"So modern Israel is not supposed to defend itself against those whose serious, deadly, stated goal is to destroy them corporately and individually? Then why were they commanded to fight for it under Joshua?
Why did God help them in the seven wars since their founding to survive? Why shouldn't they use all the land they liberated in these wars they did not start or provoke? Beautiful thoughts about Christ's eventual reign over ALL does nothing to answer today's dilemmas. HE will prevail, and perhaps we in the West should attend to our own house rather than attempt to direct Israel. Certainly we need to make a lot of changes!"


The  blog itself  said  this: "It is for this reason that Paul would have scratched his head over the current Evangelical fascination with the modern secular state of Israel and its supposedly Bible-mandated right to do what it pleases with Palestine and its inhabitants. This way of reading the Bible misses the whole point of the story; it robs the biblical narrative of its climax."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/11/what-would-the-apostle-paul-think-about-evangelicals-and-the-conflict-in-palestine/

That is to say since the Torah predicts a future time of peace in the world Jews should let themselves be slaughtered.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Unless  people's idea of universal peace is: "No Jews"



In other words when Christians talk about learning the Bible they usually mean not the Old Testament, but the New Testament. And when they talk about the NT they mean Paul. And when they talk about Paul they mean the Book of Hebrews (not by Paul and highly anti-Torah. And being anti-Torah makes it anti-Jew because all we Jews have is Torah. Torah is not a burden to us. It is the greatest gift we have from God). On one hand it is nice they accept the Old Testament, but they get into theological difficulties trying to get Paul and the Torah to correspond. Some people however did a fairly decent job putting it all together like Aquinas and Anselm and a few writers  from the end of the Roman Empire.]
Sometimes I get the impression that some Christians would be happier if Jews all would just disappear. And then they would Gan Eden right here on Earth. And of course with no Palestinian problem then they Muslims would be their best friends.

But this should not be understood to mean they have nothing. They have  a lot. And the way I see it what they have that is good comes from the Torah.  For I think all good comes from the Torah. So when they learn Torah and take to heart the commandments of God they do well. There are no favorites in this respect.
But it is not just reading the Torah. Rather I think the Torah is contained in everything. It is the hidden light of God. This is an idea that makes sense to me from my neo Platonic point of view. That is the real reality is up "there". "Here" is just some imperfect reflection.

And now that I am on a role about the Torah I would like to quote an important subject--the land of Israel.

We all know the disagreement between the Ramban and the Rambam if living in Israel is counted as one of the  613 commandments. But I wanted to point out that in the verse that the Rambam is bring as proof that it is it says, "If you get rid of the inhabitants, then you will be able to be  in the Land of Canaan. And if you don't get rid of them, you will not be able to stay. I am just paraphrasing it. But the idea is fairly simple even though it must offend some people. But since when is the word of God suppose to be politically correct?
_____________________________________________

I am thinking of deleting this essay because I think some people might see it as an attack on Christianity. I might have meant it more as a critique on the Book of Hebrews and to some degree on Paul also. To some people Paul is the very essence of Christianity. So they might be offended.  Now sometimes it is good to criticize people and sometimes not. Sometimes it is effective.  It seems to me it all depends on  a guess if the person one is talking to can accept it.  Since here I think  there are a significant number of Christians who are sincerely trying to be good people as the Torah defines good I might think twice about criticizing them.
 But it is a surprised to me that when the West is systematically being invaded by barbarian hordes from Africa and Muslims-- Christians can't find any problem except for the Jews.
I know Israel treats Muslims very well.  They have complete and equal right as anyone in Israel. But don't think Israel gets any credit for that. And the way I see it, Israel in fact gets no credit.  Why leave these murderous monsters in the midst of Jews. I say ship them all off to the Sudan. And why should the West get upset at Israel? If the West would be smart it would do exactly the same thing. Right now the West is being systematically destroyed by an invasion of Muslims

Abyee holds that one that serves a idol  from fear or love is liable. To the Rambam that means fear the idol might hurt him if he does not serve it. Love means love of its beauty. Rashi says it means fear or love of  a person. In any case the idea is that he is not accepting the idol as his god and still he is liable. Abyee go straight to the case of the high priest that has to bring a she goat if he serves an idol by accident. And Rabbi Yehua the Prince says it even if he serves the idol by accident without relying on a faulty legal decision. Abyee asks what kind of accident is this? If he bowed to a house of idols thinking it was synagogue his heart is towards heaven. If it is a statue then if he he does not know it is an idol and accepted it is he is liable the death penalty--not just a sin offering.
If he did not accept it then it is nothing. So he must have known. So if he knew then why is it an accident? It must be because he served it from fear or love an thought that that was allowed.
Why does Abyee go to Rabbi Yehuda the Prince and not the sages? Because They could say there is no such thing as accidental idolatry except in a case of relying on a faulty legal decision. That is the point I was trying to say yesterday. That is not only do they say the high priest only brings a she goat when he relies on a faulty legal decision but the individual also. I wanted to bring a proof for my idea from the beginning of tracate Horayot. There we have an argument if a individual depends on the decision of the great Sanhedrin [of 71 elders] to serve idols the he is liable to bring a sin offering [also a she goat]. [And the Rambam decided the law like the sages.] It is Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi that says he is not liable.
So what we have in the end of all this is that Abyee can't go to the Sages to get his proof. They could say there is no such thing as accidental idolatry {except relying on a bad legal advice}. What I mean is they probably don't say this. In fact I think it is true they do believe there is such a thing.
But we can't prove it. So Abyee has to go to Rabbi Yehuda.

Since I brought up idols my learning partner mentioned an interesting Meshech Chachmah
משך חכמה

That is the person Meir Simcha Hakohen that wrote the Or Sameiach on the Rambam. This is a book that is the final stage of Jewish thought until Reb Chaim Soloveitchik brought things to a climax in his Magnum Opus Chidushei HaRambam.
Reb Meir Simcha Hakohen  says that with all the miracles that happened because of Moses people might have attributed those miracles to Moses instead of to God. That is how he explains the sin of the spies.
Eldad and Medad had prophesied before that time that Moses would die and Joshua would lead the people to the Land of Israel. [Those were the two people that the spirit of God descended upon when Moshe appointed the Sanhedrin of 70 elders ].  That happened right before the incident of the spies. The spies knew this. They knew that Moses would not take them into the promised land. So they said without Moses it is impossible to enter the land of Israel "because the people there are more might than us." If they thought Moses would be with them this would not have made a difference. They attributed the miracles to Moses

Rabbi Israel Salanter intended there to be a House of Ethics [in every city] that would have books of ethics only, and that people could go into when ever they felt the need for character improvement.


But the books we are talking about here are not Meta Ethics--philosophical ideas about ethics. It is a very specific set of books. It is a two part cannon. Books from the Middle Ages which provide the backbone and intellectual framework. The next part of the set are the books from the direct disciples of Israel Salanter.




The focus of the movement was originally character improvement along with fear of God. [Or perhaps that is just my own interpretation of this movement based on one of the disciples of Rav Israel, Isaac Blazer]. Clearly Navardok thought the main thing is trust in God--along with learning Torah. Slabodka was the "greatness of man." Simcha Zissel had his own take which I never could figure out. [I tried to read his book  Chachma and Musar and could never make out a word.] Ponovicth in Bnei Brak can be considered to some degree to be an offshoot of Navardok ).

The nice thing for me about Musar was in terms of world view issues.

What I am suggesting here is The Musar Movement Act II. Or the Neo Musar Movement. And the idea would in fact be like the original idea of Houses of Ethics that would be open for everyone.
 Now the only time I ever saw an actual House of Ethics was in Netivot in Israel. That was in fact a separate room where people went to learn Musar, and I think in fact it did help people be better that they would otherwise have been.

Another nice thing about a House of Ethics is it is non-denominational. It is not Orthodox, Conservative or Reform. It is just plain traditional Jewish ethics. 

