Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam [Maimonides] and the Beliefs and Doctrines by Rav Saadia Gaon.

One of the major ideas of the Torah is to bring to good character traits. This was the object of the Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter to bring about this goal.

That was by emphasizing the idea of learning Musar--Ethics of the Middle Ages.

But Musar itself depends on world view issues-thus along with Musar what ought to be emphasize are the works of world view of the sages of the Middles Ages and the Gaonic period.

That is obviously the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam [Maimonides] and the Beliefs and Doctrines by Rav Saadia Gaon. ]


But along with good character there was an emphasis on Fear of God--at least that was the way Isaac Blazzer understood the ideas of his teacher Reb Israel Salanter.
In any case, it is clear that each school of Musar had its own unique approach but I think it is safe to say that these two things were fundamental--good character and fear of God.



The Guide of the Rambam has a mystical commentary [interpretation] by Rav Avraham Abulafia from the Middle Ages. [I should mention a lot of work of Rav Avraham Abulafia has begun ever since his writings were published in legible form in Jerusalem. Dr. Idel started this whole thing when he devoted his Ph.D thesis to Rav Abulafia and later a few books.]

Rav Abulafia was not liked by everyone. Still  I have a lot of confidence in him.

The Rashba, an important rishon was against Rav Abulafia. But see Shem Hagedolim by a well known Sefardi sage [Rav Yoseph Haim Azulai] who brings Rav Abulafia in a very positive sense. Also the writings of RAA are quoted by Moshe of Cordoba and Rav Haim Vital. [Moshe of Codoba is called the "Remak".]

R. Shimon Ben Yohai says one can take the pledge of a rich widow because the reason for the verse --"Do not take the pledge of a widow"--does not apply. So there is no doubt that we know the reason for the verse. The only argument is if we go by the reason or by the letter of the law?

עשות חסד ומשפט והצנע לכת עם השם אלהיך The prophet Micha says "What does the Lord ask of you but to do kindness and justice and to walk modestly with your God."
הצנע comes for a verb להצניע to hide. It means not to advertise your religiously. It has to do with general conduct--not to make a public statement about how religiously scrupulous you are.

This is mentioned in the end of tractate Makot.. There the Gemara says different prophets came along and reduced the number of commandments one has to do. Rashi explains there that if everyone would be required to keep all the laws of the Torah, no one would merit to the next world. So they reduced the requirements.
To me it seems clear that that Gemara and that Rashi are going with the opinion of  the sage of the Mishna, Shimon Ben Yohai that דורשים טעמה דקרא we go by the reason for  verse.

You can see in the Gemara that the reasons for the verses are not considered to be unknown. They are considered to be known, but the argument is if one goes by the words of the verse or the known reason. Thus, if one goes by the reason, and the reason does not apply in a certain case, then the rule does not apply. This you can see in a few places, but one which comes to mind is the Bava Metzia [end of פרק המקבל] where R. Shimon Ben Yohai says one can take the pledge of a rich widow because the reason for the verse --not to take the pledge of a widow--does not apply.

I had some doubt if the law is like this opinion or not. The Rambam in one case goes like it and in another not like it. Then I saw in the Avi Ezri a very nice answer that there is  a third opinion that the Rambam is going with. In any case, there are cases where we depend on this idea of Shimon ben Yohai for example in new grain that was harvested after the Omer as the Taz says.

The actual reason for the commandments of the Torah the Rambam gives in a few places in the Mishne Torah and the Guide; and the Rishonim from the opposite side of the aisle--[the Ramban with an "N" at the end and his whole school do not disagree in any place that I have heard of.]
Off hand, from what I recall, the reasons are : To not worship any other God besides the First Cause. And thus to stay away from all things related to idolatry. [To the Rambam that already accounts for about half of all the commandments.] To develop good character traits. To lessen one's desires and pleasures. To come to peace of the State.

music file U40

U-40 A Major 

the Law of Moses is to love and fear God.

One aspect of keeping the Law of Moses is to love and fear God. The Rambam considers these two commandments to be commands to do some action. After all, emotions can not be commanded. Thus he understands the first to learn Metaphysics. The second [fear of God] to learn Physics.

The way to do this  think is early in the morning. That is to get up and start right away with the hardest thing--[Quantum Field Theory]. [Seeing God's wisdom in his Creation, inspires one to fear and love of God as the Rambam brings down in the Mishne Torah ch. I and in the Guide.]

Before that a little Tosphot and plain learning of the Avi Ezri is also important as to start with simple fear of God. 

[The morning prayer tends to take a lot of time. That is a good thing if one wishes it as a voluntary thing. But in essence it is short. The original blessings for the Shema were one sentence long each as you can see in the prayer-book of Saadia Gaon.]  

[This idea of the Rambam I noticed first in a mediaeval book of Musar מעלות המידות. That was at the Mir in NY and it bothered me greatly since in fact I was spending all my time at the Mir learning Gemara. The was a great deal of cognitive dissonance that this caused to me. Later in Israel I noticed this same Rambam idea in חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart. But not where you would expect to see it. It is in fact in שער הבחינה But you have to be exacting in his language to see his point.   ]

The basic idea here is not just the importance of Physics but also that of balance.

u39 music file

U-39 6-8 time E Minor

 See the Old Testament events surrounding the writing on the wall in the palace that Daniel had interpreted. The king did not repent after he heard the proper interpretation by Daniel.--even though he clearly believed in what Daniel had said since he gave him the promised reward
Why I bring this up is that it occurred to me that you see this quite a few times in the Old Testament.
With King David, Nineveh, Ahab, and Hezekiah. [They all repented after hearing from a prophet that a n evil decree had been declared on them because of some evil deed they had done. After they repented the evil decree was either rescinded or lessened. ]On the negative side --people that saw the message on the wall and did not repent, King Saul, and most of kings of Israel.

In any case, the idea seems to be consistent -that even after a decree has been made and the writing is on the wall, and danger is imminent,- repentance can change everything. And what is repentance? To obey God's word. Not in thought or words, but actions. ["Acta non verba."]

The important thing to notice about God's word is the idea in Deuteronomy chapter 4 "Don't and and don't subtract to the commandments."  Do not make up new ones, and do not delete or declare null the old ones.

The actual commandments are clear, but interestingly enough they do not have much to do with politics. Any politics is simply to keep the peace and do the laws of Moses.
But that does not mean politics is not relevant. Rather the idea is whatever brings a society close to keeping the Law of Moses is the way to go. It does not matter one way or the other if it is a democracy or monarchy or whatever else.

Not that politics is not important. But my impression is that the Constitution of the USA s about as good as possible. The only problem is that people need some degree of education about what it means. Thus in high school I suggest people learn the Federalist papers along with the line thinkers that came to bring about the Constitution. Starting from Plato and Thucydides.
In other words,I think getting the political system right is important but it is not a subject of the Law of Moses or the Two Talmuds. In philosophical jargon it would be called a different area of "value."  See Dr Kelley Ross for more detail. [ I do not understand his system very well. It requires thorough knowledge of Kant. But I get the basic ideas.] [I think an original-ist approach would have averted the Civil War also because the whole issue of secession would have been resolved by a 2/3 majority which is required to amend the Constitution or it could have gone to the Supreme Court because after all the South had legitimate grievances.

[The Law of Moses is actually pretty clear on a lot of issues like not to steal, cheat, lie etc. See the Ten Commandments for more details.]

Bitul Torah-not learning when one is able to learn

The general way the idea of Bitul Torah is looked at is that if there is a positive commandment that can not be done by anyone else, then one is required to stop learning Tora and do that commandment.
The way the Gra understands it is that not that one is required, but one is allowed to stop learning. And that makes more sense because the rule is one positive command does not push off another one."
This all come from a Gemara Yerushalmi that one sage sent his son to another city to learn Torah. Word got back to him that his son was doing other kinds of commandments. He sent to him, "I did not send you there for those other reasons but to learn Torah."

The issue of ספרים חיצוניים [outside books] comes up in Sanhedrin and it is related to the idea of Bitul Torah in this way. What constitutes Torah? According to the Rif and Rosh ספרים חיצונים are books that explain the Torah in ways other than the ways the sages of the Mishna and Gemara explained it.

Thus to understand Torah besides the two Talmuds one would learn the Midrashim that were written by the sages of the Talmud. I had in fact had learning partner Hagai Preshal who learned the Midrash Raba in his spare time. [The basic ones as far as I recall are  מדרש רבה, מדרש תנחומא, אליהו רבה וזוטא ספרי ספרא תורת כהנים]
[I should add that things that the Rambam considered important to learn, I do not think are Bitul Torah.  That is Physics and Metaphysics. To the Rambam that refers to these two subjects as understood as such by the Ancient Greeks. In my mind that would mean basically Quantum Field Theory and Aristotle's book The Metaphysics.

