Communism says property is theft. I say communism is theft. The anti establishment hippies were out to take down the system. Until they became the system.

 And in spite of the USA being built on the John Locke idea, still the idea of loving mother nature was definitely in the air in the 60's and people wanted to get away from the rat race to nature. and what American family did not have its weekend camping trips and vacations? And part of this back to Nature ideal is the mysticism of the 60's. The idea that there is more to man than rational man. And this hippie back to nature and love of mysticism is what drove the 60's and it is what drives people today to get involved with Breslov


This tension. Locke versus Rousseau. The hippies versus the establishment. Ultimately was the same as the USSR (the system built of the revolutionary ideas and the General Will of the people )  against the USA (the system built on John Locke and individual rights). Yet in American home everyone became a back to nature freak on the weekends and a John Locke working guy on Monday morning. I just could not make the transfer to Monday mornings very well. . Ultimately Rousseau was not right. Nature is not benign. But John Locke was wrong also about some important matters. "Tabla raca"-give me a break! Neither were right but both were right about some things.

Appendix:
The difference between a John Locke society and a Rousseau type is the first is a set and the later is a group with some type of group operation between the members. But if that was all there was to it then the John Locke approach does not seem to have anything going for it. Just a bunch of isolated members? What is is so great about that? Well nothing on its own. But one thing we do get in a John Locke society is "ought" not "must." Morality and human relationship boil down to their true essence--"ought" not "must." In a society based on Rousseau all there is is "must." And this is not just in theory but in practice also.
So I have to side with John Locke all the same. Since the essence of morality is "ought" and the attempted forcing of people to give to others is not moral.
And with Rousseau the individual has no rights. The only authority is the collective will of the masses. And the collective will of the masses is a monster, not a pleasant puppy.

Communism says property is theft. I say communism is theft.
The anti establishment hippies were out to take down the system. Until they became the system.

An amazing amount of ideas from Natan the false prophet of Shabatai Tzvi found their way into Orthodox Judaism. Rav Ovadia Joseph was aware of this and tried to protect the Sephardi world from the most pernicious aspects of it. But for the most part people reading mystical Ashenazic books from Orthodox Judaism get enough and too much of it.  The best advice is anything that smacks of mysticism in Ashkenazic books written after Reb Chaim Vital--don't go anywhere near them. [The exceptions to this would be the Gra (Eliyahu from Vilnius and his disciple Reb Chaim) and the Ramchal (Moshe Chaim Lutzato),]
But if you want verification you could check out some of the research into this being done at Hebrew University. I discovered this independently but apparently the professors over there have written a few papers on this subject. I think Joseph Dan, but I forget.
The new book of collected writings of Gershom Sholem has some references to these newer papers in the back.
This is a sensitive problem because there are saints/tzadikim that might borrow unknowingly some motifs, but still be actual tzadikim. It is not an accusation you want to be throwing around when ever something looks a little weird. In fact, the more normal some group seems on the outside, the more suspicious I am. An extra emphasis on rituals make me wonder what are they hiding underneath the facade.
___________________________________________________________________________

 Talking with God where ever you are. Not in any formal way but as one talks with his friend.
) Learning fast. To have short sessions every day in Torah in this manner. That is to take the Old Testament and read it word for word -a few pages in one session- out loud.  Then take a Mishna and start from Brachot and say it word for word -also a few pages. And then take the Gemara and say it also word for word a few pages. And the same with the writings of the Ari. Then [based on the ideas of Maimonides] i say to learn then the work of creation -Physics, Mathematics,  Chemistry (What the Rambam calls  Physics includes Chemistry).

) When one has fallen and wants to come back into wholesomeness, they place a person that  fears G-d in the door to prevent him from coming back into holiness. This applies to Breslov itself which is the most difficult obstacle to overcome. Just when one has discovered some amazing advice and wants to start doing it, there will always be Breslov Hasid there to tell him that he does not really understand or that he should run to some grave of some tzadik --or other things. Like the Litvaks used to say about Breslov "Anything but Torah."

  There was once a  student of Rav Isaac Hutner in Israel.
Rav Isaac Hutner had already started  Chaim Berlin in N.Y.

  This student got involved in Breslov.
Rav Hutner called him into his office and told him it is one or the other,  "If you are going to be Breslov, you can't learn here."
When he was called in Rav Hutner had a Guide For The Perplexed on his desk. In Breslov that is equivalent to having the most offensive book possible in front of your face.

  I have a reason for bringing this story here. It is not what one would think. This student was showing up for the regular two sessions of the --morning and afternoon but he would go to Breslov [Rechov Salant] to pray at night. Rav Hutner did not have a problem with that.
Nor did he have a problem with Nachman from Breslov and Uman. He said if it would happen that someone would find  a book of  Nachman that had been hidden, he would not sleep until he got a copy of it. And for a whole year his main learning besides Gemara was the Lekutai Moharan of  Nachman of Breslov. (In Chaim Berlin it was on his learning shtender [desk] a entire year.)
  The point is rather that Brelsov is a cult. They use the greatness of  Nachman and his advice to draw people into their cult.  And the cult of Breslov has nothing to do with Torah or with  Nachman.
The advice and ideas of  Nachman are used as conscious  traps to lure people in.

