Musar (Ethics) from the Middle Ages. Musar pours ice cold water on people's illusions of grandeur and obsessions.

By nature I have always been interested in worldview kinds of issues more so that more practically minded people.  I have tended to see human affairs as downstream from people's world views.
So to understand the basic world view of the Torah is feel is important. The clearest statement of the way the Torah looks at the world I found is best given in books of Musar (books on Ethics) from the Middle Ages and the later classics by the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter.
The reason is the same reason why people get package deals at the supermarket. You could buy all the ingredients of cold cereal in the morning and make it all by yourself, but you would rather that someone else do most of the work of preparation and leave you just to pour the milk. You could in the same way go through the whole Tenach (Old Testament)  and the entire Oral Law, the two Talmuds, the Midrashei Hagada and Midrashei Halacaha until you are about 90 years old and then maybe get a clear enough idea, or you can trust the judgment of the Rishonim, [Mediaeval sages] to have done that work and to offer the same result in simple form. That is Musar.

The importance of the Rishonim [Medieval sages] in this regard is because their view of Torah was without alternative agendas. The problem with achronim [books on world view of Torah written after the Rav Joseph Karo after around 1520] is the trouble of agenda. The purpose is usually not to understand the world view of Torah but to change it into some form more palatable to their tastes and to convince others of their mistakes.
\

You actually see this clearly in practice. Yeshivas that have Musar as art of their seder [schedule] are light years apart from place that do not learn Musar. You only need to walk into a real authentic Litvak yeshiva at in the morning and you get blown away by the powerful spirit of Torah that is there.

One thing Musar is definitely right about, Torah is the religion of good character. {Menschlichkeit.} People of Type A personalities of schizoid personalities are definitely not gong to be drawn towards Musar and will in fact actively oppose it.  Musar pours ice cold water on people's illusions of grandeur and obsessions.  

The trouble with the Jewish religious world is that it is full of demons that infest the teachers.

The trouble with the religious world is that it is full of demons and demons spirits that infest it and especially the teachers. It does not take a genius to see this. If they would be keeping Torah plain and simple like it says, I would have nothing to complain about but the trouble is not just that it is a scam but positively evil.  There are a few exceptions however like the NY Litvak yeshivas and Ponovicth and the religious Zionist yeshivas. But as a rule I think the religious would is just way too much demon possessed.  I might mention that Reb Nachman to his great credit brought up this issue quite often in his Lekutai Moharan and so I am not the only one to notice this problem.

Clearly Reb Nachman had a great vision of what Torah is supposed to be about and his great advice is not confined to just pointing out the evils of תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. {Demonic Torah Scholars}. Still still the fact that the movement based on him got absorbed in the movement the Gra put in Cherem reduces the effectiveness of his advice to almost nothing.  

People do not give enough credit to the Dark Side almost to the degree of denying its existence. Thus that leave them all the more open to it. In the Jewish this is particular common. People always decide their particular leaders has powers from the Bright Side of Holiness. They never consider the opposite. 

vision of the Rambam

I have mentioned the vision of the Rambam, that is to learn every day the Oral Law (the Two Talmuds), the Written Law (the Law of Moses plus the prophets), Physics and Metaphysics.
I want to add to this list, Musar (mediaeval Ethics) plus survival skills.
And to mention that this is to bring to human perfection, but there is no guarantee. You can notice the lacks of each discipline, and think to yourself that the right combination would work wonders and make up for all the lacks.  But that to me does not seem realistic. There still is going to be free will. As Steven Dutch puts it: "I am completely unable to conceive of any legal or social system that can’t be subverted or abused. People who crave power or status will gravitate toward whatever confers those rewards. And they will always discover ways to get the rewards without paying their dues." 

I think the amazing thing about the Rambam is he combined several traits-the visionary prophet, the scholastic attention to detail, the Socratic Critic of logical fallacies he saw in the Kalm and the Warrior against abuses he saw in the religious world.