The way to go about this is to get to it right when you wake up in the morning, have the first cup of coffee and then Gemara and --Quantum Field Theory. Just open it up and say the page after page in order.

If the law would be straightforward like R. Tam [which is the opinion of almost all Rishonim and Rav Hai Gaon], then on Friday night one would light the olive oil for the Festival of Lights right before 59 minutes after sunset. But since the Gra (and Rav Sharira Gaon)held the night begins at 18 minutes after sunset it makes sense to light before that time, and simply put in enough olive oil to last for the 72-102 minute period after sunset.

There is one question on R.Tam that I can not answer very well. It is that almost all stars can be seen about 45 minutes after sunset. So according to that no one comes out OK. If the Gra would be correct then one medium sized star would be visible right at sunset. That simply does not happen. If R. Tam would be right then medium stars would begin to be visible after 58.5 minutes. And then three medium stars at 72 minutes.

Just for some background to R. Tam the night starts at 72 minutes after sunset and the twilight doubt period at 58.5. To the Gra night is 3/4 a mil [24 min.] after sunset, 18 minutes. Or if a mil is 18 minutes then night is 13.5  minutes after sunset.

lighting the lights for the festival of Lights

My basic ideas about lighting the lights for the festival of Lights is that it should be with olive oil and lower than ten hand-breaths next to the door as one enters. The window is OK as long as it is below ten hand-breaths. The height is very important [it must be lower than ten hand-breaths]. Also it should be exact after 72 minutes after sundown because after that there is great doubt if one has fulfilled the obligation at all. Also it is an obligation on the home where one sleeps, not on the person. So if one can not be home then one's wife can light.

I do not have a Gemara Shabat to be able to look this all up but that is what I recall off hand.

It also occurred to me that it does not take 8 days to squeeze a few olives to make olive oil so the whole waiting period must have been because of טומאת מת [uncleanliness ]. But then from where did they get the אפר פרה אדומה The dust of the red cow that one needs? Maybe that was hidden somewhere outside the Temple?


Another issue which comes up is this is, "Let's hate the ancient Greeks week". Not that the problems were from Greeks. The Empire of Alexander was divided and the rulers over Israel were not Greek. Still the culture was imported from Greece. Still the Rambam seems to take a different approach when it comes to Aristotle. [The issue seems to be a debate among Rishonim. Clearly the Ramban [the "n" on the end means that is not the same person as the Rambam.] and all others from that school of thought were against learning anything from the ancient Greeks at all.]  I tend to go with the Rambam simply because of personal experience with religious fanaticism which I have seen does not lead to virtue. I am thinking that the Rambam was right.
[The Rambam specifically held that learning Physics and Metaphysics fulfills the commandments of the Tora to love and fear God. Physics I think is clear. The subject matter, not the actual book of Aristotle. Same with Metaphysics I think refers to the subject matter. Thus Physics would mean mainly Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. Metaphysics would include the books of Aristotle by that name but also include Kant and Hegel.]
[I am aware that some people disagree with the Rambam, but I think all evidence shows the Rambam was right. Thus in my mind a proper order of learning with be fourfold-The Oral Law, the Written Law, Physics and Metaphysics and I would add Musar of the Gra and also survival skills.]

bitul torah [not learning Torah when one is able]

The sages said: "One is obligated to surrender himself to death rather than transgress three sins, sex with forbidden relations, murder. idolatry, and bitul torah [not learning Torah when one is able] is considered equal to all three taken together."


על שלשה עבירות חייב אדם למסור את עצמו למיתה ולא יעבור עליהם גילוי עריות שפיכות דמים ועבודה זרה וביטול תורה כנגד כולם

The concept of bitul Torah was hard for me to accept. -and it still is.

Reading a book בנין עולם printed in Bnei Brak was for me the first time I saw this concept presented systematically. Later I saw this idea in נפש החיים

 The Rambam considered Physics and Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks as part of the commandment of learning Torah (as he says in Laws of Learning Torah in reference to the "Vineyard" which he defined in the first four chapters). Still the whole issue of bitul Torah makes it imperative to define what comes under the category of "learning Torah."

There is no question that I slacked off on this when I got to Safed. Even though being in Israel at that time was great in many respects, but I feel my slacking off on learning Torah was a bad mistake.

In any case, the whole concept really only exists in the world of the Gra and the Litvak Yeshivas which emphasize this concept. The minute I walked out of the Mir in NY, the whole idea of bitul Torah simply dissipated.

[I think I was not the only one in NY that was struggling with this issue when I was in yeshiva. I am pretty sure others were also trying to weigh the issue -- in so far as knowing when for example learning a vocation is OK, and also as just a general rule how to apply it. ]


[Just for the record--learning Torah officially means either the Old Testament and or the two Talmuds. It is however assumed that Rashi and Tosphot are included.  But certainly there is  a limit to how far one can extend the definition.]


Learning a vocation is certainly not bitul Torah and in fact it is required so that one does not end up using Torah as a means to make money by which one loses his portion in the world to come as the Rambam says in the Mishna in his commentary on "Avot" ch 4 דאשתמש בתגא חלף מכאן אמרו כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל את חייו מן העולם ופירש הרמב''ם מן חיי העולם הבאה

The sages also explained verses of the Torah in a few books like מדרש רבה. And you can see that it is not allowed  to make up one's own ideas on what verses of Torah mean as you can see in Sanhedrin ch. 9 in the Rif and Rosh on the first mishna there.[The Rif and Rosh were pointed out to me by my learning partner]

U-38 D Major   [U-35 in midi format]

Mikra Mishna, Math and Musar

מקרא משנה מתימטיקה מוסר Mikra, Mishna, Math and Musar.
Mikra is the Old Testament. Mishna is the book written  by R. Yehuda HaNasi before the Talmud. The Talmud itself is simply a commentary on the Mishna. Math is important as it is the essence of Physics. Musar refers to the books of Ethics written during the Middle Ages.

These seem to me to be the main things to concentrate on every day.
[The importance of Math and Physics I am basing on the חובות לבבות The Obligations of the Heart and the Rambam.]
The idea that Musar is important to learn every day I am basing on Reb Israel Salanter [and also the daughter of Bava Sali who said as much to me].

[But I want to add that if one has gone through the Mishna at least once, then it is time to do the Gemara. The best way to get into the depth of Gemara is to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.
In terms of Musar, I should mention the first thing is to go through the four classical books which were printed as a set a few years ago. אורחות צדיקים, חובות לבבות, מסילת ישרים, שערי תשובה.
Then the books of the Gra as part of the Musar session.]

[The Rambam also emphasized Metaphysics meaning Aristotle as he explained in the Guide that he meant the Metaphysics of the Ancient Greeks, but I have  hard time figuring out how to go about that.]


I wanted to mention that the idea of Musar of learning about good character and gaining good character is not as hard as some people think. But neither is it all that clear either. There is no algorithm that you can plug in and feed information to and come out with an answer how to act in accord with objective morality. But also it is not as hidden or impossible to know. The Law of Moses certainly tells us a lot, and the Mishna and Gemara also. But to condense it all into understandable  form was the forte of the Mediaeval sages.

As Kierkegaard noticed that man is essentially a spiritual being. It is not really an option to ignore that. And when people do ignore it, they get interested in politics.

What I am saying about Ethics is really reflected in the words of Alexander Hamilton . He said the science of government is not as unknown in his time as it was in previous times. That is: there was a lot of information about the importance of separation of powers, establishment of courts and representative government. Similarly, while there is no exact formula about objective morality (as Michael Huemer has pointed out), still there is a lot of information available about what works and what does not. We have a good idea that Musar of the Rishonim [Mediaeval Period] and the Gra and Reb Israel Salanter helps to a large degree. It may not be perfect -but it is a help in the right direction. We also know things like outdoor skills as learned as a group like in the Boy Scouts also helps. So we are not at a complete standstill. There are ideas that work.

The Talmud says troubles come into the world because of pseudo Torah scholars.

The trouble with the religious world generally starts with people that dress up as Torah scholars and play the role, but are in fact demons. That is to say the do not have human souls.
That makes keeping the Law of Moses very hard because people tend to believe those that play the role as being authentic. So innocent people  are led to sin by those that claim to lead them to virtue.

The first time I notice this problem mentioned was in the book of Reb Nachman from Breslov Vol. I ch. 12  even though he had mentioned something of that nature in ch 8., but I had glossed over it, and paid no attention. But chapter 12 made it difficult to ignore the issue. There he brings up this idea of Torah scholars that hate people that fear God simply and plainly.

It sounds kind of harsh in the ears of the religious world because the religious world likes to consider itself as above everyone else in virtue and intellect and all good qualities. It is hard to face the dissolving of that illusion.

This would not be an issue if the people that were held up as being Torah scholars were in fact so. But the true Torah scholars tend to hide in the corners, while the Torah scholar demons take the public stage.


