Idolatry

I wanted to share some thoughts about Hulin page 40. The point I would like to get to is that  the Rambam must hold like Tosphot on page 41, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only derabanan, then what would the question of Rava be?  Let's sy teh law of Rav Huna was only derabanan. Then when Rav Nachman comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on Shabat is liable three, then Rav Huna could simply have answered I m saying it is forbidden derabanan but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time.
__________________________________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

רב שך when he was a young yeshiva student wrote that this רמב''ם is only דרבנן but I think that it must be that it is from the Torah itself. But to me the idea that this is דרבנן would need stronger proofs than what רב שך brings.  Everyone agrees from where the prohibition to the altar comes from, It is one simple גמרא about the כלים  that were used by אחז, were put away by חזקיה. So obviously the תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן  manage to get the איסור still to be from the Torah. So why not the רמב''ם also?

Now I admit that in the end רב שך explains the question of רב נחמן well. That once there is a prohibition to the altar because of the prohibition of idolatry, even דרבנן, at that point it  no longer can be brought to the altar and thus is no longer שחוטי חוץ. But that is not a question. If that was the question, the answer would have been simply אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה היא מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת  החיובים באים בבת אחת.

רב שך כתב רמב''ם זה רק דרבנן אבל אני חושב שזה חייב להיות שזה מן התורה עצמה. להוכיח שזה דרבנן היה צריך הוכחות חזקות ממה שרב שך מביא. כולם מסכימים מאיפה האיסור המזבח בא, זה גמרא אחת פשוטה על כלים ששימש בהם אחז, הונחו בגניזה על ידי חזקיה.  התוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן הצליחו להעביר את האיסור להיות מן התורה. אז למה לא רמב''ם גם? עכשיו אני מודה כי בסופו של דבר רב שך מסביר את השאלה של רב נחמן היטב. כי ברגע שיש איסור על המזבח בשל האיסור של עבודה זרה, אפילו דרבנן, בשלב הזה הבעל חי כבר לא יכול להיות מובא אל המזבח ולכן הוא כבר לא שחוטי חוץ. אבל זה לא שאלה. אם זאת היתה השאלה, התשובה היתה פשוט אני כוונתי שהאיסור הוא מדרבנן אבל מן התורה החי מותרת להקדש ולכן כל שלשת החיובים באים בבת אחת.






______________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to share some thoughts about חולין  דף מ. The point I would like to get to is that  the רמב''ם must hold like תוספות on דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, because if the prohibition to the altar of an animal that was worshiped would be only דרבנן, then what would the question of רב מחמן be?  Let's say the  law of רב הונא was only דרבנן. Then when רב נחמן comes along with the teaching that one that slaughters a sin offering to an idol on שבת is liable three חטאות, then רב הונא could simply have answered, "I am saying it is forbidden דרבנן, but from the Torah it is still fit for the altar and thus the three obligations come at once time." So he has to mean it is forbidden from the Torah itself.

 חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע הוא כי רמב''ם חייב להחזיק כמו תוספות על דף מ''א ד''ה ת''ש, כי אם איסור למזבח של החיה שסגדו לה יהיה רק ​​דרבנן, אז מה הייתה השאלה של רב מחמן ? נניח החוק של רב הונא הוא רק ​​דרבנן. לאחר מכן, כאשר רב נחמן מגיע  עם הוראה אחת כי טובח חטאת לאליל ביום שבת עלול שלוש חטאות, אז רב הונא היה פשוט ענה, "אני אומר שזה איסור דרבנן, אבל מן התורה זה עדיין מתאים המזבח וכך שלושת החובות באות בבת אחת בזמן." אז מוכרח שהוא מהתכוון שזה איסור מן התורה עצמה.