   A few months went by a the student was a wandering American student  in Israel in a time when there was no such entity. Lost and forlorn. Eventually Rav Freifeld called Rav Hunter and begged him to let him back in.
  The thing to understand here that you do not see on the surface level of this story is that Rav Hutner was building a kind of Noah's Ark. Not before the flood (the world outside of Torah), but after the flood is already here. And this student was part of the inner circle. He was being groomed for greatness you might say. I can relate to this because I had a similar type of relationship with Rav Freifeld until I too upset the boat.


  There is a lot to discuss here and I have made this essay to short. I hope to fill in some gaps for people but I have had  along day and I had plenty of other things I wanted to discuss on the Internet like the offering the high priest has to bring in he does idolatry by accident. Also the subject of Israel Salanter. Also the Aristotelian approach of the Rambam and the Neo-Platonic of the Ramban (Nachmanides, רמב''ן).The way to differentiate when you are talking is to say "Ramban" with the accent on the last syllable, and Rambam with emphasis on the first.

Belief in a Tzadik

In terms of the status of a tzadik [saint] and how important it is to be close to him or her in order to achieve the Garden of Eden (or be saved from eternal damnation) seems to be an argument among different people. That is not only do they argue about whom is the tzadik that one should believe in, but even if you get a whole group of people that believe in one particular tzadik, it is difficult to get them to agree on how much one should believe in that tzadik. 

Some would suggest a strong position. That believing in chasidut is everything and one who does not believe is damned. Others might take weak position. That it is good to believe, but not so essential as the more radical opinion.

Then,  is the question: "What exactly is it one is supposed to believe about the tzadik?" Or who could be considered a valid line of tradition coming from him? Or who is a valid disciple, and who is a bad disciple?

But if we look at the Torah itself, we do not find that believing in any tzadik is essential.

The Torah itself looks like a very radical kind of Monotheism.

If we look in the Rambam/Maimonides it seems clear that the Torah was willing to make concessions for people in order to bring them to radical monotheism. (E.g, service in the Temple was so people don't go and offer sacrifices to idols instead.) It looks like the opinion of the Torah is pure unadulterated Monotheism and yet she is willing to make allowances for human frailty.
There is a debate in fact about this. Some people hold that the Torah is already radical monotheism. Others hold the Torah is intending to lead people to radical monotheism  but  that she is willing to make allowances for people that need help to get there. You can probably think of plenty of examples on your own but let me just mention one that comes to mind right now. Elimelech was the king of the Philishtim (Phoenicians) and he was visited by God in a dream and told to go to Avraham [Abraham] to ask Avraham to pray for him. You could say that it would have been better for him to pray to God directly but God knew he was not going to do so, so he told him to ask Avraham. Jacob said "The angel that has saved me from all my troubles should bless the children." Who was this angel? And would not this count as praying to a Mediator? [And the Rambam considered praying to a mediator is the very essence of idolatry]

 

When the Sanhedrin makes a mistake and allows idolatry [or any other of the 42 types of sin for which one brings a sin offering] and there is a person תלמיד שהגיע להוראה that knows they made  a mistake and depends on their decision, then he has to bring his own sacrifice.  [That is the first teaching (Mishna משנה) in tractate Horayot הוריות] But if he actually knows it is forbidden is not he doing it on purpose? (You can't bring a sacrifice for doing a sin on  purpose). The Gemara says it means he thought mistakenly that there is mitzvah to listen to the Sanhedrin even when you know they are wrong. But since there is no such mitzvah, he must bring a sin offering. This is not what you hear in Shabat table Judaism.


But also this brings up the interesting subject of what  the Mishna means by a disciple that has reaches the ability to make a decision [תלמיד שהגיע להוראה]. The Gemara explains this means he has finished Shas [Talmud] and understands it (גמיר וסביר).


At any rate to get to the one point I have been trying to get to through this essay. the two points of Reb Chaim from Voloshin. [Disciple of the Gra]. No favoritism  in decision making. And the law of the Gemara.
This came up in a letter he wrote to a famous rabbi who had made a halacha decision Reb Chaim knew was wrong. He points out in the\ letter he is only interested in the law Gemara. And also that he does not care who makes a halacha decision not like the Gemara. They are wrong period. And this relates to what I was saying at the beginning of this essay. Ordination stopped after Yehuda the prince and Ravina and Rav Ashi were the end of horah the end of the period of decision making (סוף הוראה)
The Maharshal quotes the Rambam about this idea that the period of decision making ended with the last amoraim. And this gives this idea extra weight since the Maharshal was no fan of the Mishna Torah of the Rambam. The fact that people today can claim halachic authority going back to Sinai and are not laughed out of town shows how far we have fallen.

Now here is where this essay should have started-on the question of how to determine a  particular law based on the Talmud and poskim. But I have had a long day. In short what responsible people do is  learn the Gemara with the Rosh and then the Tur with the Beit Yoseph. And that seems in fact to the best way in a practical sense. But to go into the whole topic right now is difficult.

 Basically the Gemara gives the rules for how the decision is reached when you are in a Mishna. Also there are a few rules in the Gemara itself to decide between Amoraim. The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch  almost always disagree with the decision of the Shulchan Aruch ( שלחן ערוך) based on the Gemara itself or what they call the "poskim" which in their terminology means Rishonim [medieval authorities]. The term was misappropriated for Achronim and is now used as a weasel word.