The way you see this in the Talmud is that in one place in the Talmud troubles that come into the world are blamed on pseudo Torah scholars. That is in the end of tractate Shabat.  [For some reason however Reb Nachman did not quote that Gemara.][The actual words of the Gemara are these: If you see a generation upon which troubles comes then go out and check on the judges of Israel  because all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel.]

One approach to take to avoid this problem is to learn Torah either at home or in some place that is careful to stick to straight Torah like regular Litvak yeshivas in NY and Bnei Brak. But there are no simple answers. I think Reb Israel Salanter came close to some kind of answer in his idea of the Musar Movement [not that he use that term]. That is the emphasis on learning books on the simple and plain Ethics of Torah. In itself that is a great idea but as is obvious it can easily be derailed.

The oddest thing about all this is there is absolutely no mystery who the demonic Torah scholars are. Everyone knows. But no one wants to say anything because they are afraid of how it will reflect on themselves.

The best suggestion to deal with this problem is more or less simple and straightforward but lack of interest makes it impossible.

If you do take this suggestion to learn at home, I think the best idea is to simply go through the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach along with the books of the Gra. That pretty much covers the major principles of the  Oral and Written Law

Music for the Glory of God

U-37 D Major  [u-37 midi]  u-37 nwc

[People always bring the statement of Jesus when he was asked who he was and said "I am" as proof. But for this to be proof he would have had to have answered "I will be".]

Learning an ancient Mediaeval mystic, Avraham Abulafia is what got me interested in Jesus. I was reading the microfilms of his books in the library of Hebrew University when I stumbled on some positive statements about Jesus.  I was in shock for about an hour, and could not move out of my chair even I had to get going to light the olive oil lights for the Festival of Lights.
[Rav Abulafia wrote in Hebrew but the mediaeval script was hard to read]



I was aware that not everyone held by Rav Avraham Abulafia, so I had a choice whether to go with what he was saying, or with the people that dismissed Rav Abulafia as a crank.
To me it seemed the weight of evidence was on the side of Rav Abulafia because he was accepted as legitimate by Rav Haim Vital.[That is the last volume of שערי קדושה].

[A very great Rishon, The Rashba, disagreed with Rav Abulafia. But he was not alone. But to me it seems better to go with his ideas as valid. Still, for me it is too easy to go off onto crazy tangents.]

[In the meantime right after that some fellow started putting those books into legible Hebrew and printed them up. That took around twenty years but he finished and the entire set of Rav Abulafia's books are now a lot more easy to read.]

I might mention that the way Jesus is usually understood seems to me to be not well founded.
I could go into a few examples, but the one that brings this all to mind is Kierkegaard who definitely assumed the Trinity. In fact most Protestants  that think the Trinity is true assume אהיה means "I AM." which is  mistranslated. The name of God revealed to Moses is "I WILL BE", not "I AM." 

[People always bring the statement of Jesus when he was asked who he was and said "I am" as proof. But for this to be proof he would have had to have answered "I will be".]

[None of this is meant to detract from the greatness of the Rashba who was a great Rishon. But rather the idea is that the area of expertise of the Rashba was different than that of Rav Avraham Abulafia. So in terms of spiritual insight it makes more sense to go with the opinion of Rav Abulafia.]

The major issue with the Mikveh

The most delicate issue of a mikveh is how thick is the concrete? If it is thick enough that it could be lifted whole and stay in one piece, then it is  a vessel--and not good as a Mikveh.

Another major issue with the Mikveh is that it needs to be a natural body of water.
אך מעיין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור מה מעין בידי שמים אף מקוה בידי שמים
So it is hard to make it by man's hands and still have it be natural. The issue really is from a Gemara that says if a pipe  is formed and then attached that makes the mikveh no good. But if it is attached and then hollowed out that is OK. To the Rashbam that is a pipe of stone or wood.
But later the Gemara says that is only according to the idea that drawn water is no good only from the words of the sages. But if drawn water is no good from the Torah then even attached and then hollowed is no good. And that applies to either rain water or even drawing off from a spring.
So the issues just keep getting more and more.


[Unless we would go with R. Isaac who in fact holds a mikve made of drawn water is no good only to the sages and that would leave the teaching of the Gemara in its place-snce the Gemara itself says it is going according to that opinion. A further point is that Tosphot says the case is if the pipes were made to receive and hold something in them--not just to have something passing through them. According to that, the plastic pipes or wood would be  fine since even when made and later attached they do not receive uncleanliness.]

Further reason to say one needs a river is the Rambam that brings the statement of the Gemara of a pipe plainly -not like Tosphot that says it has to be מקבל טומאה. But one reason to be lenient is that R. Hananel and the Rashbam hold the law is like R. Eliezer that what is attached to the ground is like the ground.


[I should mention that I would feel a lot better about this if I would have either spent more time on Tosphot or have learned it with my learning partner. Here I am just giving the basic outline of the subject but there is plenty of work that I still need to do on Tosphot.]


All I am saying is if you have a spring or river or ocean, anywhere around, that is the best idea.
I know girls have trouble in this area because most rivers are pretty cold. I hope that girls start to develop a rougher bark and get less delicate.

In NY a woman could go to the ocean on the seventh day and be OK at night. In Israel there are often springs and rivers around. [A sea or ocean are not  springs, so do not work for a zava. But are okay for a nida. ]

[Since my general approach is that once there is a Rishon that allows something, then one can depend on that, then one could just go with R. Isaac and the first Tosphot in which case things are OK. The only thing is it is clearly better to go to an authentic natural body of water because of R. Tam.]

I want to make it clear that even in cold winter it is possible to go a cold river much more easily that people realize. The reason is if you put your foot into cold water and then take it out, the body automatically starts to drawn the blood from the outer areas. So when you put your foot in a second time it does not feel cold at all. And the same goes with one's legs. So to dip in a river is possible if one does so gradually in small steps. That is to put the feet in an then take them out. Then the legs. Then the whole body. Also going   in with  clothing that is not tight also makes it much easier.

The importance of straight Litvak yeshivas

I had the great merit of being in two Litvak yeshivas Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. However I got off track. I had seen some very great insights and ideas in Breslov books, and even though there is a lot of things to learn from the great tzadik, Nahman of Breslov, still that was a bad reason to leave the Litvak approach which is that of the Gra-- straight and simple Torah with no frills.

 I seem to have a bad habit.  Often God gives me great things, and then I mess up. And yet for some reason, He seems to give me second chances.

[It is not that all Litvak yeshivas are so great. But those two that I went to were really special.]

In any case, it seems to me today I could very well have learned things from Breslov books, and still remained in the path of the Gra.

It takes some kind of common sense to learn something good in some other system of thought, but still to retain what good one already has. Not to throw everything overboard because one sees some great insight in some other backyard.

[The importance of straight Litvak yeshivas is the emphasis on God and his holy Torah. There one can come to authentic Torah.] [It might not be something I can communicate very well to anyone, but for what it is worth, the main thing one can get in an authentic Litvak Yeshiva is something he can not get anywhere else:-the spirit of Torah. But like I said it's unlikely that most people will understand what this means.]

Reb Naphtali Troup [one of the great Lithuanian sages] held that to obey one's parents is a positive commandment.  I mean to say that it has the same class as other positive commands that can override a negative command.

This should be fairly obvious but it is not to most people because of the statement of the sages that it does not override a negative command like keeping the Sabbath day holy. But keeping the Sabbath is a negative command that has being cut off from one's people as part of the punishment. So no positive command overrides it. In any case Reb Naphtali brings this idea from the Rambam. The whole essay is in his book חידושי הגרנ''ט

Why I bring this up is interesting case of the descendants of Yonathan ben Rehav in the book of Jeremiah. There the grandfather Yonathan ben Rehav had asked his children not to drink wine or any alcoholic beverage. And they listened to him even several generations later. Even though there is no prohibition of drinking wine except for a Nazir who accepts on himself not to drink wine, still they listened because of the command to obey  one's parents.

The promise given to the descendants was rare. The Patriarchs  had received promises from God concerning their descendants, Aaron and Pinehas, and King David also, and then the descendants of Yonathan Ben Rekav.


The basic idea is clear. If one's parents ask one to do something wrong, then clearly one should not obey. But in cases where there is no specific command otherwise, then it is a positive command to obey. It is more of an important issue than most people are aware of.

There was an event in the life of the older brother of Bava Sali, Rav David Abutzeira, where he had said something only slightly disrespectful to his father, Rav Masud, and when he realized his mistake went into exile for a month.

As for my parents I should mention that the Physics emphasis was more or less because of my own showing in interest in that direction. That was probably in itself from admiration of my own father and Albert Einstein. But in and of itself, that was probably not what they would have emphasized. After all they did not  adopt the same attitude with regards to my brothers. Rather it seems what they held was to be decent human beings with good character traits as per the Ten Commandments and to learn a honest vocation and survival skills.

