you have to take all the Neo Kantian as a collective whole.

Even in high school I had a lot of interest in Philosophy. But what philosophy was in those days did not seem very inspiring.  mainly it consisted of word analysis and the claim that there are no values nor truth. [The Eastern religions that were popular did not seem to have much going for them. That is how it seemed to me.] So I gravitated towards more ancient philosophies like Plato, Spinoza, and Chinese philosophy. Kant and Hegel were no where to be found. Not in the public library nor in the high school library nor even in book stores! Those were the  days of existentialism. It all seemed vacant of any content or meaning. [John Searle said rightly about most of twentieth century philosophy "It is obviously false". I could not agree more.]

So instead of Philosophy I went to Shar Yashuv and then later on the Mir and decided to put philosophy on hold. Eventually I picked up Spinoza again and in Brooklyn public Library I found an edition of the Cambridge Hegel. That is some of his major writings along with rigorous commentary.

At some point after going through the pre_Kantian thinkers I got to the point of realizing that Kant and Hegel are important. And that you can not just go back to business as usual in philosophy as if they were never around.

[This idea of the importance of the Kantians came after seeing a good deal of the pre Kant people that had some great points but also had problems. Just take a look at Leibiniz, Thomas Reid, Hume and you will see what I mean. I got the idea that Kant is important. What school of Kant? Reinhold, Maimon, Shultze, Fries. Or the Shopenhaur or even later Marburg or Leonard Nelson?
For  along time I have had the idea that you have to take all the Neo Kantian as a collective whole. It is hard to point to any one in particular as having all the truth..]


[Even though in the Guide of the Rambam, he does say that the Metaphysics of the Greeks is important, my feeling is that tis would have to apply to Kant also.]

It is not that I am unconserned about Bitul Torah. Rather that from the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda I would have to say that Metaphysics and Physics are a part of Torah

The Rambam held learning Physics and Metaphysics is a part of what one must learn every day

To make a synthesis between faith and reason was a major concern of the Rambam. However in his emphasis on learning Physics and Metaphysics [of the ancient Greeks as he says in the intro to the Guide] was not meant to provide answers for this issue, but rather as things that are in themselves a part of what one must learn every day. That is he saw these as part of the Mitzvah of learning Torah.--a view that was unique to rishonim [medieval people up until about the 1500's] but never comes up in achronim [later on people after the Beit Yoseph].

It is my feeling that the rishonim were right about this issue and I have trouble understanding why Rav Israel Salanter did not mention this in his Musar Movement program.

 Chesterson-- "The trouble with women is not that that they feel too much. It is that they do not feel at all!." That is they have no conscience. If they feel they can lie and get away with it, then they will lie.
 Like King Solomon said " One man among a thousand I have found, but even one women like that I have not found."

This is the opposite of what is thought nowadays that whatever lie  woman says is always believed. And I fear this might even get to Israel someday. It is already the case in the USA.

That is the reason Robert Foster, a state representative in Mississippi decided to refuse to let a woman reporter go along with him on his campaign . The trouble is that instantly that she would claim he had done something wrong she would be believed.

Rav Nahman railed against doctors

Even though sitting and learning Torah [Gemara) all day is a great thing --and I am happy that I merited for a few years to do this at the Mir and Shar Yashuv in NY, at this point I tend to believe that it is best to also learn Physics and Math.

Even though it is thought that Rav Nahman disagreed with this, I noted many places in his major book  that seemed to go in the opposite direction. The first time I saw this was about the issue of vaccination. As is well know Rav Nahman railed against doctors often and warned people to stay away from them. Yet when the first vaccinations arrived in Europe Rav Nahman said you have to take your child even in the middle of winter to whatever city is administering the vaccinations. So I got the idea at that point that Rav Nahman was against false medicine. So from that I decided his being against science was meant against false science pseudo science as almost all science was in his days. They still were going with the "four elements"!!


[Psychology is just plain pseudo science anyway.] But in terms of Rav Nahman, the fact is that medicine in his days was quite primitive. Oxygen had not yet been discovered. Blood letting was still the big cure all. George Washington in those days woke up one day with a sore throat. So what to do? Bloodletting is what the doctors prescribed. Well that did not work. So do it again! And again. and again...!

The actual obligation to support a wife really does not add up to much. In the Mishna in Ketuboth [pg 63 and 64] it comes out to about a quart of wheat flour.

The actual obligation to support a wife really does not add up to much. In the Mishna in Ketuboth [pg 63  and 64] it comes out two kavs of wheat per week or about a quart of wheat flour. That is more or less about what you would need to bake two loaves of bread per day. But the issue that I wanted to bring up is the issue of the wording of the ketubah where it says " I will work for you."

The odd thing about this is the argument between the Rambam and the Raavad brought in the Tur Beit Yoseph in Hoshen Mishpat 176 in paragraph 3. The obligation is of course not to make money in an illegal way. So when people use Torah to make money as in kollel they are certainly not "working for  a living" since it is forbidden to use Torah to make money. But besides that can the document in itself make one obligated in something that he would not be obligated in? Not to the Rambam (and the Ramban). However the Raavad (and the Rashba) both hold that he can make himself obligated by a document that says "I will work". The Raavad brings two proofs. One from a slave. We know a slave is obligated to work. Also from the case יקדשו ידי לעושיהם. [That is: a woman can say to her husband "My hands are holy for Him who made them." And by that what she makes at her job becomes the possession of the Temple--if she also adds איני ניזונת ואיני עושה [I will not need support nor will I work for you)

The Gold Standard in the Torah world is unquestionably the Litvak Yeshiva World. The problem with any gold standard is the people that commit forgery and pretend to be the real thing. That is one good reason for me to warn people that the religious world outside the few straight Lithuanian yeshivas like the Mir or Ponovitch are false Torah, pseudo Torah or as Rav Nahman put it Torah of the Sitra Achra--the realm of evil.

Musar [Movement of Rav Israel Salanter

I was in a synagogue over here that is mainly for Lithuanian types of Yeshiva types. And I noticed a book of letters by Rav Israel Salanter. One letter I opened to was emphasizing the importance of learning Musar [Books teaching Morality]. Some one had apparently written to him about some kind of hilul hashem (note 1) when someone was learning Musar but was not acting very properly.
What's the surprise? Is not that the exact reason most of us do not learn Musar? Too many people that supposedly do and do not seem like very nice people.

The point however of Rav Israel Salanter is that it helps. And that point I have to agree with just from simple observation of the Litvak Yeshiva World. Apparently they manage to raise fine families and are basically in accord with Torah as far as one can tell. (2) So then why is it that you or I apparently encounter not the best exemplars?
I am not sure about others but as for myself it seems the reason is I once walked away from it. I imagine if I had just stuck with the basic Litvak Torah path that things would have been different. But somehow I got sidetracked.





(note 1) "Hilul hashem" means acting in such a way that brings doubt on the value of Torah. That is it gives Torah a reputation as if it is not worth much. That was from the letter what had happened. Someone was known to be  a person that learnt Musar but was not acting nicely.


(2) That is while I was at the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv I did notice  very good family values  and loyalty to Torah. That was pretty inspiring for me. But apparently not inspiring enough for me to stick with it.

I ought to add here that what I see great about the Musar movement is that it advocates true values of Torah--character, menschlickeit, fear of God. And to a large degree seems to accomplish these ends from what I can tell even though I am outside that world.