_____________________________________________________________________________
The basic idea is this: Rav Huna  said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe [the windpipe or the food pipe ], it is forbidden to the altar it even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from Ula who said in the name of R. Yochanan even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה (slaughtering) we need two סימנים (windpipe and food pipe)? [Rav Nachman asks on him, but it is not the same question I am asking.]  Rav Nachman asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. "One who slaughters a  sin offering on Shabat, outside the Temple, to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings." Rav Nachman asks, "Why three? If one tube [the windpipe or the food pipe] is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar, and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.

[This is all in the way of introduction. I am hoping to show that the Rambam must hold like Tosphot Hulin page 41 ד''ה ת''ש]

In any case, the problem all begins with Rashi who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. It is learned from a verse in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה [words of the scribes], not from the Torah itself. [You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the Gemara in Bava Kama does learns גזרה שוות from verse in the prophets with verse in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא]. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנהand other achronim [later authorities] are asking on the Rambam that he seems to hold this prohibition is only derabanan. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the Rambam brings this whole sugia  subject is he states flat out: One who serves  the animal of his friend makes it forbidden in פרק ו' הלכה ד' אסורי מזבח . He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal! But when it comes to regular animals, he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself, and also to ignore the whole sugia in Hulin. What I would like to suggest is that the Rambam holds like Tosphot that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא [large act and small act]. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of Hulin. Certainly Tosphot, the Ran and the Ramban hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah  and even though Rashi brings a verse from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the Rambam would disagree with these other people.
The idea is that the Rambam does not say "he bowed to the animal" but "did service". That would be like Tosphot that he did a small act which would be סימן אחד When it comes to a regular animal there when he says he needs an act that means a large act.



________________________________________________________________________________


 חולין דף מ. The point I would like to get to is  the רמב''ם might hold like תוספות on page מ''א.
The basic idea is this: ר''ה said If an animal is lying down in front of an idol and someone comes along and slaughters it even just one pipe the windpipe or the food pipe , it is forbidden to the altar  even though the animal is not his own.
He brings a proof from עולא who said in the name of ר. יוחנן even though one who bows towards the animal of another person does not cause it to be forbidden, he can cause it to be forbidden by doing an act on it.
My question here is why is this a proof? Maybe when it come to שחיטה we need two סימנים? The גמרא The brings רב נחמן who asks on ר''ה but it is not the same question I am asking. רב נחמן asks from השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. One who slaughters a  sin offering on שבת, outside the בית המקדש to an idol is required to bring three sin offerings. רב נחמן asks why three? If one tube, the windpipe or the food pipe, is enough to cause it to be forbidden, then it already is not fit for the altar and thus he should only be required two sin offerings.
The question is on ר''ה himself. To רב נחמן it seems clear the obligation for all three things comes at once after שחיטת רוב שנים. The question I asked is where is the proof in the first place? ר. יוחנן never said anything about סימן אחד

In any case, the problem all begins with רש''י  who brings the reason the animal is forbidden. This רש''י is bringing from a different גמרא.  It is learned from a פסוק in the prophets. That would make it at most a prohibition מדברי קבלה not from the Torah itself. You could argue that this is not at all necessarily so based on the fact that the גמרא in בבא קמא דף ג does learns גזרות שוות from פסוקים in the prophets with פסוקים in the Torah and considers it all to be דאורייתא. But bear with me for a minute. What is going to end up is that people like the לחם משנה and other אחרונים are asking on the רמב''ם that he seems to hold this prohibition is only דרבנן. That is exactly what I am hoping to argue against.
The things that are difficult about how the רמב''ם brings this whole סוגיה  subject is he states: one who bows to the animal of another person makes it forbidden in פסולי המוקדשין. He does not mention anything about doing any act on the animal. But when it comes to regular animals he does state that to make it forbidden one needs to do an act. So he seems to contradict himself and also to ignore the whole סוגיה in חולין. What I would like to suggest is that the רמב''ם holds like תוספות that makes a distinction between מעשה רבה ומעשה זוטרא. So the סימן אחד is called a small act which forbids קדשים and רוב שני סימנים is a large act and thus forbids an animal of חולין.   Certainly תוספות, the ר''ן and the רמב''ן hold the animal is forbidden from the Torah  and even though רש''י brings a פסוק from the prophets I see no reason to imagine the רמב''ם would disagree with these other people.





