The Ari [Rav Isaac Luria Ashkenazi] says that Emanation is pure Godliness, Briah (Creation) is mostly good, Yezira (Formation) half and half, and the Physical universe is mostly evil.

This explains a lot to me. We find people that start out sincere seekers of God and his will but fall. The reason I think is this. That every area of value has an opposite area of value. But the opposite can be no so much damaging as areas of value with more content. What I mean is that Logic is one area of value that is pure form and no content. The sentences: "A implies B. B implies C. If A is true, then C is true" are an example of the form is true but the content of each A B and C can be anything. zero content. Math has more content and is not just formal as Kurt Godel proved. Then up the scale you get to art and music with more content and less form. And the progression continues until you get to God--all content and no form. לא ראיתם כל תמונה ביום עמדכם בהר סיני "You did not see any form on the day you stood at Mount Sinai."

See this diagram which shows this [By Kelley Ross based on Leonard Nelson]

But every area of value has an opposite area. The Sitra Achra of that area. And since this world is mostly evil is easy to fall from holiness into the opposite area of value.

 x86 D minor 

 The attack on me by the Arabs last Sunday night was in fact serious. After stealing money they were dragging me away to a hidden to do something else while they were saying they are going to kill as many Jews as they can. So I figured that I was in a serious situation. I really do not know what distracted them for a second that gave me a chance to run away. At any rate, in a nearby parking lot there was a woman who I told what had happened and she suggested that she would call the police. So I was taken to the station to give as many details as I could remember and then to Binyamin near Jerusalem. The police wanted to talk to me about other issues. But God granted me grace in their eyes and let me go. But I had no money to return so they gave me money from a sort of fund box they have there for random purposes, and shared their sort of grilled pizza sandwiches with me. [I can not explain it. It seems to be an Israeli invention. Combination of sandwich and pizza.]  I got back Monday afternoon.

Rav Shach suggest that the Rambam has a different approach to the two gemaras in rosh hashanah 13 and and Avoda Zara 23 .

Rav Shach suggest that the Rambam has a different approach to the two gemaras in Rosh Hashanah 13 and and Avoda Zara 23 . The one in Avoda Zara we know he holds with since that is the source of the idea that if someone sets up a brick to worship and then someone else comes along and worships it then it is forbidden even though a person can not forbid that which belongs to someone else. Still in this case the first person has already revealed his acquiescence.

But the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah, the Rambam simply does not hold with. The reason is this. It says How could Israel bring the Omer after they arrived in the land of Canaan? Did not the grain grow in the possession of gentiles? And the Omer has to be brought from a harvest that belonged to a Israeli.

In fact the Rambam does not bring that law that the Omer has to be brought from a harvest that belonged to a Israeli. Rather he holds like the Gemara in Avoda Zara that the land belonged to Israel from the time of Abraham.

[But Rav Shach is not simply saying that the two gemaras disagree with each other סוגיות חלוקות. Rather that the Gemara is Rosh Hashana 13:a hold with the opinion יש קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מתרומות ומעשרות and so even though everyone holds that the land of Canaan belongs to Israel from the time of Avraham still they should not have been able to bring the Omer since the grain that grew in the possession of a gentile would anyway not be obligated in tithes. But the law is אין קניין לנכרי להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות and the law does not follow  the Gemara in Rosh Hashana.

The leaders of the religious world tend to come under the category of Torah scholars that are demons that Rav Nahman brings in the LeM in ch 12. [ch.s 28, 61, vol II ch.s 1, 8 and many other places that do not occur to me this minute ] There are exceptions but no fixed rule how to tell. Someone suggested to me that this is the reason so many do not show much interest in keeping the Torah since the Torah scholars that are demons give the Torah a disreputable reputation. 

In the LeM of Rav Nahman you do not really see any clear way of how to avoid the demonic Torah scholars except in the LeM ch 12 where the major difference is the "Shelo Lishma" aspect. [i,e, those that use Torah to gain power and money.]   

In any case you see Rav Nahman was very aware of the problem that the Sitra Achra has taken over much of the religious world. No wonder most people left it when they had the chance. 

So in a practical sense how does one come to learn authentic Torah? To me it seem the answer is clear--to go to any yeshiva based on the Gra. However in that very conversation it came up that many people in Israel have had problems  even in Litvak yeshivas. So while I base my recommendation of Litvak yeshivas based on my experiences in Litvak yeshiva in NY, it could be that in Israel things might be different. So maybe the best thing is to learn at home? 

[The Rambam brings the problem of using Torah to make money in his commentary of Pirkei Avot ch 4 on the Mishna "He that uses the crown passes away". [To find that commentary you have to go to chapter 4, because the same mishna of Hillel occurs in chapter 1 and there the Rambam does not write anything.] ]

 I was thinking about the dialectical approach of Hegel. The idea starts with pure Being which by itself implies Non-Being since Being is without "being things".  And Non-Being implies Being for the reason nothing implies nothing of being things, so there is an implicit recognition that there are being things. The resolution to Hegel is Becoming. But it occurs to me that Becoming requires a third category--time. [Without time there can be no Becoming]. And this model I think provides Hegel with a long series in which every concept implies its opposite, and the solution is by adding a third category. [After all hot and cold are two contradictory things until you add time and/or place.] So Hegel wants to continue this series --adding concept after concept until you get to the Absolute Idea [God] where all contradictions are resolved.[I want to add that Dr Kelley Ross [https://www.friesian.com/origin/chap-4.htm#sect-1][or here https://www.friesian.com/origin/] brings in his PhD thesis that this original idea of Hegel is valid. Just that he disagrees with the long series expansion.

Dr Kelley Ross writes:"The similarity and the connection that Hegel described between Being and Not Being is also very germane, although the motivation and explanation here will be different from his."

 The question that occurred to me at the police station was implicitly asked by Tosphot and answered. Just to give a background let me explain. The Gemara in Avoda Zara [page 23 side b] says when Israel came into the land of Canaan why did they have to burn all the asherot [worshipped trees] of the Canaanites? After all, no one can make forbidden that which belongs to his neighbor, and the land was given to Israel from the time Abraham. So it must be that since Israel worshipped the Golden Calf that makes the worship of the trees [asherot] OK to them, so  the Canaanites were acting as messengers for them.

Now the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah asks. how can it be that Israel brought the Omer [a offering of grain] right away when they came into the land? After all the only produce was grown by the Canaanites, and the verse says to bring the Omer from your produce, not the produce of a gentile.

On this Gemara in Rosh Hashana [page 13], Tosphot asks:  we know from the Gemara in Avoda Zara that the land belongs to Avraham from before Israel came into the land.(So the produce does in fact belong to them) Still the question is valid since the gentiles have ownership in the grain that they grow even if the land belongs to Israel. But if that is so then what is the question in Avoda Zara if after all the land is of Israel then the asherot are forbidden and need to be burnt. But the Gemara's question is from the asherot that were planted before the time of Avraham Avinu [Abraham the Patriarch]] that would be permitted in use by just nullification. [An idol of a gentile becomes permitted by simple nullification, without burning. Only an idol of a Israeli needs to be burnt]

So you see that it is implicit in the answer of Tosphot that trees that were outright owned by the Canaanites would come under the same category that tosphot brings about the trees that were planted before the time of Avraham