The problem with the false ordination is brought up by Reb Nachman in a few places. One is Le.M. Vol I chapter 61 where he brings the idea that it causes exile. Another place is in LM II chapter 8 where he brings the idea that it causes sexual sin.  In any case, the whole issue ought to have been settled by the fact that all ordination is a scam since true ordination ceased during the middle of the Talmudic Period.
So people that claim ordination are either malicious or ignorant.

But Reb Nachman goes into this issue in LM  chapter 12 which is the place where he brings down the idea of "Torah scholars that are demons" which he brings from the Zohar. The Ari also goes into this in his unique kind of way -- so that you have to read between the lines. But the surprise is the Talmud itself goes into this in the end of tracate Shabat. So why it is ignored nowadays is beyond me.
So many more homes in Israel would be safe and whole and wholesome if people were more aware of this issue.

Also if a mikveh with drawn water is no good [which is the opinion of R. Tam and the R. Shmuel ben Meir] from the Torah itself, then even קבעו ולבסוף חקקו is no good because המחובר לקרקע לאו כקרקע דמי.

For the Mikveh I would avoid going anywhere near the religious. The reason is the religious world is sick and full of the Sitra Achra evil forces. The best idea is to go to the ocean or a river.

People usually take off their clothing before going in a mikveh but if the clothing is porous it is not needed. In places like Russia or the Ukraine the way to go into a cold river is to get used to it slowly.That is to put in your feet and then take them out. Then the legs. Then the body automatically starts to draw away the blood from the outer layers and so by the time you go to put your whole body in it does not feel cold at all.

[In Beverly Hills there is a reservoir  next to Coldwater Canyon that could serve as a mikveh.]
In general, it is hard to get a mikveh that is artificially made to be valid because often it itself is a vessel. That is it is made of  concrete such that if one would lift it out of the ground, it would remain in one piece. So it is not valid--since it is a vessel. And that is how all mikvas are made nowadays.
The more well known problem of how the water gets into the mikve is subject to a well known story about R. Israel (Bava Sali) in Morocco. But there, the mikve was not made of concrete.
The issue there was how the water was drawn to the mikveh. [The pipes can not be made and then attached even if they can not receive Tuma (uncleanliness.) . But even wood or plastic have to be attached and then hollowed out. In short-- it is better to go to a river.

[The mikveh itself can not be dripping out. So to have cement or concrete is OK but the problem is when it is made so solid that the whole thing could be lifted out whole. Also often plastic is placed between the concrete and the ground which makes the whole thing no good.]

Also if a mikveh with drawn water is no good [which is the opinion of R. Tam and the R. Shmuel ben Meir] from the Torah itself, then even קבעו ולבסוף חקקו is no good because המחובר לקרקע לאו כקרקע דמי.

Girls anyway ought get used to roughing it. Outdoor skills are not just for guys.

U-36 E Flat Major

Music whether by voice or by instruments

Music whether by voice or by instruments is an argument between the Rambam and Tosphot. To the Rambam only songs of praise towards God are permitted . To Tosphot only in a house of wine is music forbidden. I generally depend on the opinion of Tosphot but in this Music I do intend it for the glory of God. I do not know it that makes it permitted to the Rambam, but in any case I have Tosphot to depend on. [The Rambam's idea of Music for the glory of God does not include using verses of Torah or Psalms. Rather things like songs you sing on the Sabbath day meal--but not verses of Torah.] [In Sephardi prayer books you find lots of religious poetry to sing on the Sabbath day for this very reason --not to use verses of Torah as lyrics for songs.]

U-35 A Major  [u35 midi format]  u35 nwc format

Rambam's fourfold division.

In the Rambam's fourfold division of the subjects one must learn every day comes up Metaphysics.
[This he says over briefly in Mishne Torah but goes into more detail in the Guide. ]
What he says openly in the Guide is that he is referring to the Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks.
Clearly that is a reference to Aristotle's set of books called the "Metaphysics".
But to me this seems to include also Plato, Plotinus, Kant, and Hegel.

That is if you go by the basic subject matter. I know there are a set of great thinkers who were singularly unhappy with Hegel but to me that just makes the whole matter more interesting.
The basic critics of Hegel are:  Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Kelley Ross, and Marx and Popper. The questions they ask seem to me to be enlightening but not in the way that they thought. [i.e. they thought they were refuting Hegel but in fact doing a service in making us dig more deeply into what he was saying. People misusing Hegel does not seem to me to be disproof.

As for Physics it is also clear what the Rambam meant. The set of books of Aristotle called "Physics."
To me also it seem necessary to include Quantum Field Theory in this --for the same reason--that I think the Rambam was referring to the subject matter not the specific set of books. [There are a few things one needs to learn along with Quantum Field Theory like Lie Algebras.]

As for the Oral Law the Rambam makes clear in his letter to Yemen that "Just as there is no adding or subtracting from the Written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law."  So again it is clear he means the actual set of books the two Talmuds. But also it seems necessary to expand this a little. After all the two Talmuds are are to understand without Tosphot and the Rishonim and a few of the important achronim like Rav Shach and the Pnei Yehoshua.

The Written Law is of course the Five Books of Moses but again it seems necessary to include the rest of the Old Testament along with the explanations of the sages in the several books of Midrash written on it. [e.g. Midrash Raba, Sifrei, Sifra, and few other Midrashim written by the sages of the Talmud.]

[I do not claim to have done this. I got interrupted, and also when I returned to Israel with intent to find  a place to sit and learn Torah I was evicted. That has proven to cause a lot of wasted time that I might have just sat and learned in some odd corner away from everyone. [However the time I spent in Netivot was well spent in terms of learning and also I was allowed to sit in there in the Yeshiva of Rav Montag and people were gracious to me. And that also is where I was able to put together my notes on Bava Metzia. Mostly Sephardim learn there but the Rosh Yeshiva in Ashkenazic. In any case, that was a very nice place. It was kind of like the first time I was in Israel up North which also was very nice.] Besides that I do not seem to have the same amount of energy needed to go through the above list that I did have when I was in the Mir. Thus I suggest getting started on that above list as soon as one is able, and not waste time on side stuff that just turns out to be  a waste.]

It all seems like a lot to go through but it really is not. All you need to do is to do a half a page a day  in order. Just say the words and go on. But it is best to get started already since it does take a few years. No use putting it off.

The way to do this is when you get up in the morning right away to start learning Tosphot. That should be one Tosphot that is reviewed every day for a few weeks. Then some Physics. Page after page. Just say and words in order as fast as possible and go on until you have finished the whole book at least four times. Then if there are still some things that you did not get you can go slower.[Metaphysics is hard to get an idea of what is best there. Hegel seems about the best.]

Kalev ben Yefune comes up in the Five Books of Moses. First he is one of the spies that Moses [Moshe] sent to the Land of Canaan. Later he is brought up in the Book of Joshua  as asking Joshua to give him Hebron as an inheritance (as as promised to him by Moshe Rabainu [Moses]). Later he is mentioned in Chronicles. as the husband of a few wives and girl friends and having children from all. This fact is what the Gra uses as proof that the פילגש girlfriend kind of relationship is permitted.

The place to find this information is in the Laws of Kidushin. [This issue comes up in the Rambam, in the Tur and also by Rav Joseph Karo.]

Mutiny on the Bounty.

Mutiny on the Bounty. The kind of mud children that come by mixing races seems to have been the basic result of that whole episode. The mutineers --as much or little as they were justified,  ended up such that their children were little brown babies.
Though nowadays there is much effort spent in trying to make these mud children, still one would thing that common sense ought to prevail.
Parents can only despair of seeing their race continue.
Marriage is only rocks on ruin and families also.
What is one to do?

The best idea I think is repentance. For the actions of parents affect their children. And how does one repent. It is brought in books of Musar if one is accustomed to learning one page of Gemara, he should learn two. If one chapter of Mishna, then he should learn two.

One thing got me personally into learning was the idea of the Gra based on the Yeushalmi that every word of Torah is equal to all the other commandments of the Torah. And in fact it seems that without confidence in the Gra and his approach, no one can come to Torah.  All people end up with is counterfeit Torah. I think a lot of effort ought to be spent on getting rid of counterfeit Torah, before it can even be suggested to come to authentic Torah.

political and religious authority

I have been thinking about political and  religious authority for a while.The thing that got me interested was an observation that love of power and oppression are very human traits and people that have these tend to look for careers in politics or as religious leaders.

The fact of political authority seems best to be defended based on a consequential theory. That is- without the state, human flourishing would be impossible, and we would all be at the tender mercies of the worse of society that feel no compunctions or conscious moral restraints.
This does not apply in the religious world as Reb Nachman pointed out often about religious leaders.
[We would all be better off without religious leaders, since they always cause trouble and malice.]