[The trouble the Rambam saw in the religious world of his time is described in detail in his commentary to Pikei Avot in ch 4. Mainly he saw that the people that invariably go to use the Torah to make money are the types that are incapable of accurately understanding any Gemara or Halacha. They are the most dull, the most stupid, and the most morally depraved. Thus there is no profession open to them except to to use Torah as a means to money, power, and influence. See the Rambam there in Pirkei Avot where he goes into detail, but he also mention this briefly in the Mishne Torah. His description is as accurate now as it was when he wrote it. The bad name they give to Torah makes it almost impossible for anyone to learn Torah sincerely. The religious world is a crooked racket, a fraud, and scam, and invites comparisons to the Mafia. Any sincere believer in Torah would be well advice to stay away from the religious, insane world as far as possible unless he happens to be near an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva, Mir Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Ponovitch.

I wanted to go into the basic idea of the Rambam in terms of learning. Mainly his program starts as simple as possible. The Mishne Torah itself. [Metaphysics means Aristotle's book called the Metaphysics. Physics also. However I hold modern Physics is included [i.e.Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Quantum Field Theory]. Similarly in terms of Metaphysics I hold Kant and Hegel are included. Preferably Hegel.] In terms of Torah the main thing after  a basic introduction in Gemara I think Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is the most important thing. 
[If I could complement the religious world for adhering to the Torah I would do so gladly. The trouble is I have found it to be highly inimical to Torah values. They do everything possible to destroy your family and children while at the same time claiming to support family values. See the excommunication that the Gra signed for further information. The problem seems to be the flawed vision of themselves as super human beings gives them a flawed idea of what other people are like. They see the rest of humanity as fit only for servile beasts of burden.]

Concerning the previous essay I would like to say that I think Rav Shach was forced into a difficult position because he had to defend the Rambam and the Rambam equates ערירי and כרת.
I was going to the nearby river to go to the mikve and it occurred to me that I am not forced to answer for the Rambam. Rather based on Rav Shach's insights and the Rashba that he brings, I have a much better answer for the braita in the beginning of Yevamot. That is, that it is going like שמואל ורב אסי and in fact hold עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת.
So my answer would be thus. Just like the Rashba says Shmuel and Rav Assi that hold הותרה ונאסרה והותרה אסורה would be holding that עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת and even for אשת אח מאביו the איסור of אשת אח continues but simply is pushed off by the עשה של יבום. But the הלכה is like רב ור' חנינא that הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת. and this is going like the opinion אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. This makes the most sense because normally we understand יבום to be like נדה in the way that after the time of the איסור there is no איסור at all, not that it is pushed away.
\ Rav Shach had available to him a much better answer, but ignored it because he felt the need to make the Rambam fit with everything. But that forced Rav Shach into a position that seems to me to be untenable. When a positive mitzvah pushes off a negative mitavah we do not say the negative mitvah has a time limit. If Rav Shach had not been forced to answer for the Rambam, he could easily have said what I have written here.


_______________________________________________________________________________

My answer for the ברייתא in the beginning of יבמות. That is,  it is going like שמואל ורב אסי and  holds עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת.
So my answer would be thus. Just like the רשב''א says שמואל and רב אסי that hold הותרה ונאסרה והותרה אסורה would be holding that עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת and even for אשת אח מאביו the איסור of אשת אח continues but simply is pushed off by the עשה של יבום. But the הלכה is like רב ור' חנינא that הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת. and this is going like the opinion אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. This makes the most sense because normally we understand יבום to be like נדה in the way that after the time of the איסור there is no איסור at all, not that it is pushed away.

תשובתי על הברייתא בתחילת יבמות. , זו הולכת כמו שמואל ורב אסי שמחזיקים עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. אז התשובה שלי תהיה בכך בדיוק כמו שהרשב''א אמר ששמואל ורב אסי מחזיקים הותרה ונאסרה והותרה אסורה וזה יהיה בגלל שקבעו כי עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת ואפילו אשת אח מאביו איסור של אשת אח נמשך, אבל פשוט נדחף על ידי עשה של יבום. אבל הלכה היא כמו רב ור' חנינא כי הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת. וזה הולך כדעת אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. זה הכי הגיוני כי בדרך כלל אנחנו מבינים יבום להיות כמו נדה באופן שבו לאחר הזמן של האיסור אין איסור כלל, לא כי הוא נדחף משם.

