חיים כדעת האחרת ברשב''א

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success in Torah depend on

Rav Shach mentioned that there are two factors that Torah success  in Torah depend on: (1) Time and (2) the amount of energy put into it. But to combine that with the idea of the Rambam of learning Physics seems hard. If the Rambam would be a lone opinion in this it would be easy to dismiss him. But you find his opinion also in two important Musar books חובות הלבבות Obligations of the Heart and מעלות המדות [The greatness of Good Traits]

I think that one should divide the time of learning into Gemara, Mathematics and Physics. [The Metaphysics part I am not sure how to deal with.]

But I also want to mention that Torah must not be used to make money. So while learning Torah is important, using it to make money is a very terrible sin as you can see in Pirkei Avot.

U-94 G Major  U96 U97 D Major  There used to be on google a nice converter to MP3. No more. So I either can post as MIDI files or another MP3 converter that does not work so well. I am sorry