Hints that come from Above.

There are hints in what happens to one that come from Above. This is something in the book of Rav Nahman that comes up in a few places.

[In one place Rav Nahman says that "God condenses himself from infinity to the place where one is and gives him hints about how he can return to Him." That is to say:  God is above logic and comprehension. But still he gives hints to every person --even one who has fallen from holiness completely and is totally absorbed into the evil realm, still He gives him hints how to return to Him in repentance. קול קורא במדבר.


So even though learning Torah is a great thing, still there is a higher level that I believe I was getting hints about that I should spend time and effort on.

It is kind of like the gemara brings about Rav Zeira [an Amora from the time of the Talmud] who fasted forty days in a row in order to forget the Talmud that was being written in Iraq [Babylon] in order to come to the higher level of understanding on the Jerusalem Talmud

From the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda I would have to say that Metaphysics and Physics are a part of Torah

It is not that I am unconcerned about Bitul Torah. It is more along the lines that the Gra said--that according to lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms, one will lack 100 times more in Torah. [As brought in to Introduction to Euclid by a disciple of the Gra, i.e. Rav Baruch of Shkolev].
There seems to be some kind of Achilles heel in the world of Torah when this aspect of things is lacking.

The actual opinion of the Rambam you have to get to in a more round about way. But it is hinted to in the commentary of the Mishna, in the Mishne Torah and in the Guide.

It seems that however the Ramban [Nachmanides and other rishonim would have disagreed. But still from what I can tell, the Rambam was right. The Ramban has some choice words for Aristotle!  But perhaps it is not so much that the Rambam was right as this is an are of the dinge an sich [things in themselves] where reason can not enter. For on one hand, I wished I would be able to sit and learn Torah all day every day for every second all my life. I was that attached to Torah. [] But then circumstances tore me from that and I have had to discover that point of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam.

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)