So the basic idea of the braita in Torah Kohanim I am leaving exactly as it sounds that there is a difference between the brother from the mother and the brother from the father and that both their wives are in כרת but the wife of the brother from the mother is not in ערירי. So in essence  the Rambam comes out OK also. That is the Rambam holds that both on the wife from the brother from the mother and the wife of the brother from the father have כרת and thus both are required a sin offering.
In any case I have never felt I had to answer for the Rambam at all cost. And we do not need to say he disagrees with the Braita in Torat Kohanim anyway.  And in any case I believe Rav Shach answers the Rambam somewhere else in the Avi Ezri in a different fashion.

The basic thing is this. Though the whole kind of learning of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik to justify the Rambam is great and amazing, still my orientation from the beginning of yeshiva in Shar Yashuv in NY and also my books on Bava Metzia and Shas have mainly been to concentrate on understanding Tosphot.  If an answer for the Rambam comes up--as it has often, then I am happy. But I am not aiming for that.
However when it comes to the Guide for the Perplexed, I think that was the Rambam's best work and led the way to synthesizing Faith and Reason. Clearly Aquinas owes to him and to Saadia Gaon a great debt, and so does all Western Civilization. Aquinas, I should mention, did not always quote Maimonides by name, for example in his proof of the existence of God [which I think is accepted he derived from Maimonides] he does not quote his name. But he does quote his name in other cases, as when giving the reasons for the commandments of the Torah. In any case, clearly the Rambam was able to bring Aristotle into the mainstream, and not just as a side note to Plato.

Maimonides and Saadia Gaon are the founders of a balance between Faith and Reason. Before that one approach of the other was over emphasized. And often they were considered incompatible.
The vision of the Rambam is still far beyond the sight of this generation. His four fold approach of learning the Written Law of Moses, the Two Talmuds, Physics and Metaphysics is still too radical for anyone to accept. I fear it will take a long time --if ever--for people to catch up with his vision

So all together the actual question that Tosphot raises on that Braita in the beginning of Yevamot along with my answer here would be this:

I wanted to introduce a famous subject that comes up in the beginning of Yevamot. This will help to answer a question I asked in the beginning of Yevamot that I wrote in my little booklet חידושי הש''ס


It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו the wife of a brother from the mother, not from the father. The Rambam says simply that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. [I mean if one slept with her.]  he does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת [being cut off from one's people if done on purpose and required a sin offering if done by accident.] This is clearly not like the Torah Kohanim that Tosphot brings in the beginning of Yevamot. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא"[she is a  woman that has seen blood.] Torah Kohanim asks why compare her to a נדה?  Because just like a נדה  has a time of permission so does she--that is if the  brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother.
So the Rambam obviously rejects this braita/teaching.

Rav Shach suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the Gemara that was rejected. [Yevamot 41]
הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה (like Shmuel and Rav Assi) The reason for this the Rashba says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת  but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the Halacha in the Gemara itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת (Rav and R. Chanina) and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to Yibum there no longer is any כרת involved.  Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the mitzvah of yibum never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory so the prohibition has a time limit.   Therefore the Braita of Torat Kohanim that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no permission does not apply. Thus we see that braita is going like a rejected opinion in the Gemara.