In fact, Reb Nachman emphasized personal service: The verse says "One was Abraham"--that means that Abraham served God in the way -that he thought of himself as being alone with God and did not look on obstacles placed in his path by people, or even his own father and family. In a similar vein, it is impossible to come to God except by this trait of "One was Abraham" to think to yourself that you are alone with God and not to look or pay attention to obstacles from your family or supposed friends. [It is important to take note that Reb Nachman did not just say that that is how Abraham reached God. Rather he goes on to add that no one can reach God except in that way.]

In another essay Reb Nachman went into the issue of lack of faith that causes that people need hard services to come to God. Reb Natan said to him "But it seems to me that I have faith." And Reb Nachman replied that sometimes it is lack of faith in oneself that causes one to fall.


The  thing about the great NY yeshivas like the Mir is that there is no claim of authority at all. The message is simple: What ever the Torah says, that is what it says.

[I mean to say that political authority is legitimate. Religious authority is however a scam since true and authentic ordination does not exist. It ended during the middle of the Talmudic period. Authority is however still claimed stupid people still like to present themselves as smart and wise in order t get power and money an be able to inflict pain on others.] This critique however does not apply to Litvak yeshivas  which learn Torah for its own sake which is a very great and important thing.

Music for the Glory of God

U-34 D Major

Bitul Torah [being idle from learning Torah]

The whole concept of Bitul Torah [being idle from learning Torah] comes from a verse in Numbers 15 כי דבר השם בזה הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא מעמיה. "For the word of God he despised". [That is the Torah is saying there to bring a sin offering for doing idolatry by accident, but not for doing idolatry on purpose. It might have stopped at that point. But then it continues to say this extra idea "for the word of God he despised." So you see this idea from the fact that the verse might have just stopped at saying one does not bring a sacrifice for a sin done on purpose.

This idea of ביטול תורה [being idle from learning Torah] is mostly ignored nowadays except in Litvak yeshivas where people are more aware of this issue.

That does not mean one can not learn a vocation. But it does mean that in the time one is not learning or being involved in his vocation he is required to be learning Torah.

However my feeling is it is best to learn Torah at home to avoid the confusing people that hang out around yeshivas trying to entice people into all kinds of insanity.

[This is the reason for the fact that Litvak yeshivas throw out people along with  other reasons. I agree that the yeshivas are right about this general practice.]


The Rambam includes Physics and Metaphysics of the Ancient Greeks in the category of learning Torah. In any case, exactly what is called learning Torah in order to be safe from the sin of Bitul Torah tends to be unclear. The most strict definition would be only the exact text of the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. Then you would add the actual texts of Aristotle that the Rambam includes--the Metaphysics and Physics. I think however it is safe to enlarge the definition to learning Rashi, and Tosphot and the basic Rishonim, plus the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach along with Quantum Field Theory.  But one has to evaluate very carefully what he wants to include in learning Torah.

[I should mention I found the Pnei Yehoshua very helpful. Also the books of the Gra I found very helpful. If all this seems too much the best thing is to simply learn the Mishna of R. Yehuda HaNasi along with the commentary of  Rav Ovadiah from Bartenura

[If you are in the walking distance from the great Litvak NY yeshivas or Bnei Brak then by all means learn there. But if not, home is better than anything else. Also if you have the ability to start you own place along the lines of the straight Torah of the Litvaks that is of course the best thing.]

Eliyahu the prophet asked Israel on Mount Carmel, "How long will you jump between the two extremes? If the Lord is God, then serve Him. If the Baal is God, then serve him."
At the time the Temple of Solomon was in Jerusalem, and people would go there and worship God and then return home and go to the local Baal Center and worship there. That way that had all their bases covered.
The Gra [Eliyahu from Villna] had the same  point. He saw people were worshiping God but also worshiping their leader or "tzadik." They would say to worship according to the Torah, but add on this one little thing--the worship of their leader or his grave.
They would come up with some religion that externally looked like Torah but in essence was the exact opposite.
The general approach has been to ignore the Gra except for the Zilverman yeshiva in Jerusalem, but I tend to think this ignoring of the Gra was and is a mistake.

Eliyahu the prophet is saying "Either this or that, but not both." That is the same thing the Gra said. Make up your mind.


[I am not sure but this whole event I think was only for Israel (the ten tribes) but not Yehuda and Benjamin. In any case the king there is the king of Israel, not the king of Judah. I do not even know if there was anyone from Judah present. So in any case we do see that even the ten tribes were still serving God. Were they allowed to go up to Jerusalem on the three festivals? Yeravam had forbidden that years before this event. In any case, you see some kind of worship of the Lord still existed in the ten tribes. The thing which is sad is not long after that the ten tribes were exiled because apparently  they were still doing idolatry even though they had listened to Eliyahu and after seeing fre fall from heaven had answered "The Lord is God, the Lord is God."]

Musar Movement

The basic idea of the Musar Movement  was not at all connected with yeshivas originally. It was simply the realization that no one is automatically moral without learning. [Moral principles are included in what is called "universals." Things that apply to different particulars.And it is characteristic of universals that they are  recognized by reason. One might need sense perception to understand the meaning of a universal, but it is reason that recognizes the principle as Michael Huemer goes into detail in his essay criticizing Ayn Rand.]

The  insight of the Musar movement was the realization that the Rishonim [authors during the Middle Ages] had an extra measure of logical rigor in understanding the principles of the Old Testament and the two Talmuds as opposed to achronim[authors after the Middle Ages.]

[This is a well established fact even though I find it very hard to get into the Rishonim without the help of the Achronim on the Gemara.
But in terms of the basic principles of Torah, achronim go off on tangents far away from Torah. Sometimes they find some odd principle that appeals to them and they decide that that principle is what the whole Torah is all about. The examples are many. Sometimes the principles they come up with are in direct opposition to Torah and sometimes they are just some minor issue that that person want to exaggerate into some big deal.]


So even though in the Musar movement itself--the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter--they also wrote books explaining  ethical principles of Torah but as a rule they are sticking with the approach of the rishonim. [That is until the second generation of Musar which then started also going off on tangents.]

worst case scenarios

In terms of preparing for worst case scenarios  I wonder which books I would consider the most important to have with me and which books  would be needed to build up Western Civilization.

I think the Rambam deals with this question in a straightforward way in his emphasis on The Written Law, the Oral Law, Physics and Metaphysics.

That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds [the Villna Shas], the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, some basic texts on Quantum Field Theory, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, the Constitution of the USA.[the basic set of Musar books also  חובות לבבות ,שערי תשובה, אורחות צדיקים, מסילת ישרים ספר היראה המיוחס לר''ת]
[I put Hegel here even though there are a few people that are unhappy with him like Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. Still to me Hegel seems pretty important.]


I have been thinking about the idea of  preparation for some time and I am not sure how to deal with the balance between being prepared and trust.  That balance is actually dealt with in the Musar of  Navardok [in one of the chapters on Trust in God]. In any case, as far as I recall, he said when the situation is in one's hands and he is able to do something, then he should.

Do genes affect behavior?

Sapolsky on the question when do genes affect behavior? People with genes that tilt them towards criminal activity, will do so in spite what the Torah says. They will simply interpret the Torah to mean what they want it to mean.

To teach children and young people good character was the actual aim of the person that started the Boys Scouts. The idea was to learn and gain good character  as a by product of doing camping and team work. This was the one of the major goals of the Musar Movement of Reb Israel Salanter.

But Reb Israel Salanter's idea was more direct. That people would gain good character by learning books of Ethics about good character.

Both ideas seem to me to have validity, and  I think to combine them would be the best approach. To have summer retreats where survival skills and Musar are both taught.

I heard there has been some suggestions to take the grave of Reb Nachman to Israel and that makes a lot of sense to me. The only trouble I foresee  is  that  the actual grave site is about 6 yards  due west of where people actually think he was buried. This was explained to me in detail by someone who knew the actual place where the grave was before it was destroyed in WWII.

The main reason this make sense is the story of Reb Nachman himself about the statue of the king with whom there had been peace in his days. To me the whole story seems to indicate this idea. Besides that the very reason Reb Nachman  wanted to be buried in Uman was so that people would have access to his grave site n order to say the ten psalms there and in general pray and learn Torah there. That would seem to apply to this situation.

Is there any authority to make extra decrees not in the Torah?

The big issue I have not addressed in general is if there is in fact any authority to make extra decrees not in the Torah and from the Commentary on Pirkei Avot from the amoraim it seems there is no such authority. This book is called אבות דר' נתן and it is included in every edition of the Vilna Shas. The basic idea there is on the Mishna "Make a fence around the Torah" and the general approach there is to say that Adam HaRishon added to the command of God [don't eat and do not touch] and that  caused him to fall. R.Yose said there "Better ten hand-breaths high that stand rather than 100 yards high that fall." There the Gra makes a few corrections to the text. I showed this to Rav Eliyahu Silverman the Rosh Yeshiva of the Aderet  Eliyahu the Yeshiva that goes by the path of the Gra in the Old City of Jerusalem and he agreed with me that that is the meaning of that commentary on the Mishna.