Sanhedrin 61

Abyee goes to the case of a high priest to prove his point that if one serves idols from love or fear, not because he accepts the idol as his god (מקבל עליה כאלוה), then he is liable.
That is he goes to a teaching which says that if you have a high priest that served an idol  by accident then he brings a sin offering only if he depended on his own legal decision or the legal decision of the Sanhedrin. (שגגת מעשה עם העלם דבר) Yehuda the Prince says you only need that he did the act by accident.שגגת מעשה What type of accident is this?
Abyee goes through the logical possibilities and arrives at the conclusion it can only be he know it was an idol but he served it from fear or love.
I wrote about this on the other blog wine women and transcendence but for now I wanted to focus on some thought I had today about this.
First I should mention that the proof of Abyee depends on Yehuda the prince. He can't go to the sages because they have an obvious case of mistake--the priest depended on a faulty legal decision.
At first, I thought to myself that this might explain why we don't go with Abyee in this case. After all the Gemara says openly that we only go with Abyee in six decisions, and this case is not one of them. So I thought "OK this is good to the Gemara [Talmud] and to the Rambam (who decided like Rava here as we all know has to be the case anyway.) [But not to Rava in the Gemara who disagrees even with the idea that Abyee proved his point from R. Yehuda. He says R. Yehuda means by "accidental" that he says "It is  allowed.] That is because Abyee only proved his point to Yehuda, not the sages. The sages could easily say there is not such case as serving idols by accident and the only time someone brings a sin offering for idolatry by accident is when they depended on a faulty decision.

I brought this up with my learning partner and he said my idea is wrong. He focused on the fact that an individual also brings a sin offering for idolatry (Numbers 15) even without depending on a faulty legal decision. [It does not say anything there about a mistaken decision]
[So the sages have to agree that there is such a thing.]

So I asked, "Then why focus on the high priest? Let Abyee go to the simple case of an individual?"

He suggested,  "The Sages might say the individual might bring a sin offering if he depended on a faulty legal decision but not all the conditions were fulfilled for example there was lacking one of the 71 elders."

  But I am confused at this point. It seems to me the sages hold that a individual that depends on a decision of the Sanhedrin even with full conditions is liable. That is what you have in Tractate Horayot page 2 side b.



 So the way I see things [and this is the point I was trying to get to throughout this essay] is that the sages cant be useful for Abyee for they have a simple way for the individual to be liable and the high priest also. It is specifically R. Yehuda the Prince that says an individual that depends on a legal decision is not liable.

Appendix:

1. Rava hold one who serves an idol is only liable if he accepts the idol as his god.
2. The sin offering here is a she goat whether for the high priest or for an individual. The Sanhedrin would have to bring 12 oxen and 12 goats if they made  faulty legal  decision that some idolatry is allowed and the people acted on it.
It is this fact that makes the high priest unique. Because the verse in Leviticus compares him to the people "to cause the people to sin" לאשמת העם. And when the people sin we need two things. One is they depend on a faulty legal decision. the next is that there be an act. And so when the Torah compares the priest to the people we also need these two things

Sleep-walking into World War. Russia and Ukraine

Avoiding  war with Russia is a good idea. I have several reason for saying this. Besides the fact that war between Russia and NATO and the USA would simply morph into WWIII. But there is another reason also.  Donesk  is already part of Russia at least in spirit. And why would anyone think that borders that have been fluid throughout the centuries be worth starting a war for?
 Besides that the USA and Europe already have enough enemies inside them (Muslims).  Who needs more enemies? I think that Europe and the USA have their heart in the right place wanting to stick up for the Ukraine. And that is admirable. But I think the situation on the ground calls for people to step back and let Donsek decide its own fate. And it has already done so.

Also Ukraine and Russia are brothers. Tempers are high right now. this is family feud which if left alone will just work itself out. For other people to get involve dis not polite and could cost the live of millions more.
Maybe I could put this in a different way. I can't stress strongly enough how important it is for all mankind for Russia, Europe and the USA to work together. Not just for the sake of Western Civilization but the very future of humanity

For example lets say you have a p group where every element of the group eventually gets to 1 if you multiply it by itself enough times. This is called a "p to the n" if n is the number of times you are doing this.
Did you know that every subgroup of this p^n that is all the p^n-1, p^n-2, etc are all normal? (normal means gx=xg) I did not know that until I read about p groups in Russian. I also I wanted to share  a way to show how this is true. We will call all the elements of the big group g (i.e. g1 g2 g3 etc) and all the elements of the small group x (i.e. x1 x2 x3  etc.) So what you have is a long string of gx's all lined up with xg's on the opposite side of your equation.
and they all cancel because if you take that many gs with that many x's you get e*e=e*e. What is left on the left side is just one g. and what is left on the right side? Also just one g.

People have heard of Kant's question, "How is synthetic a priori possible?"


First we know that when Kant says "synthetic" he is referring to Leibniz's division of knowledge into analytic and synthetic. But he also means it in a deeper way. He is thinking that some objects are given to the mind. and he is thinking some a priori cognitions are also given to the mind. But then he thinks that the mind does something with them. It combines them into one cognition. [That he calls the metaphysical deduction.]
 This seems to me to just what the Rambam was thinking about acquired understanding שכל הנקנה in LM vol I ch. 25

 That is we have "sechel hanikne" acquired understanding from the Guide for the Perplexed of the Ramabm as meaning knowledge metaphysics- -the unchanging realities in reference to Plato's forms. And to the Rambam it is this acquired knowledge that last for eternity in the next world.

 He modifies this to knowing many things with one knowing. Then he brings the idea that this is what is left of a person in the next world. and then he expands it to knowing everything a human being can know.

My feeling is that it is urgent not to go to war with Russia.

.

My feeling is that it is urgent not to go to war with Russia. True they are sending troops into the Ukraine. And that is not nice. But for this we want to go to nuclear war? I mean that is how wars start. They start with some small incident. And then one party replies. And then other party replies. etc. and tempers grow short. And before you know it bombs are falling all over the place. We don't need a war between NATO and Russia.
Plus consider the Russian position. True the two provinces are on Ukrainian territory. But the people consider themselves Russian.  And in fact most of them probably are Russian. And so Russia sees itself as simply protecting its own people. But even if this were not so, I still think that under no circumstances is a war with Russia justified.

Let us say that Kiev would let these two provinces go to Russia. What would anyone lose?

I might mention that sending military aid is not usually considered a declaration of war. There are lots of levels between sending equipment and advisors as the USA did in Vietnam and  higher levels called small wars. When the USA sends equipment and military aid to different nations, the opposing nations do not usually think that they are justified in attacking the USA. And if they would, the people in the USA would be outraged. There is also such a thing called small wars in which American troops are sent in surgical strikes. You should read about this in the manual of the USA Marine corp, The Small Wars Manual. In any case, I think Russia and Europe and the USA should get along. We are not enemies. And under our noses is growing the most serious enemy to the continued existence of the Human Race- Islam.


This blog is really supposed to be about Torah issues. But as we know human life comes first in Torah law so I thought I should transfer this small essay I wrote on my other blog, Ideas in Torah, and put it here.
I hope this essay does something to reduce tempers and get people to start thinking straight.

The USA has been decommissioning its arsenal steadily for twenty five years. The Russians have been up grading their arsenals. They have underground cities of weapons grade plutonium.

So far the Russians have done nothing except what their policy has always been even in the time of the czars--they consider it their obligation to protect Russians even on foreign soil--exactly like the policy of the USA

The school of Navardok

 But I just wanted to say something about Navardok. That was the school of thought coming after Israel Salanter that was basically about trust in God בטחון without doing anything to get ones needs.
That at least was their official approach. The idea was to sit and learn Torah and do nothing to get ones needs met, and to believe that God would provide. It was just one of the several schools that came from Israel Salanter. So I don't want to make it seem that this is the official Ethics (Jewish) doctrine.
But Navardok is definitely the most colorful of all the schools of Musar.





People would share what ever they had believing that they would get more from somehow and lo and beyond it always worked.
My feeling about this is that it works only if you accept it when you hear it and then you don't ever leave it. But when one goes out of it and says, "Well I can do some effort also as the Torah itself says, and that will not hurt anything"--then it stops working. And then even if one tries to get back inside, the door remains closed.
The problem is  hypocrisy is what you get when you mix Torah with money. It starts out for the sake of heaven but once money gets into the mix it loses it numinous aspect. This is a conundrum that the Jewish people have tried to deal with for ages. On one hand we want to support people that are learning Torah Lishma--for its own sake and not for money. But once we give them money it starts rapidly to decay into being all about the money. The Rambam tried to solve this problem simply. Don't give them money. Tell them "Get a job" and he made it clear you cant accept money for learning Torah. It is not a business. That is how the Rambam was. He has his perfect system all worked out the the zillionth detail and he did not see any questions.

