faith in Rav Shach and the Gra

With Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov there is a kind of רצוא ושוב -going up and then falling back process towards the truth. But Hegel has a different kind of process in which one goes back and forth between two extremes and by a process of synthesis rises up to the next level. I can see both kind of processes at work in my own life. For a certain period when I was at the Mir in NY--I felt I was in a kind of רצוא  state. [Going up] I was involved in learning Gemara [the Oral and written Law] and also Musar. Then coming to Israel certainly helped accelerate that process. But then came the period of falling away. And in that period I learned a thing or two about reality and the truth and the importance of Rav Shach and the Gra.

So I have learned a lot. But the lessons have been hard to put into writing. I would like to find a way of expressing the importance of the straight Litvak path [the Gra and Rav Shach, and Rav Israel Salanter--Musar] but along with that to show a synthesis with Rav Nahman and also the path of my parents (to emphasize good character and also to learn Physics and Mathematics as also brought in most rishonim based on Saadia Gaon]

So far I have not been able to find for myself any kind of simple way to explain the difficulties and the kind of synthesis that I am looking for. It is a kind of path of balance. To learn from the great sages of the past but also the greater need for common sense to discern who is worth listening to as opposed to who is actually from the Dark Side. In terms of this kind of common sense it seems to me that even for one who lacks that kind of sense still faith in Rav Shach and the Gra to believe that they knew what they were talking about can make up for the difference of what one lacks.

Natural law itself is actually brought openly in the gemara.

Natural law itself is actually brought openly in the gemara. It forms the basic of the debate between the sages and R Shimon ben Yochai if we go by the reason for the commandment or by the literal meaning. [See e.g. Bava Metzia page 119.] So everyone agrees there is a known and rational reason for every commandment except for the red heifer.  

Bava Kama page 85

I have not had a chance to take a good look at it yet but in Bava Kama there is brought on circa page 85 the subject of compensations for physical injury.

One thing that has to be paid for is (נזק (היזק בלשון הגמרא that is the actual damage. This is evaluated in this way. We look at the fellow as if he was a slave being sold in the marketplace. And the actual damage is let's say that it is some kind of injury in which he can not work as well as he could without the injury. The difference is what the amount of damages that have to be paid. But there is also the pain and the cost of the doctors and the שבת time that he can not work. That is we look at him as if he is guarding a potato patch and he gets paid for that

So what comes up in Nahmanides [The Ramban] in his questions on the Baal HaMeor--what if the guy is a nuclear physicist? So clearly if he is a slave with a PhD no one cares about the PhD. If they will buy him, they will buy him to work on their cotton crops. Not their nuclear physics projects.


This issue comes up in Nachmanides and it seems to be the source of his question on the Baal HaMeor. So he says that in fact if he was working before the accident as a nuclear physicist then that is part of the assessment of the damages. That is how the Ramban explains Rava in the gemara over on page 85. [The actual mishna I think is on page 83].

But again I have to apologize because I have not had a chance yet to take  a good look at this subject. I just am saying over what I could gather from the little time I had to glance at it. [There seems to be some reason I do not have the merit to learn Torah.]

הלא יראתך כסלתיך

הלא יראתך כסלתיך from the book of Job. "Is not your fear your stupidity?" Rav Nahman of Breslov brings this verse in his book the LeM 154 to show that fear of God needs to be coupled with intelligence. In another place in the LeM he also brings this verse to show that faith in  a tzadik needs to be coupled with Intelligence. [Daat].

From this it is possible to see how fear of God can get a person off track when it is done without common sense.

It is hard to know how to accomplish this. It does not seem to be a matter of what you learn alone. But I think it helps. For if a person has a faulty idea of what the big picture is--it puts him at a disadvantage to even know between right and wrong.

The closest I can see to aa balanced approach to Torah and fear of God is tat of the Gra and Rav Shach. That is to combine lerning Gemara with the Musar approach of Rav Israel Salanter

Gemara Brachot page 2 side a

The Mishna starts out מאמתי קוראים את השמע בערבית? בשעה שהכוהנים נכנסים לאכול בתרומתם. When does one say the Shema at night? Answer: when the priest come to eat their truma

The Gemara Brachot says we need the mishna to tell us that כפרה אינה מעכבת מלאכול בתרומה. Bringing the sacrifices that one is required as an atonement do not stop a priest from eating Trumah. [They were learning this in the Na Nach Breslov group today when I walked in in the morning]. I asked that most priest do not have to bring a sacrifice for an atonment. So the Mishna can easily be talking about regular priests that have touched something like a lizard. [i.e. a dead lizard]. So they have to go to a natural body of water and then wait until nightfall. And the Mishna might simply be saying that הערב שמש [waiting for nightfall] is needed.

My question is based on the fact that lots of people need to bring a sin offering for lots of different things. [There are about 43 of these things.] Also a Zav or zava or a leper. The point of the rule that the need to bring a sin offering does not stop a person from eating truma. But it would stop a person from eating any kind of sacrifice. --and it would be Karet if he would eat a sacrifice under such circumstances.


Tosphot does not deal with this question but asks a different question that this rule we know from somewhere else.

So I am thinking perhaps this rule that a kohen needs nightfall and to dip into a natural body of water from ealsewhere also? So that the only possible new idea of the mishna would be to tell us that bringing a sacrifce does not stop one from eating truma.


[The basic idea of the Gemara itselfbefore I got to my question is this. Did the fellow already go to a natural body of water the previous day and then today bring his sacrifices? Then he would have been able to eat the truma today. So it must be he did not bring his sacrifices yet and still afetr he has gone to a natural body of water and then waited until nightfall he is allowed to eat truma.. So we see אין הכפרה מעכבת מלאכול בתרומה.]

So the fact that someone is religious --in the sense that the religious world takes it to mean--has nothing to do with the question if they are a decent human being-.

Morality and one's belief system are two separate areas of value. Even if they are related they are still dealing with different subject matter.  So the fact that someone is religious --in the sense that the religious world takes it to mean--has nothing to do with the question if they are a decent human being-. In fact it was this revelation that caused me to be less enchanted with the religious world.

Furthermore it seems to me that the amount of mental energy that people put into religious observance seems to take away how much energy they can put into being decent people.

You can see in the writings of Rav Israel Salanter and also the events of his life that he wanted to solve this problem. It could be that he had succeeded to some degree in the Litvak yeshiva world--where his teachings were more or less accepted. 

too many pictures in the religious world

There are too many pictures in the religious world. This seems to have seeped in slowly. But it is common now. It probably has something to do with the natural human need for some idol. Everyone in the religious world worships some idol-but it is however called a "tzadik" (saint). [The problem would be even if the saint was actually saintly. But in fact the reverse seems to be the case most often.]