I brought this issue up with my learning partner and he opened up the Rambam on this issue. In any case it does look like most of the sages held there is authority to make laws that are outside of Torah Law.

And the reason I usually am lenient in those laws is because in most cases the reason for the law no longer exists--so I basically depend on the Raavad and pretty much all the Tosphot in Shas that when the reason for the law is gone, so is the law.

[For the public let me make this clear: Pirkei Avot is part of the Mishna. And in general commentary on the Mishna from the sages of the Talmud  is part of the Talmud. But for some reason this book is not included in the actual Talmud and rather comes under the category of Midrash. Another thing is that general Litvak yeshivas  are the gold standard by which everything else is measured. An example would be the Mir in NY. But the Aderet Eliyahu is unique in that it goes by the Gra in all details. That makes it the Gold Standard by which other Litvak yeshivas are measured.]

To say to yourself some lesson in Ethics every morning right when you wake up.

You can see this idea of starting the day right also in the Nefesh HaChaim of Reb Chaim fromVoloshin who says that when one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah when he wakes up in the morning-- then all distractions are removed from him.

The problem is obviously it is hard in the first place to accept the "yoke of Torah," to sit and learn Talmud many hours each day.




[The truth is the whole concept of the yoke of Torah is hard to get to in the first place or even understand what it means and even then the biggest enemies of it are the pseudo Torah scholars that just want other people's money by their pretending to learn Talmud.
The astounding amount of fraud in the religious world is  a challenge to anyone's faith.
When people advertise how religious they are by their dress, you know something is rotten there. They are up to something fraudulent. They are trying to get people's trust so that afterwards they can impose their own agenda. It is important to stay away from false friends. And also people that are rude and abrasive. Because when it comes down to time of need it will turn out that they are in fact your enemies. The religious world is generally into the entitlement mentality which makes them especially dangerous. The pretense of keeping Torah is a cloak and disguise. The little bit of Torah learning they do have makes them able to fool. The main principle is if they are not working at a real job then they are using the holy Torah to make money and therefore they are just con artists in disguise.]
In any case, what I try to do is to find the basic little paragraphs on Musar [Ethics] of the Gra or any Musar books and try to say it over to myself every morning right when I wake up. That is, I try to find the lessons in Ethics that I think I am most in need of. A good example is, in fact, that whole paragraph of Reb Chaim from Voloshin about accepting the yoke of Torah. Also there is a statement about trust in God from the Gra I tried to say to myself when I woke up. After that I would try to learn some Gemara, Tosphot and some Physics. in order to start the day right.  If  would have a Avi Ezri of Rav Shach I would probably try to just plow through one whole chapter in the morning also.


I admit  this guess work. I am just trying to figure out as best I can what character traits I need to work on.

In one book of Musar that was at the Mir in NY it was recommended to have a child right when he reaches the age of 13 also to start out learning Torah  more than usual -for the same reason of staring out right.


[The statement of the Gra about trust in God is brought in the "Levels of Man" by Yoseph Horvitz the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter. It is argued by Ibn Pakuda in the Obligations of the Heart whether one needs effort with trust or not. The Gra argues no and Ibn Pakuda argues yes.]

The Gra also brings this idea. He says that "One who is lacking knowledge in any one of the seven Wisdoms will be lacking in knowledge of Torah a hundred time more."

The idea of the Rambam (Maimonides) of including Physics and Metaphysics in the Oral Law (note 1) can be supported by the Tikunei HaZohar which brings  the idea of the hidden statement of Creation that is hidden in the works of Creation. There is a mystical element anyway of the Guide for the Perplexed as noted before by some people. In particular Rav Avraham Abulafia, the Mediaeval Mystic, wrote that in the first 40 chapters of the Guide for the Perplexed is contained the secret of the redemption.

(note 1) Where the Rambam says this in the Law of Learning Torah. There he refers to the first four ch.s of Mishne Torah as being called "Pardes" and he says what is called Pardes is  part of learning Gemara.

The thing about this is that even in Torah there is an aspect of סם חיים סם מוות medicine of life or poison of death as the Gemara says "סם חיים למימינים  בה וסם מוות למשמאילים בה"  The Torah is the medicine of life for those that learn it for its own sake and poison of death for those that learn it for money.[ישרים דרכי ה' צדיקים ילכו בם ורשעים יכשלו בם. הושע י'ד פסוק ט] One can learn Torah and become worse. Thus sometimes it is better to receive Torah in  the way that is hidden in the work of Creation.

The Gra also brings this idea. He says that "One who is lacking knowledge in any one of the seven Wisdoms will be lacking in knowledge of Torah a hundred time more."

[The path of  Gra is however not well known or accepted. Even the top Litvak yeshivas take him only in an approximate way. The only place that I know of that tries to follow the Gra in every detail is the Silverman Yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem.]

[The way to do Physics is by faith--to believe in what the Gemara says לעולם לגרס איניש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר] "One should always learn in the way of 'Girsa' which is to just say the words in order and to go on, even though he forgets what he is learning, and even if he does not  even know what he is saying." Saying the words is important. The Gemara says one that learns wthout saying the words will forget. But even more so--the saying of the words  helps to come to understand.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב A question on and an answer for R. Tam.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב  The גמרא first brings the משנה that that the חכמים say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on רבא that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the משנה is just saying mustard can cause damage, but the law of רבא still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the גמרא asks from ר' יוסי. The גמרא says that ר' יוסי says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard. To ר' תם and ר' חננאל, the גמרא answers this thus "רבינא said the חכמים hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of רב פפא. The way ר' תם  explains it is thus. At first we thought the חכמים held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that רבא retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from ר' יוסי? In the גמרא we apparently took care of the first part of the משנה. It was from ר' יוסי that we were asking.




בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הגמרא מביאה את המשנה כי  החכמים אומרים להרחיק את החרדל מן הדבורים וזו שאלה על רבא שאומר משהו שגורם נזק חייב להיתרחק מן הגבול אפילו אם אין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק. אז היא עונה על השאלה שהמשנה אומרת לנו  שחרדל יכול לגרום נזק, אבל החוק של רבא עדיין עומד שגם כאשר אין דבורים עדיין אי אפשר לשים חרדל ליד הגבול. ואז הגמרא שואלת מר' יוסי. הגמרא אומרת כי ר' יוסי אומר שזה מותר, כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים להגיד לבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להרחיק את החרדל שלי משם? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך משום שהם גורמים נזק לחרדל שלי.  לדעת ר' תם ור' חננאל,  התשובת גמרא היא בכך "רבינא אומר חכמים מחזיקים שאחד שגורם נזק חייב להרחיק את האובייקט שגורם נזק מן הגבול." תשובה זו היא תשובה שונה מזו של רב פפא. הדרך שר' תם מסביר את זה היא בכך. בהתחלה חשבנו שחכמים מחזיקים  מה שגורם נזק חייב להתרחק משם. ועכשיו אחרי התשובה שאנחנו חושבים שהוא חייב לשמור האובייקט שלו משם רק כשיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק. כלומר, כי רבא חזר בו מדעתו. השאלה שלי היא אז מה זה שייך לשאלה שהם שאלו מן ר' יוסי? בגמרא  טיפלו כבר בחלק הראשון של משנה. עכשיו  מן ר' יוסי אנחנו שואלים.

____________________________________________________________________________

I think the answer is this. רב פפא is not coming to answer the question היכי משכחת ליה. Instead he is coming to answer the original question on רבא from the משנה on משרה וירק

Talmud Bava Batra 18b  The Gemara first brings the Mishna that that the sages say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on Rava that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the Mishna is just saying mustard can cause damage but the law of Rava still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the Gemara asks from R. Yose. R. Yose says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard.

To R. Tam (and R. Kananel), the gemara answers this thus "Ravina said the sages hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." (I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of Rav Papa.)

The way R Tam explains it is thus. At first we thought the sages held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that Rava retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from R Yose? In the Gemara we apparently took care of the first part of the Mishna. It was from R Yose that we were asking

trust in God along with effort or without effort

The argument about whether  בטחון עם השתדלות or בטחון בלי השתדלו one should trust in God along with  effort or without effort is between the Gra and Rav Ibn Pakuda (The Obligations of the Heart) and centers on King Asa. [King Asa was the King of Judah]. That is the verse that says he was punished because he went to the doctors instead of to God for a cure. Ibn Pakuka says it was OK to go to doctors, but that he also should have trusted in God. The Gra's statement is not focused on King Asa, but rather the verse in Proverbs בטח אל ה' בכול לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען.["Trust in God with all your heart and do not depend on your intellect."]  But still it looks like the Gra is frowning doing effort to get one's needs met. Rather one should trust in God. To the Gra it looks like an either this or that, but not both. Rav Ibn Pakuda suggests that trust in God can go along with effort.
My question is why does no one mention the fact that King Asa sent for help from the king of Syria to fight against Basha, the king of Israel,-- and that the prophet specifically criticizes him for the same exact reason that later he was criticized about the doctors?