I wrote about the high priest כהן גדול the other blog Wine Women and Transcendence.
I might try to bring some of the information here. But for now I wanted to concentrate on the fact that the sages of the Talmud use the verse ''to cause the people to sin" (לאשמת העם) to make the high priest equal in status to the people in terms of his needing to have not just sinned accidentally but also he needs to have made a mistaken decision in order for him to bring a sin offering. שגגת מעשה עם העלם דבר. עיין מסכת הוריות דף ז ע''ב וסנהדרין סא ע''ב I hope this is clear. That is we have an normal individual. If he sins accidentally he brings a sin offering. That is simple. We have the representatives of the people -the Sanhedrin. If they make a faulty legal decision and the people act on it  the need to bring a sin offering. So in the case of the whole people we have two separate things. A sin and a faulty legal decision. If we compare the high priest to the people then he will also need both these things. And according to the sages of the Talmud he in fact needs both things.

They way they learn this is that we could logically think he is like a king because he brings a guilt offering on doubt  like a king. We could also compare him to the Sanhedrin because he brings a ox for  like the Sanhedrin. And so the verse in the Bible Leviticus 4 tells us he is like the people in order to solve this conundrum.

Now I asked on my other blog what do they do with idolatry? [In Numbers 15 there is a sin offering  for idolatry.] By idolatry there is no mention of  a high priest. and there the sages still say he is like the people that need both conditions in order to bring a sin offering. My learning partner suggested that there is no where to put such a verse. That is, there is no mention of a high priest, so where could the Torah have written "to cause the people to sin?"לאשמת העם.

  I said "So what? The Torah makes him like an individual by idolatry in that he also brings a single she goat. So why no make the comparison complete?"

  He answered: "Because as far as the Torah is concerned,  it already told you everything you need to know about the high priest. That fact that he brings a she goat is just one particular thing. As far as the Torah in concerned everything else about the high priest stays the same."
 This brings me to the subject of sin and guilt. I would like to suggest there is natural moral order. That is a Platonic plane of existence where there are moral laws. And this plane of existence intersects this physical world. To go into reason why I think this plane exist you have to go to the essay of Michael Huemer (defending objective morality). But bear with me for arguments sake. So I ask what happens if one has sinned against this moral plane? I claim that there is guilt. And I believe this guilt is real. And I think nature uses this guilt to propagate the species, just like she uses anything at her disposal to gain her ends. It is why guys prefer to have sex rather than masturbate. It is because of this guilt that nature makes sure guys feel if they don't listen to her. And I claim that nature uses guilt is lots of ways -in ant colonies and in bee colonies. But what happens if one has guilt?




 But if one has already sinned and has guilt what then? Nachman from Uman devoted his life to answering this question. He worked to find ways of absolution for sin after it has been done. He discovered ten psalms that he said take away the guilt of sin after it has been done. Not that one is allowed to sin. But after the fact he said these ten psalms take away objective guilt They are: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 79, 90, 105, 137, 150. But you have to know that if you are a Russian and you want to say them, the numbering of the Russians is different. The reason is because they put psalm 9 and 10 together. But then at the very end the numbers begin to match again. 

When I asked Reb Shmuel Berenabum [of the Mir in NY] about learning Kabalah he did not seem very enthusiastic.
This was after I had returned from Israel to NY. By that time I had been learning kabalah anyway fro some time.
His answer was finish Shas first. I said I already did. He said do it again.
[Finishing Shas means to have completed the Babylonian Talmud once].
My point is that whether it was Kabalah or even Hashkafa (world view) issues the Mir was interested only in Talmud.


Rav Hutner wrote the well known book the Fear of Isaac on world view issues. And Rav Freifed also had a lot of interest in those subjects. The closest you got at the Mir to anyone with some knowledge in those areas was Don Segel the mashgiach of Ponovitch who was brought over to the Mir during the years that I was there. It is not like they were against the Kabalah. They had the entire set of the writings of the Ari in the library. But the considered kabalah "hoiche zachin" high things not for everyone.

But today I would have to agree that the balanced approach is best. I regret not doing more work on the Gemara in the years I was in Israel. It does seem to me today that not just in order to understand the Kabalah but even to get into the essence of it one does in fact need to have learned Shas well a couple of times. Without that it does seem to create delusions in people that learn it without proper preparation

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.

Doing idolatry by accident

Doing idolatry or any of 42 types of sin by accident means one has to bring a sin offering

There are 43 types of sin for which one brings a sin offering. Six of them one brings a offering that goes up and down.[קרבן עולה ויורד] A rich person brings a goat. A poor person brings two turtle doves. a dirt poor person brings a flour offering. The others not so. The others for people like you and me we would have to bring either  a female from goats or  sheep. But idolatry is different. Everyone has to bring a she goat.Even the high priest. and even the king. but there is a difference between a high priest and the average person. The high priest has to have both a mistaken decision about the law and also be accidental.  העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה
Abyee uses this fact to show that there can be such a thing an accidental idolatry.
 For if idolatry needs intention then how could there ever be such a thing as doing it by accident.? If you do it by accident without intention you did nothing at all!
[To see this in the Torah [the Old Testament] you have to go to the beginning of Leviticus where it talks about sin offerings and divides the subject into the congregation and the high priest and the individual. And then you have to go to the Book of Numbers [ch. 15] where it discuss the sacrifices for transgressing the sin of idolatry for the individual and the entire congregation, and it leaves out the high priest]





I want to go into all these issues. But I also want to go into  a side issue about the idea of a mistaken decision.  No everyone agrees that the high priest has to make a mistaken decision in order to bring a sin offering for idolatry. Yehuda the Prince says all he needs is to do it by accident. But the Sanhedrin definitely needs to make a mistaken decision in order to bring a sacrifice.
That is: for the Sanhedrin to bring a sin offering they have to rule about some aspect of one of the 43 types of sin that it is allowed and the majority of the Jewish people living in Israel have to follow that decision and act on it. Then they bring twelve oxen and twelve goats.
But if there is an individual who knows that the Sanhedrin made  a mistake and he acts on their decision thinking mistakenly that it is a mitzvah to listen to the sages, then he has to bring his own sacrifice.

The first thing you will ask is the Rashi "Even if they tell you left is right and right is left." That Rashi is brought in the subject of Zaken Mamre. There a person goes publicly against the Sanhedrin.
So now everything is clear. When you know the Sanhedrin made  a mistake you are not allowed to listen to them. But also you are not allowed to make a public statement against them.

I admit Musar (Classical ethics from the Middle Ages) is only a first order theory in ethics

I admit Musar מוסר (Classical Ethics from the Middle Ages) is only a first order theory in ethics, and that this fact is what makes it uninteresting, and perhaps even not effective. The very first Musar book,The Duties of the Heart [חובות לבבות] did however put a second order theory in the beginning of his book. It is a modification of neo-Platonism. But Musar was not meant to be second order (Meta-Musar). But there were people that went through the trouble to give a second order theory, e.g, Saadia Geon, Maimonides (the Rambam). . [ But his basic focus is to find justification for the commandments of God.] A kind of preliminary approach can be found for the commandments based on a mystic approach can be found in the writings of Isaac Luria, but he is dealing with connections in higher worlds and has not brought his ideas down to the human level. But to accept any part of the mystic approach you have to get over the hurdle that Kant made.(note 1) Or you could dispense with the mystic approach completely and settle for the Metaphysical Aristotelian approach of the Rambam/Maimonides or the metaphysical Neo Platonic approach of Saadia Geon and the Duties of the Heart.

