Reb Nachman against Torah scholars that are demons

The Jewish religious world is a hotbed of cults. The major problem was foreseen by Reb Nachman from Breslov in many of his Torah lessons where he describes the problem with Torah scholars that are demons. Even though this language sounds harsh it actually comes from the Zohar and the Arizal.
The stereotype of Torah teachers is used by scam artists: they dress up like trustworthy people as part of their effort to fool the unsuspecting victim.


The issue many seems to be that people that want to come to learn and keep the Torah have little idea of what authentic Torah is and so they get easily fooled by charlatans.

The Gra already warned about this problem and even put the cults into excommunication but his warning and even his signature on the letter of excommunication is ignored.
Some people even think Reb Nachman was included in the ban, but that is not possible if you look at the actual language  of the letter.


[Reb Nachman includes this idea of Torah scholars that are demons in even the very last lesson in his major book. But Reb Israel Odessar emphasized it more than is usually expected. Thus the Na Nach people tend to have automatic suspicion towards anyone that supposedly is  a teaching Torah and they assume it is Torah from the Sitra Achra [the Dark Realm. I have to admit that the Na Nach group has a good point in this regard-- as many others have noticed, but have been intimidated from speaking out. I really have no idea why or when the present day situation arose but you have to say it started at least as far back as the time of Reb Nachman. Nowadays the last place one should go for advice is to torah scholars that are demons.] 

Lashon Hara [slander] versus the Chafez Chaim.

I want to suggest an answer to a question that was raised in the Mir Yeshiva in NY on the Chafez Chaim. concerning the laws of Lashon Hara. I think the law of אפי  תלתא [Lashon Hara said in front of three people can be spread further because it is already public] really has to mean that the Lashon Hara is said in front of three people. That does not include the speaker. I think this is really the intent of the law. Yet as far as I recall Rav Israel Meir HaKoken [the Chafez Chaim] allows this even when the speaker is one of the three. I believe he is basing this קולא on the fact that מחאה [objecting to a person that has occupied his property illegally] needs to be said only in front on two  people.[and the Gemara compares the two laws]  He is I think allowing this because in any case he is being strict about this law in saying that it applies only to אבק לשון הרע. So to make up for one חומרא [being strict in one thing] he is adding one קולא [being lenient in another].



The basic question on the Chafez Chaim is this. He allows the קולא of אפי תלתא (in front of three) that is: if one has said slander in front of three people, then any one of the three can go on and spread it further. The one who said it is included. The question is this: Tell the one who is asking the question not to spread it, and then there will no longer be three people spreading the slander.


My reasoning here is simple. If you look at the Gemara you will see באפי תלתא [in front of three] has to mean in front of three other people. So on the law itself there is no question. The only question is on the Chafez Chaim. And my answer  is as I mentioned up above.


Furthermore on a different note I want to suggest that the rishonim that allow straightforward "in front of three" if it is true [not just the "dust of Lashon Hara"] are all deciding the law like Rabbainu Yona in the Shaari Teshuva that there is no Lashon  Hara on truth unless it is because of collateral damage. Otherwise, I can not see why they would all allow it to be spread further just because of באפי תלתא [in front of three].[That would seem to make it worse.]
However if lashon hara for truth is allowed anyway, then why would you need באפי תלתא? So maybe the  whole thing really just applies to the dust of lashon hara and that lashon hara on truth is forbidden without all the seven conditions for בין אדם לחבירו and the other conditions for בין אדם למקום
 I imagine to answer this question you have to say that the whole thing about אפי תלתא  is to say that you can repeat what you heard and it has nothing to do with information you know first hand.

I think the basic approach of Christians towards Jesus is mistaken because they tend to look at Jesus from the lens and viewpoint of Paul rather than taking his words to mean what he said. Keeping the Law which means for Jesus the Law of Moses was a big part of his platform  and focus. Plus the idea that he is not God was also a major point by him, even though he was attached with God in a NeoPlatonic sense.{One person called him "good". Jesus said, "Do not call me good. Only call God good."}

You can see this approach also in the letters of James and Peter.