The general approach towards "rishonim" medieval authorities is that it is impossible to decide between them because both are אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים "These and these are the words of the Living God." Thus in this case also [which is a מחלוקת ראשונים and argument between First Authorities] it is not possible to say which one is right. [Authorities after the rishonim can be wrong,-- and are wrong quite often.]

I was in the hospital in Uman with my foot and leg broken  with multiple fractures. Two guys saw I was in trouble and called an ambulance, and brought me to the hospital.  I am extremely grateful to God that he granted to me help and  a great doctor  and I can walk again. [I still can not jog.] But to me this seems like one case where going to the doctor was of great importance. Still other times it seems to me that all my efforts in almost any direction backfire to make things even worse than if I had just left things alone. Thus clearly the approach of Ibn Pakuda is the best idea and other times that of the Gra.

[The reason this was a big issue in the Mir is that it relates to the fact that almost everyone in the Mir in NY was learning Torah for its own sake [לשמה] and had no plans on using it for money.]

U-33 A Minor 6-8 time  [U-33 in midi ]  u-33 nwc

You can see the problem with false prophets even in the period of the First Temple in the Old Testament. Also with false leaders. This problem has not gone away.


To be it seems related to idolatry because I think it is possible that idolatry and the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] are really the same thing in essence.
 The main issue is the problems with Torah scholars that are demons as brought down in the Zohar and the Ari.

The trouble is that you need to be around with people you can trust. The religious world makes this show of  "We are all one big family" when they want your money. But if, God forbid, you are ever in need --forget it. More so- demonic Torah scholars  try actively to cause damage to you because that is their inner essence.
This problem is however not in Reform or Conservative groups from what I can tell.  But it did get into the religious world.

Some people have found this kind of trouble even in the top Mount Everest-the Litvak Yeshivas-which one would normally expect to be immune. The reason seems to be that where holiness is to be found, that is where the Sita Achra tries the hardest to run interference.

My opinion about this is that the best approach is that of the Litvak yeshivas that go strictly with the Gra, like the Silverman Yeshivas in the Old City of Jerusalem.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב The actual way the גמרא however understands ר' יוסי is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then the other שכן can also put his object there. So the גמרא asks,  How could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place according to רבא? But perhaps that is exactly what ר' יוסי means? Each can put his thing by the border. The question I want to ask is this. Why does the גמרא insist on asking on ר' יוסי "How could this situation be found?" All ר' יוסי says in the משנה is "It is permitted." And even though the גמרא brings the full statement that says, It is permitted because the owner of the mustard can ask the owner of the bees: "Why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away.
Why not understand ר' יוסי simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.  How is it found? It is found because to ר' יוסי it is permitted.

What I mean to say is that the three תוספות on the page deal with the answer of the גמרא to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the ר''ת and ר''ח that say רבינא is  a different answer.  And in רבינא the understanding is that ר' יוסי means  the bees can be put Next to the boundary because the bees  are damaged but do not cause damage. That is at this point in the גמרא. The גמרא however does change this.

 I mean that my above question is only to the other תוספות because ר''ת can simply say that that is the very answer of רבינא, that the bees can be put there.
However R. Tam does not say that this idea that Ravina is a new answer makes the question on Rava dissolve. just the opposite. He says it makes the question on Rava all the more powerful to the degree that Rava has to retract his entire thesis --at least when it comes to the sages.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הדרך בפועל שהגמרא מבינה ר' יוסי היא כי אם שכן אחד שם דבורים או החרדל שלו ליד הגבול, ואז שכן השני יכול גם לשים האובייקט שלו שם. אז הגמרא שואלת, איך יכול להיות המצב הזה?  מי יכול לשים דבר על ידי הגבול מלכתחילה על פי רבא? אבל אולי זה בדיוק מה ר' יוסי מכוון? היינו שכל אחד יכול לשים הדבר שלו ליד הגבול. השאלה שאני רוצה לשאול היא זו. למה הגמרא מתעקשת לשאול על ר' יוסי "איך יכול המצב הזה ניתן להימצא?" כל מה ר' יוסי אומר במשנה הוא "מותר". ואף על פי הגמרא מביאה את ההצהרה המלאה שאומרת, זה מותר כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים לשאול את הבעלים של הדבורים: "מדוע אתם אומרים לי לשמור החרדל שלי רחוק משם? תשים את הדבורים שלך הרחק משם?למה לא מבינים ר' יוסי פשוט? הן החרדל הן הדבורים ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. איך זה נמצא? זה נמצא כי לר' יוסי זה מותר.

 שלושת התוספות על הדף אינם משנים את השאלה עצמה. מלבד ר''ת ו ר''ח  שאומרים רבינא הוא תשובה אחרת מתשובת הלוקח. וגם להם לרבינא ההבנה היא כי ר' יוסי אומר הדבורים ניתנות לשים ליד הגבול כי הדבורים יכולות להינזק אך אינן גורמות נזק בשלב הזה של הגמרא. גמרא אולם משנה זו אחר כך

 אני מתכוון כי השאלה הנ"ל שלי היא רק לתוספות אחרות בגלל שר''ת פשוט יכול לומר כי זו היא התשובה של רבינא, כי הדבורים ניתנות לשים שם..

It occurs to  me to ask really a simple question on Bava Batra page 18-b.

The question I want to ask is this. Why does the Gemara insist on asking on R.Yose "How could this situation be found?" All R. Yose says in the Mishna is "It is permitted." And even though the Gemata brings the full statement that says It is permitted "because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away."
Why not understand R. Yose simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.

The actual way the Gemara however understands R. Jose is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then he says the other can also put his object there. Soon that the Gemara asks according to Rava how could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place? But perhaps that is exactly what R Jose means? Each can put his thing by the border.


[I do not think Tosphot answers this even though I could be wrong. What I mean to say is that the three Tosphots on the page deal with the answer of the Gemara to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the R.Tam and R. Kananel that say Ravina is  a different answer.  And in Ravina the understanding is that R. Jose means  the bees can be put there because they are damaged - but not damagers.]


 I mean that my above question is only to the other Tosphots because R. Tam can simply say that that is the very answer of Ravina--that the bees can be put there.

 As for problems I think there is not anything I can say about specific problems;--  and in fact when the reason for a problem is unknown and not well understood, it is always best to do nothing. The reason is the as long as the source of any problem is unknown, almost anything one does to improve the situation is almost guaranteed to make things worse. George Washington was sick and the doctors advised blood letting.They did it so much that they certainly caused his death. So when actual mechanisms are not understood then doing nothing is always better than "something must be done." [Something must be done almost always amounts to walking into a pharmacy and just picking out any medicine on the shelf on the assumption that everything there is healthy.  ]

On the other hand there are things one should  do as general aspects of healthy living. Learning the Old Testament and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Also Learning Physics and Math and talking with God when one is  outside walking and trying to get exercise and eating healthy. 

medieval ethics

The idea of Reb Israel Salanter of learning medieval ethics in order to learn and develop good character  is a great idea in terms of learning the basic worldview of Torah. But it should not be assumed that people that represent this Musar movement today are anything like the original idea. The whole idea of the Musar movement basically got to be a kind of ''frumkeit'' [i.e. religious fanaticism].
But I have yet to hear of any system that can not be abused.  . Thus Musar also can be abused. But the basic idea is good and sound. In fact, I myself tried at one point to actually follow that path. I mean not just the basic set of Mediaeval Musar, but also to get through the Musar books that came later like the Shelah and Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah, and in fact to keep to what ever those books were saying.
I got off track I admit. However I do think if I had managed to stick with it, I would be doing a lot better today.
 The disciple of Reb Israel Salanter Isaac Blasser, gives a list of about thirty books that count as classical Musar in his own book of Musar "The Light of Israel."

[I am thinking that the fact that I got sidetracked, might be more common than is expected. That could be the reason that some Litvak yeshivas refused to become Musar yeshivas. It is hard to find the right balance. Musar can lead to getting out of balance. But I have to say that I think the advantages outweigh the risks. In any case I think that while I was at the Mir in NY the combination of Musar along with Gemara really was great for me.

The Sages of the Talmud say: מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור "What is above? What is below? What is inside? And what is outside? For one who looks into these things --it is better if he had never been created."
It does seem that most people that go into mysticism go a little bit insane. But they remain sane enough to hide their nutty ideas of grandeur. But eventually it comes out to the surface. They can not hide it forever.

The general approach of authentic Litvak yeshivas towards this is to disavow any knowledge. The response of roshei yeshiva towards this kind of thing is "It is high things." 

I myself spent a lot of time learning the Ari and the Reshash and Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira, but at this point it seems to me I would be doing a lot better today if I had stuck with Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.  

learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there or learn at home but to avoid all other religious organizations.