My suggestion is to learn Musar with its underlying set of justifications. It is the difference between a doctor telling a person, "Don't eat  such and such" and a doctor telling the same person "Don't eat such and such a thing because you will die in three months if you do, and the reason is that you are allergic to it and it has a cumulative effect." The only problem with this idea is that it is time consuming.
(note 1) You could get over this hurdle with Schopenhauer. But if one tries to ignore it I think one will trip and fall. Just imagine you are running a four laps around the field and there are hurdles in front of you. And you decide to think positive :"there is no hurdle".
Hegal  also is a highly metaphysical system

  I tend to think of Hegel as a kind of intuitionist along the lines of Prichard. The reason I tend to trust Kelly Ross is on philosophical issues I have spend some time learning I have found him to be remarkably insightful. So I tend to trust him also on issue like Hegel in which I know little. It is the same reason that when I learn Talmud with my learning partner and we disagree that I tend to think that he is probably right --since after arguing with him I usually find out that in fact he did understand the material better than me. It is called "faith in the wise."
I think everyone can agree that Hegel has some important points. But he falls flat on his face when he discuss social issues. His best work is analysis of other philosophers and also in making his own metaphysical system.

But the world has fallen into ignorance. Many people claim to be experts in Torah without having done the work.

Torah does not mean Jewish history. It means a basic understanding of the Oral and written Law. That means two things. (1) General knowledge of Shas and Poskim (The 60 tractates of the Talmud and Rif Rambam, Rosh, Tur, Beit Yoseph and Shulchan Aruch. and it is desirable also to have knowledge of the writings of the Remak and Isaac Luria and the books of Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and Saadia Geon in order to understand the basic world view of the Torah

Idolatry.

Does one need intension is be liable?

"One who serves idols from love or fear, Abyee said is liable and Rava said he is not liable." (Sanhedrin 61b)

How does this fit the Mishna (page 60b), "One who serves idols or bows or sacrifices or burns or pours or who accepts it as his god and says 'you are my god is liable.'"

I asked this a few days ago one one of my blogs. Today I want to say over the question again and give a possible answer.
 The question is that if accepting it as his god is not necessary, then what does Abyee do with the end of the Mishna? If it is necessary, then what does Rava do with the beginning of the Mishna?

I hope this question is clear to people. I went into more detail somewhere else on some this blog or the Wine  Women and Transcendence blog.
At ant rate here is my answer. First let's look at the Gemara [Talmud]. The Gemara starts off with Abyee wanting to use this Mishna as a proof, and the Gemara pushes off the proof with a statement of Rabbi Jeremiah who says the first statement of the Mishna means service like its way (the usual way of the idol). From this we see Abyee thought the Mishna is a proof. It occurred to me that Abyee must be thinking that the juxtaposition of the first five cases against the last case means that the first cases don't need the condition of accepting as ones god. And Rava must be thinking that the Mishna is thinking that it only needs to mention this condition in the last clause because there you might think you don't need it since he is saying openly he accepts the idol as his god.

That is all I have to say about this. I had another idea about the Baal Hameor but maybe I will write about that elsewhere. (note 1) I also have an idea about Kant I have wanted to write about for a  few days (mainly the fact that his "thing in itself" the "dinge an sich" is a position in epistemology, not metaphysics. (Kant says it exists but its character depends on the subject ) That has been noted before by Dr. Kelly Ross in California but he derives it from a short statement of Kant, while I wanted to show that it is a central position of Kant but I just have not been able to find time for an essay about this). [Kant is very important in order to understand the Rambam but I just can't go into this issue right now]

I also would like to go into some detail about the idea that Abyee uses for a proof about the high priest having to bring a sacrifice if he make a mistake about what is considered idolatry. The Sanhedrin also does this and I wanted to go into some detail showing how this contradicts the idea of Daat Torah. But no time today.

(note 1) That his idea that sacrifice exodus 22 would only exclude service in  a way of honor to idols that one usually sacrifices to and not to other kinds of idols makes sense. You can see this by this idea: what does sacrifice tell us-not to sacrifice to idols that one usually serves in some other manner or idols that in fact one usually sacrifices to. That excludes kissing or hugging or any other type of serve to those particular idols. But it does not tell us anything about other kinds of idols.  
  That is, to acquit a way of honor or dishonor to idols that such is not their way we need the verse, "How do they serve?" Deuteronomy 12. This is not really a big deal but it does show how what the Meor Hagadol is saying is not just some ad hoc distinction but is required by the logic o the subject.

Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism says Torah is about Social Justice. But a simple glance at the Torah will show anyone that that is not true. Torah is about keeping the commandments of God.   Yet Reform Judaism does have a point in so far as they are using an idea of the Rambam. To the Rambam the purpose of many of the commandments between man and his fellow man is to bring peace to the country. But even here Reform is not representing the Torah accurately. Justice as the Torah understands it is very different from what Reform Judaism understands.  Even though given a choice of a Reform Temple and  an religious synagogue  I would  go to the Reform temple. In fact, even if given the choice to go to an religious synagogue or stay home I would stay home. And I would pay real money to avoid going anywhere near an religious synagogue.

What is wrong with an religious synagogue  is what the sages of the Talmud teach us about the evil inclination to serve idols  There was some point the sages of Israel decided to pray to God to take away the desire to serve idols. They saw it come out of the Holy of Holies in the form of a small lion of fire. So we see where there is holiness there is also great evil. Reform is great in ways the religious will never dream of. But they still need to start learning and keeping Torah.

The area Reform is right about is the fact that the Torah emphasizes the between man and his fellow man part of the commandments as the first priority.  The religious certainly claim to be trying to keep all the commandments of God but that is clearly not true. They certainly do not even attempt to keep the part of the Torah that deals with the relationships between people.That is why I will not go near them. Even though I respect the fact that they take one part of the Torah very seriously.

But Reform has a real problem about that "social justice" nonsense. It is a weasel word for socialism and anti Americanism which is directly opposed to the Torah.

Still anything is better than a religious synagogue that is simply a place of gathering for demons. You cant go there ad come out clean. It has to take  its  toll on you and your family. 

idolatry

Introduction: There is a chapter in Sanhedrin which deals with the question one what types of  crime deserve  execution.

Part of that chapter deals with idolatry.

And to start out the subject the Mishna gives a list of six things that are liable.
"One who serves an idol, one who sacrifices to it, one who burns a sacrifice to it, one who pours a libation in front of it, one who bows before it and one who accepts it as his god and says, 'you are my god.'"

That is the six are : the four regular types, plus service according its way and then words with intention.


Later on the Gemara (Babylonian Talmud) brings an argument between two sages Abyee and Rava (two amoraim (people that lived in the time of the Talmud)) if idolatry needs intension.

My comments here deal with the question of how do they learn (understand) our Mishna?







 Talmud Sanhedrin page 61 side B. The way I used to think about idolatry was that its essence was to accept another being as one's god -a being that is not God.  In this context God would be considered as the First Cause. But that is clearly wrong. We have an argument in Sanhedrin 61b. One who serves an idol from love or fear Abyee says he is liable and Rava says he is not liable. So certainly to Abyee, the essence of idolatry is not accepting it as one god. And there is no reason to think Rava disagrees with this. It is just that Rava adds an extra condition. So idolatry is serving another being that is not God,  and Rava adds a condition that one accepts this other beings as ones god. [I am not saying any of this is clear. I am just saying what it looks like the the Talmud is holding this as the definition of idolatry. I so far am not claiming I have any idea what this means. I assume it has something to do with numinousity that comes from some being that is not God. But that is just my guess.]
But  now let us look at the Mishna 60b. It lists several ways to be liable (sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing) and then lists another way: "One who accepts it as his god and says, 'you are my god.'" This on one hand seems to be like Abyee. That is because the condition accepting it as ones god is not necessary to be liable in the previous cases. On the other hand this looks to be not like Abyee. After all if saying "You are my god" to an idol is liable, then to Abyee there should be no reason to add an extra condition "accepting it as ones god."


The next thing I wanted to say today was in reference to a Rambam that explains "from love or fear" to mean
"love" of the beauty of the idol and "fear" is fear that the idol should not hurt him. Why would the Rambam say this? I did not mention this before because I was learning like Rashi and that made the most sense. [I forget why.] Rashi says love and fear means love and fear of a person.
At any rate, the reason I think the Rambam says his explanation is this: Abyee agrees that walking into a house of an idol and bowing down thinking it is a synagogue is not liable because his heart is towards Heaven. With Rashi there seems to be little difference between love and fear and this last case. In both cases he is not serving the idol with any kind of intension. With the Rambam it all makes sense why he would be liable to Abyee for love and fear and not liable when his heart is towards Heaven.

