Musar refers to books of ethics written during the Middle Ages.
The idea was to learn these books for character improvement. And some people took this to an extreme. Simcha Zissel had a school that learned Musar most of the day.
But I claim the main advantage of Musar is world view issues.
Without Musar the Torah can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean; especially if they learn Kabalah.



With Musar one gets a coherent idea of the world view of the Torah.


One way of learning Musar is when you are learning Musar you find sometimes some statement that relates to an area of character improvement that you know you need to work on.
It resonates with you. Then memorize it and say it every day right when you wake up in the morning and before you fall asleep.

Another advantage of Musar is it creates a meme that a community can organize itself around.
This is in fact what Musar yeshivas are and it accounts for the success of places like Brisk, Mir and Ponovitch. These are not just schools of learning Talmud. They are communities. And their central meme is Torah and Musar, not any fanatic insane central leader. This makes them what you could call "Torah communities." They are not perfect but from what I can tell they are the best thing out there.

When it comes to marrying and children I think the first thing is to ask yourself does the person you are thinking of marrying come from a good family. I mean genes. But more than genes. (That is: genes and character and fear of God.)

I saw the kind of people my parents were and I think that seeing the amazing kind of relationship they had gave me an idealistic picture of marriage. So I was pretty set of getting a girl with the best genes around.  And that happened. (In a very ironic way.) And I recommend this approach to anyone who will listen.

I can't say my wife's family was  exactly a good family. But I think much of their problems came from environment and the Holocaust and not from genes. The Holocaust did leave rather large scars on people that went through it. (People that go through traumatic events tend to be emotionally scarred.) [Her father  was a Jew running from the Nazis in occupied Europe. It was not fun, and he was kind of a difficult person. Not aggressive in deed, but somewhat  aggressive in word. And his wife had also some pretty bad experience and that left her also messed up--but in a way not apparent. I mean they had a happy marriage and good children but there was this under-layer of experiences that darkened everything. ]


At any rate, I also think the basic Torah approach to having children is important. That is not just going to  a natural body of water before sex. But also that the actual sex which could result in children must be Friday night after midnight. And it should be with every drop of holiness and concentration on God that you can manage.
{This mainly comes from the prayer-book of Jacob Emden that Rav Freifeld gave to me when I first arrived at his yeshiva, Shaar Yashuv.}(This is interesting because Rav Emden thought a good amount if the Zohar is from Moshe DeLeon and yet he uses the Zohar as source material. ) I myself have never had much interest in learning the Zohar but I have found the Ari Isaac Luria, absolutely compelling. and Reb Moshe Cordovaro also (the Remak). And I highly recommend their books.


Having children is the most important thing you can ever do. It is worth the effort to do it right.

Appendix:
1) Also don't expect the children are going to be different from the genes they come from. You might have a nice person but you know the gene pool they come from is stupid, dull or otherwise compromised. Then take my advice and run like the wind.

2) I heard from a friend recently how his an acquaintance had married a woman he thought was pure blood. She was white. But he did not know that she was actually a gypsy. Apparently there are white gypsies. And the children he had with her came out with the exact same character traits as gypsies --mainly a lust to steal.

3) This fact that one must find a good family is the reason the Lithuanian yeshiva world invites in Baali Teshuva but is non so quick to let them marry into their circles. This is perfectly justified.

The Villna Geon who considered learning Torah to be higher than all other mitzvot.
The Gra held that learning Torah is the highest service towards God.



But I think I should make it clear here my own opinion. I think that the Torah itself is clear that Devekut (attachment) with God is the ultimate goal. And I made a mistake once a long time ago pushing off Devekut in order to learn, and I think that was a serious mistake.
What the Gra issaying here then  is that learning Torah is the most effective means of coming to Devekut. But learning is not some kind of separate goal apart from Devekut.

Appendix
We know that the Gra was simply basing himself on the Jerusalem Talmud in Peah.

I tend to judge yeshivot  [yeshivas] based on the level of the classes that they give in the Talmud.
(But that standard does not apply to Kabalah yeshivas in Jerusalem. There my test would be how well they know the Ari and the Reshash [Shalom Sharabi]. ) [But I admit there are more criteria than just the level of the classes.]

But for classes in which the teacher is something along the lines of the teachers of the  classes at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn -e.g. the Sukat David- I give the highest rating.

But remedial schools are not yeshivas.
Simple translation of the Gemara is clearly on the  kindergarten level. Simple translation and explanation of of Tosphot is slightly higher. But still on the level of a remedial courses.