Reb Nachman fromUman mentions in quite a few places the problems involved in following Torah scholars that are demons. From this point of view, a person might seem like a true Torah scholar but in fact be a demon. This idea in fact is mentioned in the Talmud--but in such a way that the message gets lost. For in the Talmud it says the Evil Inclination [Satan] leaves the whole world and comes to rest on the Jewish people. Then it leaves them, and comes to rest on Torah scholars.

There are other hints to this in the Talmud itself, but the basic idea comes from the Zohar and the Ari.
Therefore  it became the custom in the Na Nach group to simply disavow any involvement with any Torah scholars at all;-- which seems to be the safe approach.

Since I do not have the books of Reb Nachman available I can not look them up to give references.  Mainly I am thinking of LM Vol. I ch. 8, ch. 12, ch. 28; vol 2 ch. 8. [Just now I also recall vol I ch. 61. In any case, there are other places Reb Nachman hints to this idea that I can not recall  off hand.]

The truth be told it is hard to know how to deal with this problem;-- which seems to be getting worse. The main problem certainly is in the groups that came under the excommunication of the Gra where the Satanic influence is obvious. The trouble is that this influence seems to have spread.

Reb Nachman also said that even if one would just take one statement of his and walk with that his entire life, that would be enough to make him a good person. The implication is that if all one would do would be to avoid Torah scholars that are satanic, that would be enough to guarantee that one will make it to the Garden of Eden.

But I should mention that learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there, or learn at home.

[Reb Nachman also mentions that in every area of value there is a side of holiness and an opposite side of the Sitra Achra. This applies  in this case also. That is why I am very grateful to God that he sent me on the straight path of Torah right from the start--to Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway [Reb Freifeld] and to the Mir in NY {Rav Berenbaum}]

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה מכלל על סוגיא של חרדל ודבורים. שאלת הגמרא היא שהחכמים מחזיקים שהמזיק מחוייב להרחיק את עצמו, ולכן  חייב להיות שר' יוסי מחזיק על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. אבל אם כך אז למה הוא לא אומר את אותו הדבר על משרה וירקות? כלומר, החכמים מחזיקים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים כי למרות שהדבורים גורמות נזק, עדיין הן נחשבות ניזוקות כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ר' יוסי מחזיק בשיטה שאחד יכול לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, משום ששניהם שווים, וכיוון שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך גם את החרדל אפשר לשים ליד הגבול. אז תשובת הגמרא היא כי ר' יוסי גם אומר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. פירוש הדבר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק ושהחרדל אינו גורם נזק כלל לדבורים ולכן יש להעביר את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ישנן שתי שאלות. מדוע תוספות משנה את החכמים. בהתחלה הם מחזיקים שהדבורים נחשבות דברים ניזוקים כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ובתשובת הגמרא הם מחזיקים שדבורים לא גורמות שום נזק בכלל. השאלה השנייה היא זו. למה הם משנים את דעתו של ר' יוסי גם? ראשית הם אומרים שר' יוסי מחזיק שיכולים לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, כי שניהם שווים. מאז שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך חרדל גם ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. אז תוספות אומר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק לחרדל, אבל החרדל לא גורם נזק בכלל לדבורים. לכן מחוייבים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. אני מתכוון באמת כי לא נראה שיש סיבה לשנות את דעתו של ר" יוסי כך דרסטי. גם בחלק שאלת גמרא מובן כי דבורים גורמות נזק, אז אפשר להשאיר העובדה הזו במקום ולומר שר' יוסי אומר שאתה יכול לעזוב את הדבורים במקום לשים את חרדל לצד זה. ההבדל היחיד יהיה בחלק שאלת גמרא העובדה שהוא היה מותר לשים הדבורים ליד הגבול וזה הופך את הדבורים להיות נחשבות ניזקות. בתשובה שהתקבל אתה יכול פשוט לעזוב את הרעיון הזה כי ממילא בתשובה לא אף אחד מחזיק בזה

In בבא בתרא page י''ח ענוד ב the  תוספות ד''ה מכלל on the סוגיא of mustard and bees. The question of the  גמרא is since the חכמים hold על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו, so it must be that ר' יוסי holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. But if so then why does he not say the same this about a  משרה and vegetables? That means to תוספות that the חכמים hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because even though bees  cause damage, still they are  considered to be damaged because they were put next to the border by permission. ר' יוסי holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then the גמרא answers that ר' יוסי also says על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. That means to תוספות that ר' יוסי holds  that the bees cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved ששה טפחים away from the border.There are two questions.  Why does תוספות change the חכמים. At first they hold from the bees are considered things ניזוקות because they were put next to the border by permission. Then they hold bees do no damage at all.

 The second question I have is this. Why do they change the opinion of ר' יוסי also? First they say that ר' יוסי holds you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal. Since the bees are next to the border, so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then תוספות says  that ר' יוסי holds that the bees  damage mustard, but  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees. Therefore צריכים להרחיק את הבורים ששה טפחים  away from the border. The answer these questions must come from the way the גמרא answers the question on ר' יוסי.

I  mean  there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion  of ר' יוסי so drastically.  Even in the question part of the גמרא it is understood that bees cause damage, so one could  leave that fact in place and say ר' יוסי means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it. The only difference would be in the question part of the גמרא the fact that he was allowed to put the bees there make it that the bees are considered the ניזק. In the answer you could simply leave out that idea which in any case n the answer no one hold from, not even the חכמים






IN Plain English:

In the Talmud Bava Batra the third Tosphot on the sugia of mustard and bees [page 18 side B] there are two questions that I have. One is why does Tosphot change the sages from the bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission, to they are considered subject to damage but not causing  damages because they in fact cause no damage.

The second question I have is why do they change the opinion of R. Yose also from you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. To then saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

The answer to both questions must come from the way the Gemara answers the question on R Yose saying he and also the sages hold it is upon the one that cause damage to remove the object.


Just to make my questions more clear let me present what Tosphot actually says. I just make it clear that this Tosphot is not anything like the Tosphot that comes right before it and they both are holding radically different ideas about this sugia  and they disagree on major points. [However both Tosphot hold that this part of the Gemara is still holing that half the field was bought.]

The question of the Gemara is since the sages hold the one that causes damage must remove his object so it must be that R. Jose hold the one that is damaged must be the one to remove his object.
[But if so then why does he not say the same this about a washbasin and vegetables?] That means to Tosphot that the sages hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because bees are  considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission. R Jose holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border.

Then the Gemara answers that R Jose also says that it is upon the one that causes damage to remove his object. That means to Tosphot that R Yose hold saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

I  mean even in R. Jose there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion so drastically.  Even in the question it is understood that bees cause damage, so leave that in place and say R. Jose means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it.

Navardok yeshivas

Trust in God does have some support from Jeremiah chapter 17 verses 5-8 as Joseph Yozel Horvitz points out in his book "The Levels of Man."[He was the founder of the Navardok yeshivas that emphasized trust in God.]
Rav Joseph Yozel also brought the events surrounding Elisha the prophet that are brought in the second book of Kings. There was a famine in the land and Elisha said that on the next day one measure of  wheat would be sold for one shekel and two measures of barely for the same price. There was a person that was entrusted with the king's finances or held some high government post.  He heard the words of Elisha and said "Even if God would make windows in the heavens to rain down bread could such a thing be true?" Elisha said you will see it but not eat therefrom. The next day in fact wheat was sold for that  but the prince that doubted was tramped and died.
Therefore if you put these two things together that God does promise good to those that trust Him and that there is a punishment for not trusting in him, you get the basic idea of Navardok yeshivas.

Navardok I should mention was a big presence in Lithuania. It was not the regular run of the mill Litvak yeshiva but their presence was felt.The Stipler Rav was the son-in-law of Rav Joseph Yozel who along with Rav Shach was one of the greatest sages of the previous generation. [The Stipler wrote some very good books called the Kehilat Yaakov but personally I find Rav Shach's Avi Ezri to be just about the best book written by any achron. Maybe it is just a matter of taste -I do not know.

In any case the whole Navardok thing was a little outside the actual requirements of the Torah. For as is very well known the Torah requires one to be working and also learning--not just learning and  thus to be dependent on charity. But Navardok stepped over that line--far beyond it in fact. The idea was trust in God and learn Torah and He will send a shiduch [spouse] and also Parnasa [a vocation or cash]. 
However yeshivas have changed character and thus for myself I find it better to learn Torah on my own and not to be involved in any community. Spiritual health requires me to come to hope and trust in God and I find most religious groups are very bad for my spiritual health. They bring me down so far that it may take years to get back up.

[The religious groups that I find good and healthy are mainly the Lithuanian yeshivas in NY and Bnei Brak, and also the Silverman yeshivas in Jerusalem which go strictly by the Gra. However I should mention that I have a lot of respect for Reb Nachman, but not any of the groups that are under the excommunication of the Gra.]