This is these ideas stated in Hebrew for anyone that might be reading this that speaks Hebrew better than English:
)סנהדרין סא: הקדמה. המשנה מונה שישה דברים שחייבים בשביל עבודה זרה. העובד עבודה זרה, זביחה, הקטרה, עירוי, השתחווייה, והמקבלו כאלוה ואומר לו אלי אתה. הגמרא מביאה מחלוקת בין אביי ורבא אם עבודה זרה צריכה כוונה. אני הייתי רגיל לחשוב שעיקר עבודה זרה הוא לקבל אותה כאלוה. עכשיו ברור שזה אינו נכון. לאביי אפשר להיות חייב גם אם אינו מקבלו כאלוה. ואין סיבה לחשוה שרבא חולק על עיקר פירושו של עבודה זרה. אלא שהוא מוסיף תנאי.) סנהדרין סא: המשנה מונה ששה דברים שחייבים בשביל עבודה זרה. האחרון הוא המקלו עליו כאלוה ואומר לו אלי אתה. מצד אחד זה נראה כמו אביי בגלל שבשביל העבודות הראשונות כנראה לא צריכות לקבל כאלוה. מצד שני זה מראה לא כאביי שאם האמירה אלי אתה מחייבת אותו למה צריכים גם לקבל עליו כאלוה?)סנהדרין סא: מחלוקת אביי ורבא. אתמר העובד עבודה זרה מאהבה ומיראה, אביי אמר חייב. רבא אמר פטור. הרמב''ם מפרש מאהבה מאהבת היופי שלה, ומיראה מיראה שמא תריע לו. רש''י מפרש מאהבת אדם ומיראתו. הסיבה שהרמב''ם מפרש כשיטתו היא שאביי מודה שמשתחווה לבית עבודה זרה וחושב שהוא בית הכנסת לא כלום הוא שליבו לשמים. להרמב''ם מובן שיש חילוק גדול בין מאהבה ומיראה שחייבים וליבו לשמים שלא כלום הוא




The critique on Musar is when I told my learning partner that it is first order morality. I said it is about things you have to do, not justification for why you have to do them. I said, "That might be why you never found it interesting." He said: "That would explain why it seems to be not effective in correcting people's character as it is supposed to."

I am not saying I agree with his assessment. But you should know that he has never been enthusiastic about Musar. Almost to the degree of seeing it as a waste of time. I hold the exact opposite. My impression of Musar is that it is important to understand the Torah's point of view.  Without Musar people tend to come up with a lot of crazy ideas of what they think the Torah ought to be saying. Not that there is anything wrong with being independent but it ought to be after sufficient research. Has a person finished Shas and Poskim and all writings of  the Ari and the Gra and the Rambam and Saadai Geon? Then he can have his own opinion about what the Torah says. Everyone has  a right to his own informed opinion. No one has the right to an uninformed opinion. Ah but he does not have time for all that study? Then he has no right to an opinion.
Cancel your cable TV, and start to learn Torah

Democrats protect the rights of sociopaths, not working honest working people.

Why to vote Republican.

  Liberals have traditionally drawn their strength from representing the working class.  The Democrats have have adopted stances that have alienated the working classes while contributing virtually nothing in the way of additional support.


Democrats are highly hostile to Christianity and traditional Judaism.  Traditional Jews and  Christianity see the Torah as a goal and as God's word. Democrats undermine the Torah every chance they get. I think anyone voting democrat is voting for Satan. But hey, that is just my personal opinion.


The issues:

(Issue 1) Crime

 Liberals routinely lament that they are accused of being "soft on crime" without bothering to adopt the obvious remedy: stop being soft on crime. If you're a criminal you have only one right and that is to stop committing crimes.


(Issue 2) Extenuating Circumstances

Extenuating circumstances are being so desperate for money to feed your family that you steal. Being too poor to afford an HDTV is not. Being poor because you have a lousy job because you were too arrogant or lazy to stay in school and learn, is most assuredly not. Extenuating circumstances are performing some legal act and accidentally violating some legal technicality. Extenuating circumstances are protecting yourself from domestic abuse and killing your abuser. Extenuating circumstances might even include performing some minor illegal act that spins wildly out of control, but I'd limit this to things that are utterly unforeseeable. Carrying a weapon means you have planned ahead and can foresee any imaginable consequences.

The fact that you were abused may count as extenuating circumstances if you exact vengeance on your abuser. But if someone is not harming you, that creates an absolute obligation on your part not to harm him or her. There are no extenuating circumstances for violating this social contract. If you have pain in your life, go find the person who caused it and deal with it; inflicting pain on a completely innocent person is absolutely indefensible.


(Issue 3) Excessive Penalties?

Consider the broader effects of crime. A home break-in might do a few hundred dollars in damage, but scar the owners emotionally for a long time. The damage itself might merit, say a year in jail, but what about the damage to the homeowners' peace of mind? A relative handful of sexual predators have made millions of parents reluctant to let their kids go to the park unsupervised. Crime, even trivial crime, degrades the quality of life of 280 million non-criminals. How can you possibly have an excessive punishment for that?

In one notorious case, a two-time felon stole a slice of pizza from a child. He was sent up for life under California's "three strikes" law. For stealing a slice of pizza. Now think about this. Here is a grown adult so disdainful of the rights of others that he's willing to swipe a slice of pizza from a child, and so unconcerned about his own future that he's willing to risk life imprisonment to do it. Frankly I'm delighted that he tripped the tripwire over something so trivial instead of something where he'd be willing to kill or seriously hurt someone.



(Issue 4) Wrongful Convictions

I contend it is absolutely impossible to have wrongful convictions without police, prosecutorial, or judicial misconduct. Every wrongful conviction should be investigated as a crime.

Having said that, the police don't sweep choir practices and public libraries looking for criminals. What I'd like to know about wrongful convictions is this: what fraction of wrongfully convicted people had absolutely no prior criminal record, no history of drug or alcohol use, and no involvement with people who did? I suspect the number is pretty small.

And the police tend to be much gentler with the middle class. So if you want to avoid being arrested for something you didn't do, become middle class. Absolutely avoid people, places, and behaviors that even remotely suggest you might be involved in a crime. And absolutely avoid getting involved in a real crime. A criminal record is more or less informed consent for being one of the usual suspects in the future. Once you opt for crime as an occupation, being wrongfully accused is an occupational hazard.
Rights of the Sociopath

The liberal stance on crime is part of a broader view that the way to protect the rights of all is to protect the rights of the obnoxious. After all, if you protect the free speech rights of, say, the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan or a pornographer, surely you've built a wall big and strong enough to protect the free speech rights of all.

The only problem is, what happens when the activities of the sociopath degrade the rights of others? Protecting the rights of the obnoxious protects only the rights of the obnoxious. I'm not terribly worried about the FBI coming into my house without a warrant. I'm much more concerned about a criminal coming in without a warrant. I'm not nearly as worried about being executed for a crime I didn't commit as being executed for the crime of having something somebody else wants.

 What good does it do to protect someone's right to privacy in abortion when we can force people to keep records on all their financial matters?

Worst of all are the cases where protecting the rights of sociopaths interferes with the legitimate rights of others. I routinely see programs I support undermined to provide funds to help people who cannot keep their own lives in order. I have to buy insurance to protect myself against lawsuits by the negligent and personally irresponsible. For some time during the 1960's and 1970's, it was virtually impossible to buy good plastic cement because some people liked to sniff the fumes, so all that was available was a grossly inferior goo based on lemon oil. I have to restart my lawn mower every time I let go of the handle because some idiots have been known to reach inside while the blade is spinning. There is a virtually endless list of petty degradations that ordinary citizens suffer in the name of protecting Lifestyles of the Stupid, Selfish and Irresponsible.



(Issue 5) Alienating the Workers

Liberals are sorely puzzled that they can't get workers, blacks, women, and gays and the poor together in one big unhappy family, that they can't get workers to agree that they share common ground and common enemies with other marginalized groups.