Thus my question in the beginning of yevamot also has an answer.
That is that original braita there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת  would also be going like this rejected opinion in the Gemara of Shmuel and Rav Assi 
{I wanted to introduce a  subject that comes up in the beginning of יבמות. This will help to answer a question I asked in the beginning of יבמות.[Mainly what I am doing here is simply saying that braita at the beginning of yevamot is not the halacha and in fact it hold עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת as Tosphot and the Old Tosphot both point out. So in stead of answering the question I simply say that braita is rejected. It is the question of אשת אחיו מאמו. The רמב''ם says simply that אשת אחיו the wife of a brother is required to bring a sin offering. [I mean if one slept with her.]  he does not make any distinction between the wife of a brother from the father or mother. That means both are in כרת,  and required a sin offering if done by accident. This is clearly not like the law in תורת כהנים that תוספות brings in the beginning of יבמות. That statement from the book reads thus, The the verse about not to marry one's brother's wife says "נדה היא". The תורת כהנים  asks why compare her to a נדה?  Because just like a נדה  has a time of permission, so does she, that is if the  brother dies without children. So the verse can not be talking about a brother from the mother.So the רמב''ם obviously rejects this teaching. רב שך suggests the reason is that it is going like an opinion in the גמרא that was rejected, יבמות מ''א. That is הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה like שמואל and רב אסי. The reason for this the רשב''א says is that opinion holds the יבמה is an איסור כרת  but the עשה of יבום pushes it off. But the הלכה in the גמרא itself is הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת like רב and ר' חנינא and that opinion holds the איסור of אשת אח has a time limit and after she falls to יבום there no longer is any כרת involved.  Thus the same goes for the wife of the brother from the mother that also has a time limit. But the actual prohibition never falls off because the מצוה of יבום never arrives. But since it could arrive in theory, so the prohibition has a time limit.  Therefore, the law of תורת כהנים that takes the wife of the brother from the mother out of כרת because she has no היתר does not apply. Thus we see that law of תורת כהנים is going like a rejected opinion in the גמרא.
Thus my question in the beginning of יבמות also has an answer. That is that original teaching there that would be holding עשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת  would also be going like this rejected opinion in the גמרא of שמואל and רב אסי.}

_____________________________________________________ So all together the actual question that Tosphot raises on that Braita in the beginning of Yevamot along with my answer here would be this:
 יבמות ג: הברייתא שואלת איך יודעים שאחות אשתו אסורה ביבום? והיא מתרצת שכתוב בויקרא אצל עריות "עליה" וכתוב בדברים אצל יבום "עליה". זה נראה כמו גזרה שווה. [גזרה שווה בדרך כלל היא שיש אותה מילה בשני מקומות, ולכן שמים את הדינים של מקום אחד למקום השני.] תוספות שואל, למה לא להפוך את הגזרה שווה לכיוון השני? והוא מתרץ, שהתנא של הברייתא אוחז בשיטה שעשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. זאת אומרת שבלי הגזרה שווה היינו אומרים שיבום דוחה איסור אחות אשתו. אם כן למה צריכים את הגזרה שווה? אלא על כורחך היא באה לומר את החידוש שאין יבום דוחה אחות אשתו.
עכשיו שמסקנת הגמרא היא (לקמן) שעשה אינו דוחה לא תעשה הסברה הייתה צריכה ללכת בכיוון השני. זאת אומרת שאין לנו מקום ללמוד ממנו שעריות אסורות ביבום. (אולי יש לומר שבאמת זאת היא סברת בית שמאי.) אופן שני להסתכל בברייתא הוא זה: אין הברייתא מזכירה גזרה שווה. יכול להיות היא חושבת על "מה מצינו". והיא חושבת כך: אנחנו מוציאים שאשת אחיו אסורה אפילו אם אחיו אינו בעולם. רק במקום יבום היא מותרת. באופן דומה היינו צריכים להתיר את כל העריות במקום יבום. ולכן אנחנו צריכים את המילה "עליה" לומר לנו שאחות אשתו וכל העריות אסורות. הקושיא כאן היא שזה היה עובד אפילו אם היתה לנו את המילה "עליה" רק במקום אחד. והברייתא אומרת שהדין שלה באה מן העובדה שאותה מילה נמצאת בשני המקומות. עוד קושיא גדולה כאן היא שאם הברייתא מכוונת לגזרה שווה יש כאן אי הבנה. גזרה שווה רגילה נותנת את הדינים של מקום אחד למקום השני וממקום השני למקום הראשון. אם זאת היא גזרה שווה, אזי התוצאה של זו היא שמילת "עליה" בעריות מדברת רק במקום יבום, ואז כל העריות תהיינה אסורות רק במקום יבום. וזה אי אפשר. ולכן צריכים לומר שכוונת התנא היא שזה מה מצינו. 
במילים אחרות. הברייתא אומרת איך אנחנו יודעים שאחותו של אשתו אסורה היבום? והיא עונה שהפסוק אומר "עליה" בויקרא ועליה בדברים בנוגע ליבום. זה נראה כמו גזירה שווה. גזירה שווה פירושו  המילה  זהה משמשת בשני מקומות שונים. אז אנחנו מיישמים את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, אלא אם כן קיים טעם ספציפי כי לפחות את כח הגזירה השווה. דרך חלופית אחת להסתכל על ברייתא זו היא לומר שזה לא קשור עם גזירה שווה.  די לחשוב ככה. אנו מוצאים כי אשתו של אחיו (של אחד) אסורה אפילו אחרי שהוא  נפטר. ובכל זאת אנו מוצאים כי במקרה הספציפי של יבום היא מותרת. אז אנחנו צריכים לאפשר לכל היחסים האסורים במקרה של יבום להיות מותרים. אז עכשיו אנחנו צריכים את מילה אחת מיותרת "עליה" לספר לנו שהיא אסורה. כלומר כי ברייתא הוא חושב על מה מצינו מה אנו מוצאים במקום אחד אנו מרחיבים באופן אוטומטי למקומות אחרים, אם לא נצליח למצוא סיבה ספציפית להגביל את תחולתו, לא גזירה שווה. הבעיה עם זה היא כי זה יעבוד גם אם רק הייתה המילה "עליה" לבדה.  את ברייתא בהחלט מתייחס לעובדה כי אותה המילה משמשת בשני המקומות לגזור את  החוק שלה. אז זה בהחלט אומר שזה גזירה שווה. ואם זה גזירה שווה, אז התוצאה היא קשה. הגזירה שווה הרגילה מעמידה את החוקים של מקום אחד למקום השני, ולהיפך. זה היה גורם לשים את "עליה" של יבום לתוך היחסים ולעשות את כולם אסורים רק במקרה של יבום! כלומר יש לנו שאלה משום גזירה שווה הולכת לשני הכיוונים. תשובה. למעשה אם גזירה שווה הולכת בשני הכיוונים הוא ויכוח. כאן נראה שהברייתא  בדעת שהגזירה השווה סובבת רק לכיוון אחד.

