music z40

 z40 G Minor  same piece in nwc

getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work

 If only all yeshivot would be on the level of Ponovitch or Brisk [the Ivy league].where Torah is learned for its own sake. But outside of the few great Litvak yeshivot, most people use Torah to make money. And I mean this in the widest possible extent. I mean even judges. "A judge that takes a salary for judging all his judgments are null and void." שבר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] does not count because it has to be שדר הניכר [Visible salary]. He can not say "I could have been an astronaut, but instead I learn Torah So I should get the salary of an astronaut.] [I have heard a person in kollel actually tell me as much.] 

{The idea of שכר בטלה [payment for taking time out of his regular job,] is this. A judge can judge a case for free. And if he receives money for judging it, the verdict is null--and he pays from his own pocket. But if he has a regular job and two people want him to take out time to judge their case they can pay him שכר הניכר [Visible salary]. That is if he gets 10 dollars an hour on his regular job then he can be paid 10 dollars an hour for judging that case. But it has to be  areal job. Not a job that he thinks he could have had.

So using this idea to answer for people getting a salary for learning Torah or even judges does not work.

To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

In Torah midot tovot good character is the main thing. This You can see in the books of Musar which brings many proofs for this fact. [Midot Tovot good character means to be a kind decent human being.]  And so it seems that at all clear that the religious world as a whole is really keeping Torah. They surely keep rituals. Bur who says that that is the main thing? When in need you are more likely to get help from secular Jews or gentiles rather than the religious to whom you are barely human .

You might see propaganda trying to show how the religious are all so lovey dovey. But that is just propaganda. The reality is the opposite.

[The shock of this realization can be a heart breaking and traumatic event. When one realizes that  his or her's minds was being played with. 

[Some of the places where you can see the prime directive of good character is in the classical books of Musar of the Middle Ages אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, חובות הלבבות, מעלות המידות, ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם,

Sadly they get away with this fraud because no one objects. And I believe that in such a case one is obligated to object. To object to wrong actions is important as we see in the Concubine of Give where the whole tribe of Binyamin was punished because they did not object and also the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtz in Gitin

 Honor of ones parents means to walk in their ways and to obey them as Confucius saw clearly. How could one possibly think  that he is honoring his (or her) parents while not listening to them? And what I must add is important about this? It is that ones inner light comes from the mother and the outer protective light comes from the father. [As you can see in the Rav Isaac Luria in the Gate of Gilgulim (I think that is where I recall this from)]. So you might be more aware of your connection with your mother since that is inside of you and less aware of your connection with your father. After all the later only surrounds you as a sort of protective cover. [The connection with one's father only becomes apparent after he is not in this world any more. That is when the protective cover disappears.]

Thus, I see this emphasis on finding what is wrong in one's parents in the West as a sort of evil inclination. One of the obstacles one must face in order to find the way to do what is right.

 Religious leaders always emphasize how they know more than your parents. That is one reason why Rav Nahman said most religious leaders are "תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים"(Torah scholars that are demons).

 I was in the Breslov place nearby today and that is why I was listening as they were learning the LeM  vol II perek 7. The interesting thing is that Rav Nahman holds that by saying the words that one is learning the learning enters the mind.

But this saying of the words does not have to be aloud. It can also be in a whisper. But the words need to be said. If I had known this in high school I might have gone into physics or math. After all this method of saying the words and going on would have helped me enormously. But I was not aware of this method at that time.

People in philosophy tend to lose common sense

People in philosophy tend to lose common sense. I am not sure why this is. Maybe it is because they are so smart that they start to build in their minds all these strange utopias in the sky. They think "If only we could make the perfect classless society like Marx, then everyone would have plenty of stuff.] They tend to forget the Marx was tried. It did not result in plenty of stuff. The reason why Marx was never attractive for me  was that I had heard in school about the scientific method. That is: that no matter how wonderful an idea sounds and is worked out in every detail, still if it predicts a certain result and that result does not come to pass, the theory is wrong.

The same goes for psychology. After trillions of dollars of government money, have they ever cured even one single person of anything? If you want to make someone insane, send him to a psychologist.

[ I thought to add here one point. That is this is why the Friesian School of Kelley Ross has always impressed me very greatly--because not just that his approach based on Kant, Fries and Nelson has some major advances in philosophical thought but also he seems to be the only philosopher with common sense. (I am not sure why this is.  I am thinking that mainly the great thing about this approach is more based on Ross than on Fries or Nelson. It is as if Ross went to collect the important points of Fries and then the important points of Nelson and Schopenhauer and made his own structure. He calls it the Friesian School. But it seems like a vast improvement on Fries or even Nelson.]

Why is Fries important? Because of the thing in itself. The question about this is if we can not know anything about it then we can not know it exists. So Hegel simply said we can know about it because our minds are all part of Logos.(There is no dinge an sich because all Being is rational) [Neo Platonism ] Fries said we know the thing in itself by means of a kind of knowledge that is not by reason nor by the senses. So we know about electrons that they exist and also properties based on mathematics and Physics which also have to start with basic axioms that can not be proved. 

LeM of Rav Nahman

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov [and Uman] it is brought [vol II. perek 7] that R. Eliezer was on the level of son, while R.Yehoshua was on the level of servant. That is to say there is a tzadik who serves God on the level of son and another who serves God on the level of servant. And the level of son is איה מקום כבודו [like the question the serafim angels ask: "Where is the place of His Glory?"] The level of serving God like a servant is on the level of מלוא כל הארץ כבודו [that is the statement of the ophanim angels: "The whole world is full of his glory."] 

And there Rav Nahman explains that even the tzadik who serves God on the level of son should still be aware of the level of "The whole world is full of his glory." And the tzadik that serves God on the level of servant should also be aware of the question "Where is the place of His Glory?" which shows when one reaches a higher level in the service of God, the more he knows how much more of a way there is to go. 

I think this balance is a lesson for each person. Even as we gain in understanding in Torah, we ought to retain the knowledge of how far we really are. And yet not be so discouraged as to think progress in impossible.