I am not absolutely completely against kabalah. A lot depends on when and how  and what. For example I hold strongly with the Ari --Isaac Luria and with a few other mystics like Rץ Avraham Abulafia. Even the Zoharת I hold like Rav Yaaov Emden that studied its authenticity, and came to the conclusion that some parts of it were derived from ancient sources, while a lot was written during the Middle Ages [as you can see easily from the phrase "im kal da" עם כל דא (although) a translation of עם כל זה which was invented by Ibn Tibon

In fact, the different great mystics after the Ari I learned a lot from, Rav shalom sharabi, rav yakov abukazeira, the Gra and Moshe Chaim Lutzato 

Ultra religious Jewish teaching is derived from the teachings of Shabtai Zvi and Natan the false prophet.

 The importance of musar [books on Torah ethics written during the middle ages] is that without it it is impossible to gain any sort of correct idea of what the values of Torah are. What you get without musar is religious fanaticism or an array of  assorted delusions.

 The Middle Ages were much more rigorous in defining Torah values.

One reason for this that books of Torah ethics during the middle ages were logically derived from the Oral Law [Talmud] and Written Law. Books that were written later generally are derived from mysticism. some of that might be ok to some degree. But most often it is derived from the teachings of shabtai zvi and Natan the false prophet. I do not like to go into this in detail but the material is readily available to anyone who want to look up the sources.

[Once mysticism gets mixed with Torah, things tend to go downhill.  ]

 

"the gods that avenge parents"

 It is unfortunate that fathers have been getting negative press since Freud gained in popularity [May his name be blotted out]. It is to me no wonder that Rome rose to power. and until this very day, we are living in shadow of that colossus--because from the very foundation of Rome, fathers. were honored. [as per the twelve tablets].

This in particular you can see in the very event that caused Rome to become the sort of political system that they had--to refused to have a king, but rather two consuls that were elected by the people, and could hold office only one year.

[The elections were by the people, but consuls still could be elected only from the patricians until later in the Republic.]

The event was Lucretia  whose father was the king , Servius. It all started when Tarquin too power and became absolute ruler. He was married with a daughter of Servius who road over the bones of her father in a chariot. Later a son of Tarquin raped Lucretia who committed suicide in response. Brutus [not the same one] swore that. by "the gods that avenge parents".there would never again reign a king in Rome, and to wipe out the entire family of Tarquin. 

 One of the lessons I learned from my son Izhaak [aka nachman] i learning in depth. And I have been trying to concentrate on that. But I can see that in math and physics  every chapter builds on the previous chapter. Thus just to review one chapter a lot of times does not help. so I reached a sort of compromise of lot of review on one chapter but also go back to all the previous one. --every day one chapter back. But also to do "bekiut" to have some sessions of just saying the words in order and going forward.  

Faith and reason. In both there needs to be a sifting out of the chaff and leaving the pure wheat. And in this they work together. Reason can tell us what is reasonable to believe in. And faith can tell us what starting axioms can be used to start the reasoning process. 

In both faith and reason there are tons of garbage that need to be sifted out and thrown out. In both there are tons of pure garage for every small seed of truth. That is the reason I have been emphasizing Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and physics and math. This has been in the hope that people would get the idea of concentrating on the pure inner core of Torah and the natural sciences.

In philosophy I have mentioned Leonard Nelson for the same reason. [Leonard Nelson did not actually agree with Otto to use immediate non intuitive knowledge to justify faith. He was using it to justify the 12 categories of Kant.   I mean to say that the things in themselves are not knowable by reason but we can know the categories of where when how and what as starting axioms.  We can reason about them because they fall under the category of conditions of possible experience, ]   These are I admit Kantian categories but Kant I feel is unavoidable. While in the Middle Ages--for Saadia Gaon, Josef Ibn Pakuda, Maimonides Aristotle was the highest peak  of Reason still there are difficulties that need to be worked out. The problem in Aristotle are two that I know of: the contradiction about universals in the Metaphysics [I forget the issue of  hand but it was mentioned in Marc Cohen's article on Aristotle in the Stanford Encyclopedia] and the problems noted by Bishop Berkeley and also in Thomas Reid .      