\


But the normal level of what a yeshiva should be is to have a teacher that has his own original ideas every day on the page in question like the Sukat David at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. And that is the Gold Standard. The Ivy League.


After that there are many levels. But that is the minimum level for a place to have the real name of a "yeshiva." If they don't have that they are just a place of remedial work like a collage that teaches reading and  writing for students that never learned that in high school.

But if this is the case then there is no such thing as a yeshiva except in Israel and  Brooklyn. E.g. in Ponovitch and the great  Lithuanian Yeshivot in Jerusalem, Maalot HaTorah, Mir, Yeshivat HaGra.

Lakewood would not qualify  except as  a shiduch yeshiva, not as a place of real learning.


But if you take in other aspects of a yeshiva besides the level of the classes then things get more complicated. For example Brisk which has maybe the highest reputation because it takes in only the best students from the whole world. Yet I have not heard that the classes given are all that original.



 In Israel, Ponovitch is still the top.


In short then the Ivy league based on best teachers and students and real learning would still have to mean the great Lithuanian yeshivas--Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir, Maalot HaTorah, and in Brooklyn Chaim Berlin, the Mirrer Yeshiva, Torah VeDaat. [This is because I admit that there are more criteria than just the level of the teachers.]

The Talmud [Sanhedrin 62b] is trying to get Rabbi Zachai to make sense. I am have trouble figuring out in what way there is any problem. The way the Talmud comes out is that R. Zachei said idolatry is liable for an act without intention and Shabat not. The Talmud asks what is idolatry without intention? To Abyee it is serving it from fear or love and to Rava is it "he says it is allowed."
אומר מותר.

What is a case of "he says it is allowed?" The baby that was captured and grew up without knowing Shabat.
So that is Munbaz in Tractate Shabat. This is very reasonable. But the Gemara seems to have a problem with R. Zachei and asks from the question if העלם זה וזה בידו he forgot both Shabat and all the kinds of work. But that question was asked about the two middle parts of the Mishna in Klal Gadol [Shabat chat 7] not about the beginning of the Mishna with the baby that was captured.
So I am having trouble seeing what the Talmud does not understand about Rabbi Zachei.
[Tosphot and the Maharsha do not deal with this problem in Sanhedrin. I am not sure where to look rhis up. Maybe in Shabat in the parallel sugia. Or Kritut. For the moment I am at a lose to know what to do here.]

סנהדרין סב: התלמוד רוצה ליישב את רבי זכאי. ואני מתקשה להבין למה יש קושיה. התלמוד מסיקה שרבי זעאי אמר שגגת ע''ז בלי כוונה חייב משא''כ בשבת. מה זה שגגת ע''ז?לאביי מאהבה ומיראה ולרבא היא אומר מותר. אומר מותר הוא תינוק שנשבה. וזו שיטת מונבז שהוא פטור. זה ישר ופשוט. אבל הגמרא שואלת מן השאלה של העלם זה  וזה בידו.שאז יש חיוב גם בשבת. אבל השאלה הזאת נשאלת רק לגבי הבבות האמצעיות של המשנה בכלל גדול שבת פרק ז'. ולכן קשה לראות מה יש קשה להבין ברבי זכאי.

Appendix:
 I can understand if the Gemara here is going like Abyee. Then everything would be fine. We have a case in idolatry that brings a sin offering, serving from love or fear. Clearly he has some idea that there is such a thing as idolatry. And a similar case on shabat where he knows about shabat but he thinks some act is allowed when it is not should also be liable. So if the Talmud here is thinking like Abyee then there is a legitimate question on Rabbi Zachai.
And come to think of it maybe in fact that is what is going on. Because if the Talmud is thinking like Rava then there seems to be nothing wrong with Rabbi Zachai. One case in idolatry is liable and the parallel case in shabat is not.--the אומר מותר "He says, 'It is permitted'" case.

But I am sure you can see why this is still unsettling. First because "He says 'It is allowed'" is suspiciously close to תינוק שנשבה שמג and it is Munbaz that says that is not liable, not the sages who were against Munbaz.
 So you can see what is disturbing here. I would like Rabbi Zachei to be like Munbaz and like Rava. But in Shabat it was Rabbi Yochanan himself who was going like Munbaz and he is the one here in our Gemara that is  at odds with  Rabbi Zachei. And when the Gemara here is asking on Rabbi Zachei it is doing it from a question of Rava to Rav Nachman. העלם זה וזה בידו a hiding of shabat and work.
In any case no matter what happens in the next few day, I think we can all agree that this Gemara is going only like Abyee.