רציתי להציג נושא שעולה בתחילת יבמות. זה יעזור לענות על שאלה ששאלתי בתחילת יבמות. זוהי שאלת אשת אחיו מאמו. רמב''ם אומר בפשטות כי אשת אחיו (אשת אח) מחוייב להביא חטאת. אני מתכוון אם אחד שכב איתה. הוא לא עושה הבחנה בין אשת אח מן האב או האם. כלומר, שניהם נמצאים בכרת, ונזקק לחטאת אם נעשה בטעות. זה ברור לא כמו החוק בתורת כהנים שתוספות מביא בתחילת יבמות. משפט זה מובא על הפסוק  שלא לישא אשת אחיו של שאומר "נדה היא". תורת הכהנים שואלת למה להשוות אותה לנדה? מכיוון שבדיוק כמו נדה יש ​​זמן של רשות, כך גם היא, כלומר אם אחיו מת ללא ילדים. אז הפסוק לא ניתן לדבר על אח מהאם. אז רמב''ם ברור מוקיע את ההוראה הזאת. רב שך אומר הסיבה היא שהחוק הזה הולך כמו דעה בגמרא  שנדחתה,  יבמות מ''א. כלומר  הותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה אסורה כמו שמואל ורב אסי. הסיבה לזה הרשב''א אומר היא הדעה שמכילה את היבמה באיסור כרת אבל עשה של יבום דוחף אותו. אבל הלכה בגמרא עצמה היא הותרה ונאסרה והותרה מותרת כמו רב ור' חנינא וכי הדעה מחזיקה האיסור של אשת האח יש מגבלת זמן ואחרי שהיא נופלת יבום שאין עוד כל כרת מעורב. לכן כנ"ל לגבי אשת אחיו מהאם כי גם יש מגבלת זמן. אבל האיסור בפועל לא נופל משום מצוה של יבום לא מגיעה. אבל כיוון שהיא עלולה להגיע בתיאוריה, ולכן האיסור יש מגבלת זמן. לכן, החוק של  תורת כהנים שלוקח את אשתו של אחיו מהאם מתוך כרת כי אין לה היתר אינו חל.  עינינו רואות, כי החוק של תורת כהנים הולך כמו דעה שנדחתה הגמרא. לכן לשאלה שלי בתחילת יבמות גם יש תשובה.  לכן השאלה שלי בתחילת יבמות גם יש תשובה. לכן כנ"ל לגבי אשת אחיו מהאם כי גם יש מגבלת זמן. אבל האיסור בפועל לא נופל משום מצוה של יבום לא מגיעה. אבל כיוון שהיא עלולה להגיע בתיאוריה, ולכן האיסור יש מגבלת זמן. לכן, החוק של כהני תורה שלוקח את אשתו של אחיו מהאם מתוך כרת כי אין לה יתר אינו חל. עינינו רואות, כי החוק של תורת כהנים הולך כמו דעה שנדחתה הגמרא. לכן השאלה שלי בתחילת יבמות גם יש תשובה. כי ההוראה המקורית שם זה  מחזיק בשיטה שעשה דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת וזו תהיה גם כמו הדעה שנדחתה בגמרא , הדעה של שמואל ואת רב אסי.