 In the middle ages there was an acceptance of the importance of faith and reason. This you can see in the parable of the king in the Guide for the Perplexed. There is a country and city of a king and palace. In this parable there are different levels of closeness with the king. Those outside the country are barbarians. Those that live in the country are those with proper laws. There are even people in the capital city that are closer to the king. Those that are near the palace are the 'Talmudim" those that learn and keep the Talmud. Those that are in the palace of the king are the physicists. Those that are in the inner chambers with the king are the prophets.

This same approach can be seen in the Obligation of the Hearts.

Rambam laws of theft chapter 1 halacha 15

  Rambam laws of theft chapter 1 halacha 15: when a thief  has broken an object or it has gone down in value by itself, we do not evaluate the loss in value for a thief, but rather  the value the whole object and pay back double of what it was worth. \The Raavad writes "Even though 'We do not evaluate for a thief', that is for the main value, but for the double we do evaluate as is the law for a robber."  

The Raavad says the law of the thief and the robber are the same in terms of the main value. [The robber does not pay double]. And we already know the law for both the thief and the robber is they pay back according to what the object was worth at the time of the theft or robbery, not the time he is standing before the court. So the Raavad must mean that for the double we evaluate at the time of standing before the court. But the Rambam already wrote this in chapter 1 law 14. And the Raavad knows this. So he must be understanding the Rambam means to pay back cash for the whole value, while the Raavad holds one can pay back in whatever is worth money for the double.

I mean to  say that the Raavad understands the Rambam to intend like the Yerushalmi  that the thief pays back whole vessels or money while the Raavad himself hold that only refers to the main value but for the double he can pay back whatever is has monetary value.

_______________________________________________________________________________

רמב''ם  הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה ט''ו  when a גנב  has broken an object or it  went down in value by itself, we do not evaluate the loss in value the for a thief, but rather  the value the whole object and pay back double of what it was worth. \The  ראב''ד writes "Even though 'We do not evaluate for a thief', that is for the main value, but for the double we do evaluate as is the law for a robber."  

The ראב''ד''   says the law of the thief and the robber are the same in terms of the main value. And we already know the law for both the thief and the robber is they pay back according to what the object was worth at the time of the theft or robbery, not the time he is standing before the court. So the  ראב''ד must mean that for the double we evaluate at the time of standing before the court. But the רמב''ם already wrote this in   הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד'. And the  ראב''ד knows this. So he must be understanding the רמב''ם means to pay back cash for the whole value, while the  ראב''ד holds one can pay back in whatever is שווה כסף for the double.

I mean to  say that the ראב''ד understands the  רמב''ם to intend like the ירושלמי  that the thief pays back כלים שלמים or money while the ראב''ד himself hold that only refers to the main value, but for the double, he can pay back whatever is has monetary value.

רמב''ם הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה ט''ו כאשר גנב שבר חפץ או שהוא ירד בערכו מעצמו, אין אנו מעריכים את הפסד הערך, אלא את הערך של כל החפץ ומחזיר כפול ממה שהיה שווה. הראב''ד כותב "אף על פי שאיננו מעריכים לגנב, זה על הערך העיקרי, אבל על הכפל אנו מעריכים כדין שודד,

. הראב''ד אומר שדין הגנב והגזלן זהים מבחינת הערך העיקרי. [[השודד לא משלם כפול]] וכבר ידוע לנו הדין הן לגנב והן לגזלן הוא שמחזירים לפי מה שהיה שווה החפץ בשעת הגניבה או הגזל, לא הזמן שהוא עומד בפני בית הדין. אז הראב''ד חייב להתכוון שלכפל אנו מעריכים בזמן עמידה בפני בית המשפט. אבל כבר כתב את זה הרמב''ם בהלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. והרב''ד יודע זאת. אז הוא בטח מבין שהרמב''ם מכוון להחזיר מזומן עבור כל הערך, בעוד שהראב''ד מחזיק אפשר להחזיר בכל מה שהוא שווה כסף עבור הכפל\

כוונתי לומר שהראב''ד מבין את הרמב''ם שהוא מהתכוון כמו הירושלמי שהגנב מחזיר כלים שלמים או כסף בזמן שהראב''ד עצמו מחזיק שזה מתייחס רק לערך העיקרי, אבל לכפל הוא יכול להחזיר כל מה שיש לו ערך כספי

my little booklet on Bava Metzia chapter 8 and chapter 9  I am putting in the link to my booklet for people who might like to learn it. But this little paragraph here I just added today.