What comes from the learning Torah is a good question. I think in my case I gained some good character traits. And I think that that is the main thing people get from Torah. I for example do not have inherently good character traits. I have a great deal of ego  and I only learned about the importance of speaking the truth and other good traits from the Torah. But I admit there are people that have inherently good character traits without learning a lot of Torah--but even then it comes from the Torah. My brothers i have always known had inherently good traits but that is because in our home Torah is respected. I feel good traits come from Torah. And further more I think Western civilization comes from Torah and also the wisdom of the Ancient Greeks, but not from just one or the other.

 Furthermore I think holiness comes from Torah. I think by learning and keeping Torah comes a connection with the "Will" (of Schopenhauer) or the First Cause that  one would not have otherwise.


  Lets look at Buddhism or the Tao. See the essay The Dark Side of the Tao of Dr Kelly Ross . He gives a good analysis about Buddhism and the Tao  and what their effect is on peoples traits.

I would have to say today the world of Lithuanian yeshivas is like the Rocky Mountains. Breslov takes what the Litvaks throw out and makes it into the roof of the Suka which can be made only of thrown out things.

 What Lithuanian yeshivas do or say makes a difference because they are the gold standard by which everything else is measured. Why do some groups learn? They have to show "we learn Torah too!"  Even Reform and Conservative have to measure themselves by means of the standard set by the Litvaks (Lithuanian Jews). If the Litvaks think something is kosher, that makes it kosher by definition. If they think it is not it makes it not kosher - by definition. Everything has to get past that hurdle. Nothing and no one is exempt, even if they don't like it. Especially if they don't like it.

You want to claim something is Jewish? You say the Chazon Ish said it was OK! Or Reb Moshe. Or Reb Aaron Kotler. You don't say "They learn it in a Breslov yeshiva." You don't say  Reform  Judaism says it is OK.
For example when the Na Nach Breslov  want to show that the "petek" (letter that Reb Odesser thought he received from Reb Nachman) is kosher they go around plastering up copies of the letter of approval (Haskama) that Reb Moshe Feinstein gave to Reb Odesser. Just walk into the synagogue of Reb Nachman in Uman and you will find copies of Reb Moshe's letter plastered all over the place--and most importantly right in the official notices section. That means if you want to say something is kosher you have to get approval of a Litvak Gadol. Without that nothing can even start.
No one says Reb Moshe is kosher because Breslov learns his books. If you want to say a person in Breslov like Rav Cheishen knows how to learn you say he learns at the Mir yeshiva. You don't say someone knows how to learn because they learn in Breslov.

Nowadays the Lithuanian yeshivas are spread out. It is hard to find any one in particular that stands out from the rest.

The greatest yeshivas in the world. Three great NY yeshivas: the Mir, Chaim Berlin, and Torah VeDaath. In Israel it is Ponovitch

In any case I realize that once the greats like Rav Shach and Reb Shmuel Berenbum are gone, then I guess there just is not that much difference between any of the Lithuanian Yeshivas.

But I still would assume it is best to go where the classes are on the highest level. And that probably still is in the NY yeshivas. [I heard about Tifrach, and my learning partner said they learn on a very high level but besides that I don't know about it.] [I did ask also about the well known yeshivas in Jerusalem, Brisk, Maalot HaTorah, etc. but nothing stood out.]
I would have to say today  the world of Lithuanian yeshivas is like the Rocky Mountains. It is like a mountain range with some higher peaks and some lower, but no Mount Everest.
Reb Aaron Kolter and Rav Shach certainly were gedolim. But today? But come to think of it there are a few greats--Reb Naphtali Yeger in Far Rockaway and Rav Nelkenbaum in the Mir in Brooklyn; also Shelomo Haliua who gives the top shiur (class) at Chaim Berlin. Maybe they don't have world wide reputations, but I know for a fact they learn on a world class level.

The Litvaks do seem to throw out people way too much. But that is because they want to retain their reputation of pure virgin olive oil. They throw out anything that can be considered as flawed in any way so as not to lose their quality. No one complains when they buy pure Olive Oil that it is in fact pure. I fact, they expect the company to make sure there is nothing in it that could be less that pure. So it is with Lithuanian yeshivas.
Breslov takes what the Litvaks throw out and makes it into the roof of the Suka which can be made only of thrown out things.