) רמב''ם משנה תורה ה' איסורי מזבח פ''ד ה''ו הנעבד בין שעבד שלו בין של חבירו בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין לפני הקדש בין לאחר הקדש הרי זה אסור וירעה עד שיפול בו מום קבוע ויפדה בו. חולין דף מ. הנקודה שאני רוצה להגיע אליה היא שהרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו תוספות בעמוד מ''א ד'ה ת''ש. הרעיון הבסיסי הוא זה: ר''ה אמר אם בעל חי שוכב מול אליל ומישהו בא ושוחט אותו, אפילו רק צינור אחד (קנה נשימה או צינור המזון), אסור למזבח למרות שהחיה היא לא שלו. הוא מביא ראיה מן עולא שאמר בשם ר' יוחנן אף אחד מי שקד לעבר בהמה של אדם אחר אינו גורם לה להיות אסורה, אבל הוא יכול לגרום לה ליאסר על-ידי עשיית פעולה. השאלה שלי כאן היא למה זה הוכחה? אולי כשזה בא לשחיטה אנחנו צריכים שני סימנים? הגמרא מביאה רב נחמן ששואל על ר''ה אבל זו לא אותה דבר כשאלה שאני שואל. רב נחמן שואל מן השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לעכו''ם חייב שלש. (השוחט חטאת ביום שבת, מחוץ לבית המקדש לאליל נדרש להביא שלוש חטאות). רב נחמן שואל מדוע שלוש? אם צינור אחד, קנה הנשימה או צינור המזון, זה מספיק כדי לגרום לו להיות אסור, אז זה כבר אינו מתאים למזבח וכך הוא צריך להידרש רק שתי  חטאות. השאלה היא על ר''ה עצמו.  לרב נחמן  החובה לכל שלושת הדברים מגיע בבת אחת לאחר שחיטת רוב השנים. (השאלה  היא על ההוכחה מלכתחילה? ר' יוחנן לא אמר שום דבר על סימן אחד.) בכל מקרה, בעית הכל מתחילה עם רש''י שמביא סיבת החיה אסורה. זה רש''י מביא מתוך גמרא שונה. הוא למד מתוך פסוק בנביאים. זה יעשה את זה לכל היותר איסור מדברי קבלה, לא מהתורה עצמה. אתה יכול לטעון כי זה בכלל לא בהכרח. זאת בהתבסס על העובדה שהגמרא בבבא קמא דף ג'  לומדת גזרות שווות מן פסוקים בנביאים עם פסוקים בתורה ורואה את כל זה  להיות דאורייתא. אבל לשאת איתי לרגע. מה קורה בסופו של דבר הוא שהלחם המשנה ואחרונים אחרים שואלים על הרמב''ם שהוא נראה להחזיק איסור זה הוא רק דרבנן. זה בדיוק מה שאני מקווה להתווכח נגד. הדבר שקשה הוא על איך רמב''ם מביא נושא הסוגיה הזה. הוא  קובע: מי שעבד את החיה של אדם אחר עושה את זו אסורה למזבח (רמב''ם איסורי מזבח ). הוא לא הזכיר שום דבר על לעשות כל פעולה על החיה. אבל כשמדובר על חיות רגילות הוא מהצהיר כי כדי לעשות את זה אסור אחד צריך לעשות מעשה. אז כנראה הוא סותר את עצמו וגם מהתעלם מסוגיה שלמה בחולין. מה שאני רוצה להציע הוא כי רמב''ם מחזיק כמו תוספות שעושה הבחנה בין מעשה רב ומעשה זוטרא. אז הסימן האחד נקרא מעשה קטן האוסר קדשים ואת רוב שני סימנים הוא מעשה גדול ובכך אוסר חיה של חולין.  אין ספק שתוספות, את ר''ן ואת רמב''ן מהחזיקים את החיה אסור מן התורה. ואף שרש''י מביא פסוק מן הנביאים, אני לא רואה שום סיבה לדמיין  שרמב''ם לא יסכים עם אלה. רמב''ם איסורי מזבח פרק ו' הלכה ד'. הרעיון הוא כי רמב''ם לא אומר שהוא קד לחיה, אבל עשה שירות. זה יהיה כמו שתוספות אמרו שכשהוא עושה מעשה קטן זה יהיה סימן אחד. כשמדובר על חיה רגילה, שם כשהוא אומר שהוא צריך מעשה זה אומר מעשה גדול, שני סימנים.

Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.

Russia I think is keeping up the pressure on the Ukraine to not let them join NATO or the EU. The more the Ukraine goes in that direction politically, the more Russia uses actual violence to stop them. Russia will simply not let NATO get to its door step. Period. That is in chess like guarding the queen. What Russia would like to say is this: "Don't join NATO. If you abide by this, we will respect your borders and sovereignty, and give you special trading privileges as you have always enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. But do not join NATO."
But Russia cannot say this openly because it sounds like violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. So it has to say this in a way that is implicit, not explicit.
I do not see in this problem any solution except what  already some people have seen-- not political, but a religious revival.  To me it seems clear what this area of the world needs is a kind of religious revival--or better put--that each individual makes a commitment to get right with God. Thus I see a place for the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches. That is because I see politics downstream from faith.  Strengthen faith, and political stability will result.
Ayn Rand saw society downstream from its philosophers. I can see this point to some degree. But I think rather the source of values [good or bad] is in religion.
But you can't manufacture religious revival. Even in the good sense. Perhaps in the negative sense it is possible, because human nature is in any case depraved. Even in the good sense, emphasizing the right and godly things, men will find a way of perverting everything and turning it towards their own profits and pleasure. Still from what I have seen a religious revival is possible (in some sense) to create the proper conditions for, and then hope that God will our out his spirit. At least I saw this in the Mir yeshiva in NY and also in Shar Yashuv. My impression is Musar yeshivas tend to be more prepared for the Divine spirit.

  But on the other hand there are plenty of organizations which are open to the spirit of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side]. So I do not know any definite rules about this. 
  
The best idea I have seen about this is Reb Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar which means books of ethics written during the Middle Ages.  What is great about Musar is that it brings one that reads it face to face with his or hers obligations in the most delightful way. No sugar coating. Just plain and simple facts about what one is supposed to do for God.

In any case the question is can government do anything to strengthen this? I think it can. Vouchers for private schools.

getting right with God

The trouble with the religious world is that being religious has nothing to do with getting right with God.

For the religious, rituals become the main thing. 

Getting right with God is something  different. It is paying one's debts, it is having compassion, it is not depending on charity but working honesty for a living. 

In the religious world, it seems the greatest mitzvah is to convince secular Jews to give them money. But instead of gratitude, this creates an attitude of מגיע לי--as if it is owed to them.

Western Civilization- what is the part worth preserving?

Not everything about Western Civilization is worth preserving. The very term in itself implies the kind of discretion that people used to exercise in deciding what were the main aspects of the West that were worthwhile passing on to the next generation. By definition most is mediocre. When I was in high school, the system was more careful about what they were going to give to the next generations. Maybe it was especially in my high school where the teachers were really great. But my impression is that this was pretty universal in the USA.  
So the Music was mainly the classical greats, the literature also. Even USA history concentrated on reading the actual documents from each major period--which for me was the absolute hardest to do. I believe the Rambam exercised a great deal of caution and judgment in his recommendation of Physics, Metaphysics, the Two Talmuds and the Written Law of Moses. 
He certainly considered history to be the sin of bitul Torah wasting time which should be used for learning Torah,  and also forbidden in itself as מושב לצים seat of the scornful. Music also. I can not find an opinion that allows learning history. But the Gra did say the seven wisdoms are required--which do not include history nor literature.
But the Quadrivium includes Music.


