Musar --the learning of the books of the rishonim [mediaeval authors] that deal with ethical issues is helpful in terms of orientation. It gives an idea of the big picture of Torah. But the idea that learning lots of Musar in order to correct character traits, seems a bit far fetched. That is why I think almost all Litvak yeshivas based in the Gra limited the amount of time of learning Musar to only 20 minutes before mincha and 15 min. before maariv. But I am not sure if there really is any  formulas that can help one come to good character. So learning Musar certainly seems like the best approach in that there simply does not seem to be any other approach at all.

 I can see that without Musar people tend to understand Torah in ways that are idolatry in the guise of Torah. 

So for those with resources, the best idea is that original idea of Rav Israel Salanter to spend a lot of one's spare time in learning Musar.

Rav Nahman also noticed the issue that people can get the wrong idea easily about what really constitutes a "mitzvah". The is the very first Torah lesson in his LeM that היצר הרע מתלבש במצוות the evil inclinations disguises itself in mitzvot -

There are still some things that I am not clear about in Eruvin page 82

 There are still some things that I am not clear about in Eruvin page 82. However I thought to at least jot down the basic issues.

The Mishna there says one can make a eruv for boundaries the day before Shabat and the person has to accept it while still day. The Gemara asks that that sounds like there is "no choice that works in reverse", for if there would be choice, then one could make the eruv in the day and at night the person that it is made for can accept it and it would be known in reverse that it was ok with him even during the day. Rav Ashi answers and says really there is choice and here we are talking about when they let the person know  that the eruv is being made but he did not accept it until night.

The problem is that אין חבין לאדם שלא מדעתו. One can not make an acquisition for another that causes him harm unless it is with his knowledge. [And an eruv is in that category since he loses the right to walk on Shabat in all directions except 2000 amot from the eruv.]

Now since from the Torah there is "no choice in reverse", the answer of Rav Ashi is only going according to the opinion "there is choice". The issue is not if there is choice when it comes to a eruv. Rather the question is can it be revealed after the fact that the direction chosen to place the eruv was good for the person--i.e. the direction he wanted to walk it on Shabat. It is not a question if the eruv is valid in one direction or another Rather if this direction is a good thing for that person.

Thus the Rif and Rosh both leave out the answer of Rav Ashi. That is how Rav Shach explains the Raavad over in laws of eruv. [chapter 6:23]

The  question in Eruvin 82  is about if that direction is good. That is different than  the issue of a person that makes his own eruv and says, "If the wise man comes in that direction, then my eruv is in that direction. And if in the other direction, then my eruv is in that other direction." Now in this last case, there is no doubt that one can make his own eruv even in a direction he does not want to go. So the only question is "retrograde choice " in eruv which we know is ok. That is different from one making an eruv for someone else, and that someone else deciding later on shabat that that is the direction he wants to go. 

The Raavad is brought in the Rashba and Ritva on page 82b. The Rambam seems to be going with Rashi. The issue is this: retrograde choice is valid for laws from the sages but not for laws from the Torah. So the way Rashi and the Rambam look at this is that the one for whom the eruv was made can decide later which direction he wants to walk in and that in reverse means that the eruv that was made from him was good. To the Rif, Rosh and Raavad this would only work for the the law of eruv. Not for something which is a liability for which the law of retrograde choice is that it would not work.

In the approach of Rav Natan, the disciple of Rav Nahman there is an emphasis to stay away from all secular learning, I think you can see in the LeM of Rav Nahman itself a somewhat different approach. This you can see in the first Torah lesson to להסתכל בהשכל שיש בכל דבר ולהתקשר להשם  על ידי השכל שיש בכל דבר to look at the wisdom that is in all things and to become attached to God by means of the wisdom that is in all things. But a vast majority of secular learning is pseudo science and so you can see why Rav Natan was taking the approach to avoid all secular learning all together. 

But since the Ran [Rav Nahman] himself had the approach of seeing the wisdom that is in each thing, it seem to me that this corresponds to the rishonim [medieval authorities] that held one ought to learn Physics [which meant at that time the book Physics of Aristotle and the related subject matter]. 

The approach of the rishonim however was not simply that book of Aristotle, but rather the subject matter. Even during the middle ages the subject was developing.

The switch from worship of gods to worship of dead people

 There is a sort of switch from worship of gods to worship of dead people in the religious world. And this is to be expected since the nature of the evil inclination changes according to the times. Even in ancient Greece the nature of the different gods of Olympus changed in time. [Especially Hera.] Drastically. So idolatry is definitely not stationary. Just that the religious world ought to be more careful about this issue than is found currently. In the case of a עיר הנידחת [a city that has gone after idolatry] there is no need to see if every person is guilty of worshipping an idol. All you need is a majority of the people. That is enough to determine that the whole city must be destroyed. Thus with the religious world that worships dead people. You do no need to weigh the beliefs of every person. It is enough to see that "if it looks like a duck, and wobbles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is  a duck." That means in a practical sense that one ought to stay away from the religious world, least he or she be caught up in the punishment that will eventually follow them. [As the Gemara says about those people in the city that has gone after idolatry.]

 The Gra  signed the letter of excommunication and was ignored and so this problem has just grown larger and larger over time. Maybe it is time to stop all the pictures of so called tzadikim. It it had merely been a matter of  a few pictures of the Gra or Rav Shach to remind one to learn Torah. But once you let pictures of true tzadikim like the Gra then that makes room for all the frauds. But now the worship of dead people has gotten way out of hand. Maybe it is time to get back to straight monotheism. Worship of God alone. And the problem is exasperated by the fact that is it is the people that wear of the religious clothes that are supposed to make us think that they are learning and keeping Torah. They are the ones worshipping dead people. 

What I think is that getting back to straight worship of God alone.

[However I should make clear that Rav Nahman's teachings I find invaluable and important and this critique on the religious world is not meant to be extended to Rav Nahman.]

music files x92

x92 D major mp3 file

 x92 D major midi

x91 music

 x91 G major mp3  x91 in midi format  x91 nwc format

x90 D minor mp3 

x90 midi