Working class people work, and they worked hard to get what they have. So they don't want it threatened. They don't want criminals in their neighborhoods and they don't want the value of their homes threatened. And they're smart enough to realize that if you can take down the wealthy and the powerful, you can squash working class people like a bug. So many of them don't buy into the "soak the rich" philosophy because they know perfectly well who will be next to get soaked.

If you're a working class home owner, and somebody burglarizes your house, he gets an attorney at public expense (this is considered a triumph of American jurisprudence). You can't sue him to recover your losses, but he can sue you if he gets hurt during the burglary. And you won't get any public assistance with your legal bills. And if you win, you can't sue the burglar for your expenses.

On April 28, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of laws requiring identification at polling places. You shouldn't have to breathe a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court issues a ruling that meshes with common sense. Opponents of the law argued that getting an ID card put a burden on poor voters. Tell that to someone who pays several months salary worth of taxes every year.



Bottom Line

Dump the sociopaths and the criminals. They have one right, and one only, and that is to stop being sociopaths and criminals. Defending sociopaths and criminals does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of ordinary citizens and a great deal to undermine their rights.

But who will speak for these people? Nobody. Let them speak for themselves. Some positions are simply not worth defending.

It makes all the difference in the world who you believe represents human perfection. And it seems to make little or no difference what your opinions are about theology.  That is you might think that the Gra represents human perfection. Well then you will try to learn Torah as much as possible and try to keep it to the best of your ability. It won't make any difference why you think that. And your theology about what is it that makes a tzadik/ saint special.
.

 It is just the choice of one tzadik or another that will affect things. And it will also make  great deal of difference what that tzadik said or did. And this will apply in the wide world. Some people think Buddha was the peak and their actions and world view will be affected much more by that choice of a tzadik than by what they think about G-d or if the tzadik was holy.


Of course it makes a difference what is reported about that person that people follow.

But all this so far is only dependent on the subjects. It is possible that whether the person people follow was objectivity a tzadik also make a difference.


The basic idea here is that people choice some one they admire to follow. And that choice will determine all subsequent actions--not their abstract philosophy or world view.


I should mention I have a personal approach to this issue. There is one person I admire above all. That is my Dad. Or perhaps I should say my Mom and Dad. The reason is not that they had all human perfection. But they had this unique approach called "be a mensch" or a decent human being. But being a mensch means so much more. It was a kind of balanced approach. An approach in which one could recognize many aspects of human perfection and admire them and aspire to them.  The  list of great people to admire in my home were Moses, Albert Einstein, Mozart, Plato etc. There would have been no reason to claim just one of these people had all perfection.

A list of a few problems in the USA e.g.Taxes today are not for the "general Welfare of the United States" but constitute payments to private individuals

The United State Government is guilty of multiple acts of theft and tyranny, among which, in direct violation of the United States Constitution, are as follows:

Violations of the SEPARATION OF POWERS (Article I, Section 1, and Article III, Section 1) by legislative acts that give to administrative agencies in the Executive Branch of government (a) the power to write regulations that have the force of law, merely by being published, without the consent either of the People or of their representatives and (b) the power to make  fines and penalties without any judicial procedure outside of the acts of, or outside the acts of the "administrative law" courts of, such administrative agencies.

Violations of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1, of the United States Constitution, "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,"
 Taxes today are not  for the "general Welfare of the United States" but constitute payments to private individuals and private businesses for their own benefit, in disregard of the burden imposed upon others and upon the Future of the Nation.

Violations of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 2, of the United States Constitution, "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States," by borrowing money for purposes neither pursuant to the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government (violating the 10th Amendment) nor "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" those Powers, most of which purposes consist of payments to private individuals (welfare) and private businesses for their own benefit, (like Fannie) in disregard of the burden imposed upon others and upon the Future of the Nation, especially as the accumulation of Debt even in Peacetime is now comparable to a degree of Debt that was never accumulated before except in cases of War. This imperils the Solvency and the Good Faith and Credit of the United States and is a crime against Posterity.

Violations of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, of the United States Constitution, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof," by legislative acts that have suspended the coining of money by the United States, that gave the President the extra-constitutional power to seize money from private hands "without just compensation" (violating the 5th Amendment), to uselessly hoard the gold coinage of the United States, and to treacherously void gold clauses in private contracts and in United States Securities, and that gave to the Federal Reserve System the extra-constitutional power to issue legal tender fiat currency, resulting in a continuing system of Theft by way of paper money inflation.

Violations of the FIRST AMENDMENT by legislative acts of Censorship against communications media ("the press"), including television, radio, and the Internet.

Violations of the SECOND AMENDMENT by legislative acts that disarm peaceful, innocent, and law abiding citizens, rendering them unable to resist either private criminals or the criminal acts of federal or local law enforcement officers abusing their authority.

Violations of the FOURTH AMENDMENT by legislative acts that authorize searches and seizures by various federal agencies of private property without warrants, convictions of crimes, charges of crimes, trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence for targeted citizens. These legislative acts of tyranny have VOIDED the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....."

Violations of the FIFTH AMENDMENT by legislative acts (a) that make "a person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" by federal prosecutions for acts when State prosecutions for the SAME acts fail and no misconduct in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment can be charged in the State actions, (b) that effectively require a citizen "in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" by reporting criminal acts for the purposes of taxation, the failure to do so is then prosecuted, (c) that enable seizures to take place or fines to be levied that deprive citizens of "property, without due process of law," and (d) that authorize that "private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" by depriving citizens for various purposes of their rights in their property, and the value and use of their property, without any compensation, often instead making ordinary use of their property a criminal offense.

Violations of the FIFTH, SIXTH, AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS by legislative acts that give to administrative agencies the powers to levy fines and penalties against a citizen without trial by jury, without being "confronted with the witnesses against him," and often, especially in tax and regulatory cases, without being "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

Violations of the TENTH AMENDMENT by legislative acts (a) that appropriate for the Federal Government powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution to be delegated by it to the United States, nor are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," (b) that tax the Citizens of the United States and borrow money for purposes other than those pursuant to those delegated powers, and (c) that abridge the Natural Liberties, the Privileges and Immunities, of Citizens of the United States by such appropriations of extra-constitutional, unenumerated powers.

By these Multiple and Grievous Violations of the Constitution, which constitute intolerable Crimes of Theft and Tyranny, the Government of the United States of America has forfeited its Moral and Legal Right to be considered the Legitimate Government of the United States of America.

 An short version of an essay by  Dr Kelly Ross

I should mention that these abuses of the U.S.A.  government are also abuse under Torah law according to the Rashbam in Bava Batra chapter 3 where he says that government has power only because of being "a messenger" or what is called fiduciary powers

And the proof is in the pudding. White America is being enslaved. 

The art of keeping the Torah is hard to learn. And it is an art form. And like most art forms you need a passion for it. And it is hard to define exactly what it is. But you need to learn it from someone who is good at it. And this  hard to find.

 
  But religious people in general are strict about ritual mitzvas.   Most people have difficulty in concentrating on more than a small set of rules. And the religious spend a tremendous amount of time and attention on mitzvas that are between man and God.. After all that effort it is hard to be asked to spend the same amount of human interactions also.
My suggestion is that both parts of the Torah should be emphasized, the part between man and God and the part between man and man. And it is this balance that I think brings to human perfection

Some people might like to know the names of the basic achronim (later people written after the time of the Shulchan Aruch) .

Some people might like to know the names of the basic achronim (later people written after the time of the Shulchan Aruch) .
I probably should go into the pluses and minuses about them. But just for public information I think I should at least give a brief rundown. Rabbi Aikiva Eiger. [There is a great full edition of everything he wrote in one big set.] The Ketzot Hachoshen  and the Netivot Hamishpat both found in the big Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik and his disciples (Baruch Ber and Shimon Shkopf). Also there is Naftali Troup. At least for reference every home needs these books in them. Because of the time factor I can't go into the ins and outs of how to go about learning these people. I am sure everyone is getting ready for Shabat. But at least I wrote the list for people that need to know what to look up in the achronim.

It is important to realize that these people define the continuation of classical Torah learning. But learning them is very different from learning the page of the Gemara you are on with the Tosphot. I would love to go into this but time is limited because of Shabat.