I believe the main things are Physics, Metaphysics,  the Written Law of Moses. Most everything else I would throw out. The Gra and many other however did recommend the sevens wisdoms [Trivium Quadrivium]--which does not include literature. Almost everything that is called science today is pseudoscience. The only things that are valid are STEM.  

[Physics I want to mention requires two sessions. One is the going fast one called Bekiut בקיאות. The other is in depth learning. I sometimes find saying the words forwards and backwards of each sentence helpful. I saw this idea in mystic from the Middle Ages. The basic idea was repeated by the Ari, Isaac Luria in the section of unifications for correction to different sins in שער רוח הקודש, and the Ramchal Rav Moshe Chaim Luzato gave a go explanation for this in one of his mysic books --something along the lines of the אור חוזר returning light completes the coming light אור ישר.

Trends in Christianity.

The most public face of Christianity is Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Evangelical, Left Wing Protestant with is apathetic Protestant (with social justice warriors) and Emergent Protestant, Evangelical Protestant.
Evangelical is actually a euphemism for Pentecostal, it is basically the same thing without the theatrics.

So outside of the general constant spitting of Protestant we see a more fundamental splinting along these lines.  Apathetic Protestant, Social Justice politically militant Protestant, Emergent (post modern) Protestant. Apathetic and Evangelical are actually pretty close in doctrine, but differ in amounts of fervor.

All go with Paul, who was as distorting the message of Jesus. (See  the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.] (There is plenty evidence that Simon Magus in the Clementine Recognitions is Paul.)   I can see in the NT itself an obvious difference between what Peter and James were saying was the message of Jesus, and what Paul was saying. Paul was  saying antinomianism (anti-law), and people that got his letters acted on that principle to forsake all moral constraints. When news of that got back to Paul he backtracked. Thus you can prove from Paul's letters anything you want to. See here  about Paul ]

Paul's  message is at odds with what was reported in the name of Jesus. It takes intellectual gymnastics to ignore Jesus, and claim that Paul understood him better that his actual words say. 

Paul had to contradict himself also because of circumstances that arose due to his original letters. The original letters supported "No Laws" [antinomianism]. Then as we see in latter letters people acted on what he wrote. Then he had to go back to the ''Eeny Meeni Miny Moe'' method about which laws of Moses to keep and which not. So Paul ends up being incoherent at best. To Peter and James, that would be the least of his problems. 

Since all historical Christianity comes from Paul who had enormous success in planting churches all throughout the Roman world which even after he was gone kept on spreading like wild fire, thus the problems in Paul keep on being played out every day. What one person wants to prove from one letter, someone else can always find an opposite statement in another letter.
Luther put the antinomian [anti law of Moses] into this explicit phrase: "We do not want to hear about Moses." {See rejection of Moses}
The whole quote is this: "Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament." (1967b:170) 

Also from that PhD Thesis: "Nevertheless, we cannot escape Luther’s negative expressions against Moses, for example, “beat Moses to death and throw many stones at him”; “we shall make new Decalogues,” and, “Moses is nothing to us” (Avis 1975:152, 154, 156). 
Luther's sermon on Moses

"But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, (3) wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service."


In any case the Law of Moses is forever as is stated many times about particular commandments, and about the whole law itself in Deuteronomy 6 and also at the very end of the Torah in Haazinu, and at the end of the prophets זכרו תורת משה Remember the Law of Moses. 

So my approach is to say that Paul, Luther, and Calvin, while intending to do well, were mistaken in their approaches and also did not pay much attention to the Law of Moses  in the first place. Their views are simply incoherent and make opposing statements all the time. At least, I have to admit Aquinas and Hegel tried hard to make sense out of it all.

I should add that as many people have noticed, "What does it matter?" For attachment with God, sincere service to God surely is not dependent on doctrines? I have to agree with that, but to understand right from wrong is not possible without the Law of Moses.