What a human being ought to be?

It was pointed out to me by several people that the religious world seems to be afflicted with a tremendous amount of קטנות המוחין. Small mindedness. Pettiness.  After my learning partner pointed this out and then someone else that was in Uman for Rosh Hashanah I began to wonder why this is the case?

I do not have any answer for this but this very question leads me to wonder what a human being ought to be? To my mind the Rambam and my parents dealt with this question in the best way. 
That is with the Rambam we know one's education ought be in four areas: (1) תנ''ך Old Testament (2) the Entire Oral Law-the Two Talmuds, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta, Midrash Raba etc. (3) Physics (4) Metaphysics. This we already know from the Rambam. What my parents add to this picture is the idea of Menchlichtkeit and balance. That is hard to describe but mainly it means at it basic level good wholesome character traits. But on a higher level it means being everything a person ought to be. To see beyond the cave. [I have to add to this the basic books of the Musar Movement  which are the books of Musar from the Middle Ages and the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter]

I any case let me say what I think about the Rambam. To get through that material I think what the Talmud says is the idea idea לגמור והדר ליסבר to finish the material and then to go back and do it in more depth. So every time you finish let's say for example the Talmud you add one commentary. Lets say you did it once with Rashi. So the next time you add Tosphot. The third time you do the Maharsha. etc. 
[That is more or less what I do anyway. The first time doing Shas i have to admit I had to do Tosphot because that was part of the basic learning in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. But I found Tosphot very hard to understand. On the other hand I can not say to skip Tosphot because I can see that unless people at at struggle with Tosphot when they are 18-22 years old, they will never get it otherwise. It has to be embedded at early ages.]

intermarriage

When Pinchas saw a Israeli sleeping with a Midianite woman, he killed them both as is related in Parshat Pinchas 
[In that place God agreed with Pinchas and gave him an everlasting covenant.]
The major problem there I think is that of idolatry, not DNA or nationalism. I mean to say that intermarriage seems to be subject to an argument between Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages. To Shimon Ben Yochai the problem is with anyone that serves idols.  That is because he goes by the reason for a verse, not the literal meaning. But the sages confine the verses that forbid intermarriage  to their literal meaning --that is the seven Canaanite nations and any other that are mentioned. The verses about Pinchas I think are related to this issue. But it is hard to tell because of the censors.  
In any case, after thinking about it I would have to say that the Bible is mainly interested in the problem of idolatry in that place, not so much nationalism. [There is another issue which is if the children are counted as one's own--even if marriage is permitted. After all a Jewish slave is allowed to sleep with a non Jewish slave woman as it says in Exodus in Parshat Mishpatim, but the children are not counted as his.]
I mention this because the blog http://amerika.org brought this up about nationalism. However  a friend of mine who learns in a kollel in Jerusalem mentioned to me that Rav Kook defends nationalism.\
[This came up because he was in a mixed kollel in which some people were more on the Religious Zionist side, and others on the reverse side. He asked me about this.  I said the nationalism side had support from the Zohar.}

[I have heard a defense of nationalism from Hegel and that makes sense to me. He was not thinking of every state or every nation, but one that had a kind of higher ideal. That is his kind of combination of  Platonic forms that participate in the particulars. 