The first group of achronim are not usually concerned with the same issues that Tosphot is concerned with. Nonetheless they are important. The later ones beginning with Reb Chaim are getting back into the Tosphot itself.

סנהדרין סא. תוספות ד''ה "איכה יעבדו".

Here is another idea I had in  tractate Sanhedrin which I apparently forgot to put in that little booklet
that I put on my blog a few days ago.

א) סנהדרין סא. תוספות ד''ה "איכה יעבדו". החברותא שלי, דוד, הציעה סיבה אפשרית למה שהמאור הגדול לא פירש כמו תוספות.תוספות מבינים את שאלת הגמרא להיות אם יש לנו השתחווייה למה צריכים את איכה יעבדו? היינו בשלב הזה הגמרא לא יכולה למצוא דבר שאיכה יעבדו אוסרת שהשתחווייה כבר אסרה. וזה בגלל שלפי תוספות השתחווייה אוסרת את הכול [היינו כדרכה, שלא כדרכה, דרך כבוד, דרך בזיון]. וזה טוב. אבל הגמרא ממשיכה, אולי איכה יעבדו בא למעט (היינו לפטור) פוער לזובחים(דרך בזיון לאלילים שעובדים אותם דרך כבוד). אבל השתווייה כבר מיעטה את זה. (והגמרא נותנת סיבה לכך: כמו שהשתחווייה היא דרך כבוד אף כול דרך כבוד).אלא צריך לומר שאיכה יעבדו בא למעט פוער למרקוליס. אבל נסתכל למה שהגמרא אמרה. היא צימצמה איכה יעבדו לדרך כבוד. והתוצאה מכך צריכה להיות שיש לנו עכשיו דבר שאיכה יעבדו יכולה לאסור, היינו כדרכה דרך בזיון. תוספות יודעים שיש הקושיה הזאת, והם מתרצים שעדיין השתחייווה הייתה אוסרת כדרכה דרך בזיון. והם מביאים ראיה (הוכחה) לזה, שזה מובנת ממה שהגמרא אמרה אחר כך שהשתחווייה הייתה אוסרת פוער למרקוליס אם לא הייתה איכה יעבדו. השאלה של החברותא פה היא שאין לנו סיבה לחלק בשלב הזה בין כדרכה ושלא כדרכה.אם מצמצמים את השתחווייה לדרך כבוד אז המשמעות היא שזה כדרכה ושלא כדרכה. ולכן יש לנו צורך באיכה יעבדו לאסור את כדרכה דרך בזיון. זו שאלה טובה. והיא יכולה להיות הסיבה שבעל המאור דרך דרך אחרת. והשאלה שלי הייתה שאפילו שתניח שתוספות צודקים שהיינו אוסרים כדרכה בזיון למרקוליס, זה לא אומר שהיינו אוסרים כדרכה דרך בזיון לזובחים. והחברותא ענה שאין כזה דבר. דרך בזיון לזובחים על ידי פירוש המילים אינה כדרכה.

Sanhedrin 61a I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on Tosphot that I asked yesterday on this blog .

Sanhedrin 61a I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on Tosphot that I asked yesterday on this blog .
Remember the Gemara (Talmud)  said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" (Deuteronomy 17).

Rav Acha asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" (Deuteronomy 12)?

Tosphot asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from "sacrifice?"(He who sacrifices to false gods will be destroyed Exodus 22:19).

Tosphot answers: because bowing tells us everything.

Yesterday I asked: Then when the Gemara continues and limits "bowing" to a way of honor, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with "How do they serve?" That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.

Tosphot actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the Gemara anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to Markulis [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit "bowing" to honor then that should be that.
But my question was different. I asked: All we know is dishonor to Markulis that is not its way.  And so all we know in its way is the same thing. [It is an all the more so.] But a way of dishonor to idols one usually sacrifices to might still be permitted if done in a way of honor and then we have something for "How do they serve"? to forbid.
I asked my learning partner this today and he said an unbelievably simple answer. "There can't be any such thing." Think about it. It is an idol one worships in a way of honor and you are serving it in its way  by an act of dishonor.  Clearly there can't be any such thing. If one is serving it in its way, he is by definition serving it in  away of honor. I can't imagine why I did not notice this. It is an obvious mistake on my part.

_______________________________________________________________________

Same essay with a little more Hebrew for people like me that understand it better in that way.
_______________________________________________________________________

סנהדרין סא עמוד א I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on תוספות that I asked yesterday on this blog .
Remember the גמרא  said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" דברים י''ז.

רב אחא asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" Deuteronomy 12?

תוספות asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from זובח לאלהים יחרם.

תוספות answers: because התשחוויה tells us everything.

Yesterday I asked: Then when the גמרא continues and limits התשחוויה to a way of כבוד, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with איכה יעבדו That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.

תוספות actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the גמרא anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to מרקוליס [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit התשחוויה to דרך כבוד then that should be that.

That is if we learn from התשחוויה then quadrant I and II should be forbidden and III and IV permitted.But Tosphot says we would expand it to IV also so David asked then we would have to expand it to III also. That means that in the question of Tosphot we are assuming התשחוויה forbids
area 4. and we are looking for something for יכה יעבדו To permit. and we can't find it because area 3 is already permitted by means of התשחוויה. These are the conditions needed for the question of Tosphot to be valid. But David asked if IV is forbidden by התשחוויה  then must III  be forbidden by the same reasoning.

Now in the answer of Tosphot that is in fact what Tosphot says. That we don't distinguish. But the question of David is what reason did we have in the first place to think there could be a difference?

Talmud Sanhedrin 61a.

תוספות first words "How do they serve?"(איכה יעבדו)(Deuteronomy 12) my learning partner suggested today a possible reason why the Meor Hagadol [on the Ri'f] did not choose to go on the path of Tosphot.
The thing you need to do to see this is to take the idea of Tosphot that is how he wants to read the Gemara and just go with it. Tosphot is understanding the Gemara's (Talmud) original question to be if we have "bowing"(Deuteronomy 17) then what do you need "How do they serve?" (Deuteronomy 12) That is Tosphot understands that the Gemara can't find anything that "How do they serve?" forbids that "bowing"(Deuteronomy 17) does not already forbid--because to Tosphot "bowing"(השתחוויה) forbids everything, [the way of the idol and not the way of the idol and in a way of honor and not in a way of honor]. Okay. So far so good.
But then the Gemara continues: Well. Perhaps "How do they serve?"(איכה יעבדו) tells us to allow service in a way of dishonor towards idols one usually honors. It answers: "That can't be because that is already allowed because of 'bowing.'" And it gives a reason for this. Just like bowing is in a way of honor, so also any service you want to forbid has to be in a way of honor.

So at this point the Gemara has confined "bowing" to a way of honor. Then it suggests that "How do they serve?" comes to allow a way of dishonor towards idols one usually serves in a way of dishonor  but that not being their usual way.
But let us take a look at what the Gemara has said. It has now confined "bowing" to a way of honor. That means we now have an easy use for "How do they serve?"--all of quadrant IV which is the intersection of "its way"[כדרכה] and the way of dishonor (דרך בזיון). So then why does the Gemara after that have to find something else that "How do they serve?"(איכה יעבדו) comes to permit. Did not we say originally that we are looking for any use of "How do they serve?" Now we have a use for it,- service in its way that is dishonorable. Quadrant IV.
Now Tosphot does deal with this question. He says that the Gemara still wants to use "bowing" to forbid a way of dishonor towards idols one usually serves in a different way of dishonor. After all that is exactly what it says we would forbid  if not for "How do they serve?" So all the more so would we forbid its way in a way of dishonor. That is: We do assume bowing forbids part of quadrant III {intersection of dishonor and not its way} that deals with Markulis. [Markulis is an idol one serves by throwing stones at it] so all the more so quadrant IV. But in fact that would only forbid quadrant IV.
In other words, I am not sure that the answer of Tosphot works well here. Because all you see in the Gemara is dishonor to Markulis is permitted by "How do they serve?" And that would have been forbidden by "bowing." But what does that tell us about "bowing" in quadrant IV--only things relevant to Markulis. Also what have we said about "bowing?" That is forbids only things that are honorable. So, at this point we have limited greatly what "bowing" can forbid.