On the other hand I learned in the book of the Rosh Yeshiva of  Slobodka  אור צפון that God forgives idolatry if people are doing kindness. So I tend to look at Christians that emphasize kindness as being basically on a good path.
I might try to expand this essay in the future but that is my basic idea for now.



[The basic issues can be divided into three: (1) The Law of Moses. There you do not see the distinction of Thomas Aquinas between Natural Law and Divine Law. Rather-the law is the law. (2) The idea of attachment  with God which is a commandment in the Torah so for anyone to say they are "attached with God" does not mean they are God. Nor does the Son of God mean anything more because of capital letters than it does anywhere else where the same phrase is used: "The Sons of God came to stand before him," "My Son, my first born is Israel" etc. and lots of other places--"Don't make a bald spot on your head because you are the Sons of God." (3) The whole debate between Paul and James and Peter is smoothed over in a very dishonest way. James openly says a statement which is  as clear as can be: "Anyone who lacks doing even one commandment of the Torah is as if he transgressed the whole thing."'  While Luther had a great point about getting back to original sources, still Christians have never taken the words of Jesus nor James and Peter to mean what they say.

Women today in the West  have lost their sense of place and this makes them particularly obnoxious.
But to be without a woman is not really an option. Yet to be married to one gives them way too much leverage over a man. Therefore the פילגש option seems best. [That is the girl friend. ] This you can see was a viable option in the Law of Moses. It is not the same thing as a זונה [prostitute] who is not specifically for one man.

Many people mix up these issues. They think sex outside of marriage is automatically prostitution which is certainly not the case. .


Calev ben Yefune had a few wives and a few girl friends as we can see n Chronicles I ch 2 verse 46.
[That is the friend of Joshua.]

Torah scholars

Cults and cult leaders usually take off from some established religion. They do not make up their own scriptures but use existing scriptures and then claim that to get to the truth of that system one needs to go through their lunatic leader.  This happens in the Jewish world as much as anywhere else.
Thus one needs a certain degree of common sense and a sense of authenticity to be able to avoid the problem. Another alternative that some people take is simply to avoid that particular religion entirely once they become aware of the cults that have infiltrated it.

I have mentioned before that Reb Nachman [of Breslov and Uman] noted this problem though he was not the first. This come up in his book in Volume I chapter 12 where he explains the problem with "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings down from the Zohar. [I recall this problem arising a lot in all of his five books but mainly in his major one.] As usual in Torah lesson 12 he build up a a whole system based on this idea.

To solve this problem in fact those that decide to avoid the problem entirely and go off into Eastern religions makes a certain degree of sense. But my approach is to simply stick with Torah--the Oral and Written Law and avoid the cults as much as possible. That is mainly by sticking with the basic approach of the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter which is collectively called the Litvak Approach based on the fact that this approach was widely accepted in Lithuania.

Today this good approach is mainly found in Ponovitch and NY Litvak Yeshivas and paces that are modeled after them.

בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב Talmud Bava Batra page 18 side B

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. I was wondering why the גמרא asks on page י''ח ע''ב a question on רבא from ר' יוסי. Since for all we know the argument between אביי and רבא is only according to the sages of the משנה.  After all they can not be arguing about ר' יוסי who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the הלכה would be like ר' יוסי, still they can not be arguing about a statement of ר' יוסי that says "It is allowed". The argument between רבא and אביי is if one can put something by the boundary if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.] It occurred to me that in fact the question of the גמרא must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and ר' יוסי says they do not need to be kept away. But this question on רבא can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all רבא says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border. And that is in fact one answer of the גמרא, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.


בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק  לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול  להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים  אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר  לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים  שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול


A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.

false Torah scholars

The trouble with false Torah scholars is that they cause more damage than if they would be open criminals. It is by the fact they present themselves as knowing  Torah and by that gaining people's trust that they cause the terrible evils they bring into the world. This is stated openly in the Talmud tractate Shabat. It's a wonder to me that Reb Nachman who brought up this problem did not quote that Gemara.[He has plenty to say about this problem but for some odd reason he never quoted that Gemara.]

The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.

It would be great and simple to  follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.

One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva.  However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak]  Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a  half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.

[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]

The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.