From the aspect of Darwin,  there is a kind of process of Nature which begins to separate races into different species-- and that is more based on biology more than nationalism.]

[I am not really sure what to say about Christians. The prohibition of intermarriage is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages but in that argument the only question that comes up is either just the seven Canaanite Nations [That is the opinion of the Tur ] or all idol worshipers (that is the opinion of the Rambam). In the context it is clear that the issue is idolatry. And Christianity itself is subject to debate on this issue. The opinions range all the way from the Rambam to most strict until the Meiri and the Abravanel. Tosphot I once tried to work on  with David Bronson, but in the exact same Tospot [In Avoda Zara I forget the page number] there seems to have been a few opinions.  I never got very far with the issues of idolatry. The most I can say is that Christianity does not seem to be idolatry to me. In terms of a legal decision all I can say is I usually go by the most lenient opinions of the Rishonim or opinions in the Gemara which are not pushed out of Halacha. [That is to say in the Gemara itself we have a few different ways of deciding. The Rambam and Rif always go by the לישנא בתרא. Other Rishonim go by לישנא קמא. That is to say to make a decision anywhere it is needed to know the actual sugia in the Gemara itself. In any case I am usually lenient a long as there is at least one Rishon that backs me. (A Rishon means Tosphot, Rif Rosh, Tur, Rambam etc.)   

Someone sent to me a few volumes of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I see he has an essay on this subject of the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages.  I have not figured out what he is saying exactly but he does have away of getting the decision of the Rambam to fit with the Sages {that are not דורשים טעמה דקרא}
The Tur goes with the simple way of understanding the halacaha that since in deciding a law we do not look at the reason for the law לא דורשים טעמה דקרא;--  so only the seven Canaanite nations are forbidden. [That is the Tur decides plain and simple like R. Yehuda. The Rambam decides like the sages  in the law of the king not to have wives above number 18. That is like R. Shimon when the reason for the law is stated in the verse, and like R. Yehuda when it is not. ]

Nationalism I should mention is best dealt with with Richard Epstein -who is a kind of Libertarian. Thus he has a similar problem as does the Talmud which is this: what is the status of a nation? Obviously the Talmud does not deal with that. At most it gets up to the collective level of the Sanhedrin. The most it can do is דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the country is the law. Obviously libertarians have a great deal of trouble also in recognizing the existence of any state. As far as they are considered, it is a non existing entity. Richard Epstein does deal with this problem.   Mainly he does this by means of the Constitution which is more or less the approach of the Rashbam in Bava Batra חזקת הבתים where he considers government to a kind of contract.  Thus Richard Epstein agrees with the existence of government, and it is not the same thing as a collection of individuals, but he puts limits on its power because of the Constitution. See  for example this review.
Also look right at the beginning of the Tur חושן משפט the argument between Rav Joseph Karo and the Bach concerning שותפות. Joining. Partnership. That is a bunch of people put together a collective "purse"  of money to do business with. Is it nothing more than a collection of individuals, or is a new entity created?
This is relevant to the State of Israel.  Halacha has had for a long time great difficulty in dealing with any State. So people that learn Gemara as a rule have great difficulty in seeing any validity in the rules created by any state.  All the more so in the USA where Richard Epstein believes every piece of legislation from 1937 [the New Deal] until now is invalid. 

See this debate between Epstein and Huemer  Epstein you will notice does  justify the existence of government and recognizes it as a separate entity. But he does believe in limited government. That is Epstein is not depending on the Constitution.  As far as he is concerned even a monarchy or any kind of government needs to be limited.
How does he justify government? Epstein says contract does not help unless there is a force to enforce contract. It is a Kantian idea of a "ground" of validity.
A libertarian state is by definition unstable and a gang will automatically take over in which a small group of elites enslave everyone else. This is not an a posteriori argument but a a priori argument and thus Epstein wins the debate. Epstein depends of the Just restitution clause a lot. Not restitution but just restitution--the amount the person would be willing to sell his property for to another individual not the government.