So what comes out is that the  Hameor HaGadol may have had a good reason not to walk in this path. We see Tosphot is right that he has support from the Gemara itself. If you forbid dishonor to Markulis, it seems a fortiori you would forbid all kinds of service in its way. But how would you get this distinction from the verse? That you forbid everything by bowing and only allow dishonor to idols one usually honors and use "How do they serve?" to permit dishonor to idols one usually serves with dishonor. Does not this seem like a stretch? We can see why the  Hameor HaGadol went a different path here.

Appendix: My question on Tosphot and my learning partner's question are two different things. And now that I think of it, it seems to me my question needs a little more thinking. Because even though it seems like a good point, but what would you gain from my question? You would have to move the boundaries a little and that is all. "Bowing" would still forbid certain most things, and "How do they serve?" still permits things that bowing would have forbidden. But so what? That does not seem right now to me to be  a big deal. Rather, my learning partner's question seems much more powerful.

A possible approach to understanding Isaac Luria: (1) External and internal worlds refer to subject and object. (2) Light and vessel mean the essence of existence and characteristics.

A possible approach to understanding Isaac Luria: (1) External and internal worlds refer to subject and object. (2) Light and vessel mean the essence of existence  and characteristics.

This is different from Ashlag [note 2] who wanted to interpreted the Ari as advocating a basically communistic system


In philosophy  there is one area which deals with how we know things.{note 1} And there is another area which deal with what things actually are. This later area is called Metaphysics. [The name comes from the set of books called the Metaphysics by Aristotle which deals with the question of what things actually are as distinct from their characteristics. ] And this Metaphysics also got to be divided into different areas. One is the nature of things and the other is the existence of things. And both these later areas got divided up into the question of the person looking at stuff. He is called the subject. And the objects he is looking at are called the objects.
The divisions are divided between Kant, Hegel, Berkley, and Descartes.
Kant holds characteristics of objects depend on the subject. But their existence is independent.
That is transcendental [independent of experience] idealism (dependent on my existence). This is the exact opposite of Hegel who holds from empirical realism.




My suggestion here is to understand the Ari [Isaac Luria] and the Reshash in this way of transcendental idealism. That is not to say that this is the only level on which the Ari can be understood. Rather I have always understood him to be referring to many (maybe infinite) sub-levels.

The basic idea here is that with Kant we have the existence of the subjects that is you and me and of objects being transcendent, i.e., independent of experience. But not in terms of characteristics. We can see such a thing in an electron who knows to act differently when he sees two slits in front of him or one slit.  He know that is there is one slit he is supposed to act like a particle. If two slits he know to act like a wave and to interfere with himself if there are no other electrons present. This fits perfectly with Kant.



In Isaac Luria we also have these sub-divisions. The light is the essence of the thing. and the vessel is its characteristics. And the worlds are divided into inner and outer, [subject and object.].  This you can see best in diagram the Reshash has in the regular Eitz Chaim that is somehow missing in the Ashlag edition.

Now in terms of knowledge of stuff we have the exact same divisions: Kant, Hegel, Berkley, and Descartes. And that also you can see in the famous Drush Hadaat of the Reshash.

For further reading see

 (2) And also the regular Eitz Chaim [Tree of Life] by Isaac Luria and Chaim Vital.
Also the Eitz Chaim printed by the Ashlag group]
(3) The only things to read in Kant are the three Critiques. The area of Moral theory which is teh only thing they teach to university students is the weakest of all of Kant's writings and anyway cant be understood without the three Critiques.



(Note 1) This area is not very interesting. It gives us "the Fundamental Fallacy of Philosophy: the idea that the limitations of our minds tell us anything about the nature of reality. What we can call The Fundamental Fallacy of Modern Philosophy might be defined as the idea that it makes sense to study structure divorced from content. This is the idea that has given us businessmen who think they can "manage" without knowing anything about what they manage, critics who claim that only the technical excellence of a work of art matters, not its content, and sociologists of science." (Steven Dutch)
(Note 2). Ashlag was influenced by Hegel and thought Communism and/or Socialism is the ideal goal.
I can't But this political position does not show up in his commentaries on the Kabalah except in rare places. At any rate, I am thinking that it is first not true that Socialism represents the ideal society. 100 million victims of Stalin, Lenin, and Communistic China would seem to prove this last point. Also, I think that Ashlag did not take into account that the Torah is highly capitalistic. How can you read the Torah and not realize private property is an essential part of it.?

I should add perhaps that Kabalah is not usually understood as an alternative to Torah but as a deeper understanding of Torah. At least that is what we get with the Zohar and the Ari  and the Gra. No question people that get into it tend to start to make up their own religions. That is a sad tendency but it is I think contrary to the spirit of the authentic kabalists. I am trying to concentrate on the good aspects of Kabalah here. But I am aware of the pitfalls. If you want to avoid the pitfalls, then learn it in the general context of the Geon from Vilnius.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/nyregion/ebola-new-york-hazmat-workers.html?_r=1

After Ebola got to NY I am wondering why it would not have been simpler to place a ban on all incoming flights from Africa? Perhaps I would not have been politically correct? Maybe even perhaps seen as racist? But does the fear of being perceived as being racist triumph over human life?

How far does it go this fear of being perceived as racist? Apparently it runs so deep that it cancels the desire for self preservation in NY.


At any rate I can say that in this case there is another factor that is working against NY. It is the need of people not to be seen in anything but their best image. In other parts of the world like in the Ukraine or Russia when there is news of some outbreak people go to work waring surgical masks over their mouths and noses. It looks funny. And it is highly embarrassing. But these people figure that their own lives are worth a little embarrassment

It seems to have the same basic effects as the Black Plague http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/ebola/

Some accurate information about Ebola from the hard science is that it is highly contagious and highly deadly. It seems to have the same basic effects as the Black Plague. I would have thought that New York would have suspended all incoming flights from Africa. But no. They now have it is NY also.

Eliyahu from Vilnius

The Geon from Vilna considered learning Torah the highest service of God.
In this he was depending on statements in the Talmud (Yerushalmi Peah chapter 2). Also there is considerable support for this idea in the Zohar. The disciple of the Gra goes into this in detail in his book the Nefesh Hachaim.


.  The fact is the Gra has support from the Talmud. There is a Halacha that when there is a mitzvah that needs doing and it can't be done by someone else one should interrupt his learning of Torah to attend to that Mitzvah. And praying to God to be saved from sin and to be drawn towards His service is a mitzvah that can't be done by anyone else.



The Gra (Eliyahu from Vilnius) is someone that is not charismatic. You can't get excited about the Gra. But it is possible to get excited about the Torah.



I sadly dropped my extent of involvement with the Torah. Sure I would keep on learning to some degree, but mainly my time was taken up by kivrei tzadikim [graves of saints] and saying lots of tehilim [psalms] and the like. Anything but Torah. And I discovered and odd fact. That when one drops  Torah he can't just pick her up again when he pleases.

Idolatry

In the Gemara [Talmud Bavli] Sanhedrin 61a Rav Acha asked if we would go with the idea of rava bar rav chanan to learn servce to an idol not like its way from "bowing" (i.e. they will go and serve and bow down Deuteronomy 17) then what would we do with, "How do they serve?" (Deuteronomy 12)? My question on this is why start with bowing or even with sacrifice as the outside teaching (Braita) does? Why not start with "How do they serve?" and go from there? That is why do we not start out saying that "how do they serve?" tells us that service not like its way is not liable, and then ask so what can "bowing" or "sacrifice" be coming to tell us? And then we would be forced to answer that bowing or sacrifice must be telling us that only bowing or sacrifice according to it way is liable. That means the Gemara would be taking the two verses as an intersection instead of as a union. i.e. an "And" gate and not an "Or" gate. I mentioned this to my learning partner and he said my question is not really on Rav Acha at all but rather on the original Braita. For the original Braita starts out assuming all service according to its was is liable and then tells us that sacrifice not like its way is also liable.


That above paragraph is my idea for today in Torah. But just for people that are new to this blog let me try to give a little background. The Braita says we learn service not like the way of the idol from sacrifice. (Exodus 22. "He who sacrifices to false gods will be destroyed.") Rava asked why not learn from bowing? Rav Acha asks if we would learn from bowing then what would you do with How do they serve?