See the Rambam's approach to natural law and the law of Moses in the Guide. 
There is an any case an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and R. Yehuda and the sages about if a mizvah applies when the reason for it does not apply. R. Shimon said ''no.'' It is famous that the law is like R Yehuda, but Rav Shach noted that this is  a mistake. The actual Law is like the sages that hold with R. Shimon in certain cases (when both the reason and the law are given together).  



But does the Rambam allow hidden reasons for commandments? Clearly he must as we see in the Guide about the difference between natural Law and Torah Law. He says Natural law was a needed stage before Torah Law. So he obviously sees some difference even in essence. So we have to say like this to R Shimon and the Rambam when the open reason for the law does not apply so the hidden reason also vanishes.

t23 A Flat Major  t23 in midi  t23 in nwc

Attachment with God, The excommunication that was signed by the Gra.

Attachment with God is not given much emphasis in the Lithuanian Yeshiva World--and for good reason. That is an area of value that is liable to deterioration and delusions and eventually insanity.

You can see this in the Talmud itself where the commandment of being attached to God is understood to mean being associated with  true Torah scholars. However I did see R. Eliezer from Mitz [a disciple of Rabbainu Tam] that counts attachment in  itself as one of the Taryag 613 commandments. (Deuteronomy ch. 11)
This tendency you see in the Rambam where in the Guide where he says the commandments to love and fear God are fulfilled by learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks. [He hinted to this in the Mishne Torah, the יד החזקה, but his hints there usually go unnoticed.]


 I discovered that attachment to God can come through the straight Litvak path of simply learning and keeping the Oral and Written Law of Moses. There is a path that leads from simple Gemara, Rashi, Topshot that leads to attachment with God. That is not the same as the kind of feeling of holiness you feel when you  learn. It is rather a kind of settling of the Divine presence on you. [שכינה והאור אין סוף. ]


On the other hand there are Torah scholars that are demons.  The excommunication that was signed by the Gra, tried to deal with this problem but if the Gra was ignored, there is no chance that my warnings will be heeded. 

In any case, for the sake of information, I would like to go into this phenomenon. Part of being attached to God I think is dependent on God. I think it is  from God, and but also from a person's state of being prepared. 

There are different aspects of it. Thus with the ancient prophets, it manifested itself in prophecy. During the Middle Ages, it as considered that revelations of knowledge were also gifts from God as you can see in the  חובות לבבות [Obligations of the Heart] and the Guide of the Rambam. In my own case the basic steps that lead me, were learning Gemara and Musar (Reb Israel Salanter' Ethics),  in the Mir Yeshiva in NY,  then arriving in Israel, and then living in Safed.

[I should mention that there is a kind of philosophy behind this Lithvak idea of "learning Torah" which is this: The Written Law of Moses was given by God and that it will never be replaced and is obligatory for all time, and the Oral Law or Talmud is the proper explanation of it. Also the Torah is God centered. There is no room for worship of corpses or any human beings. 

Thus is it clear that the religious world is demon filled and only uses Torah as camouflage. So anyone that is sincere must run from the religious at all cost. The religious synagogues are dwelling places of the Devil. Run for your life. The  best option is either to learn Torah at home or if you have a Litvak yeshiva in the area then to go there.
Authentic means Mir in NY, Brisk, Ponovitch, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vedaat.--or branches or off shoots of these places.[I might mention that Rv Montag's yeshiva in Netivot I found filled with the spirit of Torah.] 


In any case I want to mention that I am not coming from place of superior knowledge or intuition. Rather from the evidence of the common sense approach to Torah of my parents and Rav Shach and the Gra and the Rambam. I am as liable as anyone to religious deception and manipulation. Especially at the hands of cults that have the accumulated knowledge of generations of how to manipulate native people like myself. That I why I spend the time and energy to warn others to avoid the mind traps I have fallen into.