Creation ex Nihilo [from nothing] is not the same as creation from condensed Divine Light.

I have had a few thoughts about the Obligations of the Heart but have not written down as they occurred to me.
One thing that comes up in the beginning of the book and also in the end in the final prayer  is Creation from nothing.
This is not a major theme there, but in the Guide volume 2 this is a major issue.(note 1)  It is one of the prime tenets of Torah that the world was created from nothing-not  from Divine Light. Not from anything. Just God's will.
However the religious that think they believe in Torah, deny this. That gives just one more reason to avoid the religious.

Another theme I saw  in the very end about bringing merit to many. That idea I recall also in the disciple of Israel Salanter  (Rav. Isaac Blazzer).  Also in Joseph Yozel Horwiz of Navardok. In  Navardok the idea of bringing merit to many people was understood to mean the Musar Movement.
[I recall this was also brought up in the famous אגרת המוסר the Letter of Musar that started the Musar Movement.]


The proof in the beginning of the book seems to ignore the fact that there are different kinds of infinity. [א]

Learning math comes up in שער הרישות in the very end.



(note 1) The Rambam makes this the major theme in volume 2 of the Guide.

Torah is an introduction to the commandments of Reason.

The Obligations of the Heart (by Rav Behaye ibn Pakuda) says the Torah is an introduction to the commandments of Reason. That gives me a lot to think about. He explains commandments of the Torah have  a limit. Commandments of Reason have no limit. [שער  עבודת האלוהים פרק ג]

[This actually reminds me of Michael Huemer's idea that reason recognizes objective moral principles. ]
It also has a connection with Kierkegaard's idea that the Torah has in fact things that are hard to understand. But what is clear and unambiguous one must do immediately.

[I am in a house where there is this book Obligations of the Heart and I am astounded at how many fascinating ideas are in it.]

I see in the USA the effects of socialism are terrible

I think L.T.  Hobhouse has a great set of critiques on the Hegelian State and Hegel's Metaphysics. [Therefore I mentioned Hobhouse to Dr Kelley Ross wondering what he would say about Hobhouse.] 
However even before that I had seen than Brand Blanshard did not think highly of the critique of Hobhouse.

These are delicate points.  I see that the an authoritarian system is very necessary for Russia because of the types of people the Russian czars were ruling over, I see in the USA the effects of socialism are terrible. Still I await the answer of Kelley Ross to hear what he thinks of this debate.

The most serious critique I have seen on Hegel point by point seems to be Hobhouse. But even McTaggert-, Hegel's defender brings up problems. In any case, the attitude of Hobhouse is no where near as dismissive of Hegel as most of his detractors.



I have to admit that I think Hegel's critics can go overboard in being dismissive of Hegel.

Thomas Sowell

debate on Utube

false versions of the Truth. Slight deviations that are only barely perceivable,

There always have to be false versions of the Truth. Slight deviations that are only barely perceivable, but nonetheless cause the result to be the exact opposite of the results of following the Truth.
This is the real reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.
The point you can see in a fighter-craft. It takes only a slight readjustment to make the whole thing simply crash after takeoff. Seemingly slight mistakes in Torah also have led the entire religious world down the path of idolatry and only the Gra saw this before it happened.

Nice video

Dinesh D'Souza

Obligations of the Heart. [Rav Behaye ben Yoseph Ibn Pakuda]

I am kind of trying to figure out something in the Obligations of the Heart. [Rav Behaye ben Yoseph Ibn Pakuda] He has ten categories of people that learn. The first ones are about learning the Old Testament. He divides them into a few subcategories (of levels of understanding).   Then he gets up to the Mishna. So far everything goes smoothly.
Then he gets to the category of those that learn Talmud, and his first category is those that do it for honor, and not for its own sake.

There is no question that I stumbled on this my first time reading this book in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. And I stumbled on it again today.

But then he gets to the next category of those that learn Gemara for its own sake.

I am pretty sure almost anyone reading that passage is wondering exactly what I am wondering. Why specifically the Talmud? All the other kind of learning one can do also for the sake of honor or cash.

It is confusing.


If you take what he says in his introduction of Metaphysics this might become a bit more understandable.He takes Metaphysics [in the Intro] as important for the sake of Torah-but not being Torah itself. So he must be thinking along the lines of Saadia Gaon about the need for Metaphysics along with Gemara.

[You have to be exacting in his words in the Introduction to see this.]

When I was at the Mir and read the Musar Book of the disciple of the Gra Reb Haim from Voloshin [נפש החיים] I saw he was saying also this same kind of idea.--the need for fear of God along wit learning Gemara.

[Anyone who knows the major book of Reb Nahman from Breslov will already be familiar with this idea that there is a kind of tendency to learn Gemara for the wrong reasons--money, pay, privilege as he brings in Volume I section 12. The idea seems the same--to work on one's fear of God along with learning Gemara so that the learning should be for the right reasons.]