The Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter

The only way that I know of to correct my own faults is to find a place in the books of Ethics (Musar) which discuss that particular fault and to say it to myself every day when I get up in the morning. This has some relation to the Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter in which he said that the only way to correct one's faults is by learning Musar. But I found that for me the only thing that seems effective is to do it right away in the morning.

There are faults that I have no idea how to correct, but this method seems to be the most effective for the few that I know about.

For example: In the Madragat HaAdam of the school of Navardok it is brought the statement of the Gra about trust in God. In the Nefesh HaHaim of rav Haim from Voloshin is brought a few statements about accepting the yoke of Torah an another one about judging people on the scales of merit.

I try to say them every day. But still I am aware they might be be that relevant to other faults I have of things I really need to correct. But I figure at it is a start.

The best idea is to avoid anyone who makes a show of their religiosity.That way you are more or less safe from the Dark Side.

Almost all Torah teachers nowadays teach Torah of the Sitra Achra [Torah of the Dark Side.] I would learn only authentic Torah, but that is hard to come by. I would not spent any time on the Torah lessons of the Dark Side. I would learn only Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and the two Talmuds with Tosphot and Pnei Moshe and Rav Haim from Brisk's חידושי הרמב''ם. But in fact to learn Rav Shach it is needed to find a place of study or a yeshiva that goes specifically by the path of the Gra with with compromises with the Dark Side. I would not go anywhere else because the Dark Side, once it gets inside a person's head, never comes out. It is like a circuit board that is solidified. After it gets solidified, there is no way to undo it since it is already hardwired [unless one simply tears up the whole circuit board and throws it out and starts a new one.]

[If  there is not a yeshiva on the name of the Gra in your area then I would simply go to a Reform Judaism or Conservative place. That way one is more or less safe from the Dark Side.]oid t.

It is ironic that people that are aware of the warning of Rav Nahman of Breslov to avoid teachers of the Dark Side often fall into that very trap by trying to avoid it. Not just that but also they hear he emphasized being close to a true tzadik and by that they usually fall into the trap of some teacher of the Sitra Achra. People would do a lot better if they would simply take straight Torah as their guide as it is taught in the Mir Yeshiva and Ponovitch.

The best idea is to avoid anyone who makes a show of their religiosity.That way you are more or less safe from the Dark Side.

The Gra said that to the degree that one lacks any of the seven wisdoms, he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more.

The Gra said that to the degree that one lacks any of the seven wisdoms, he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more. That statement was printed in the (Introduction to) Translation of Euclid by one of the Gra's disciples.

This refers to what was in the Middle Ages a well known set of subjects, including Math, Music and Astronomy etc.[Trivium, Quadrium]

In the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart [Ibn Pakuda] this same idea comes up except there in the Introduction he has Metaphysics  and only later in שער הבחינה [Gate of Reflection] he goes into the need to know Physics, Biology and human anatomy.
Plus he adds there even practical wisdom--the same kinds of things he said in the Introduction were not necessary for Torah, but then he adds them later in the Gate of Reflection as being necessary for reflection on the greatness of God.

[Rav Eliyahu Zilverman [Rosh Yeshiva of Aderet Eliyahu on the name of the Gra] said to me that Electrical Engineering is in the category of what the Gra meant and now I see the Obligations of the Heart also has that opinion.



The opinion of Saadia Gaon and the Rambam [Maimonides] I have already mentioned. The Rambam specifically wrote about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks. He was not referring to mysticism.

[This is not meant to replace learning the regular curriculum of Torah--the two Talmuds with Tosphot, the Avi Ezri, Rav Haim from Brisk's חידושי הרמב''ם known as the Hidushei Rav Haim]

[Learning Torah I did myself for reasons.  It leads to good character traits and fear of God and even eventually to "Devekut." Devekut is attachment with God as is brought in Deuteronomy 30:20. That is the highest goal is to be attached and one with God.]
That is in Shar Yashuv and the Mir I only learned Torah. But eventually I decided that the path of balance was better.--that is Torah with Physics an Math.

So now I want tell people how it is possible to learn Physics even if you do not think you understand.
That is from the Gemara in  tractate Avoda Zara ""Always a person ought to be גורס (just say the words and go on.) even though he forgets and even thought he does not know what he is saying.
After one has finished the whole book, then to go back and review. i believe people ought to have two sessions of learning, one in the morning for in depth learning with lots of review. the other in the afternoon for fast learning--saying the words in order and going on. plus listening to classe in each subject from someone that knows it well.   

The subject of Rav Avraham Abulafia was known to people even before his books were published in Jerusalem and are being sold in Mea Shearim book stores. Mainly the reason is that Professor Moshe  Idel made his PhD thesis about Rav Abulfia and later published  a whole series of books on him and on ecstatic kabala. The attitude of Rav Abulafia towards Yeshua was contained in his PhD thesis.

But some people knew anyway. Rav Avigdor Miller knew. I asked him if he was aware of Rav Abulfia and he said, "Yes". One reason he is not known is that kabalah took a different track after the Middle Ages. Now it is almost synonymous with Zohar. But to me that seems to be a mistake. Even though the Ari himself merited to great levels of Divine Spirit, it seems to me that whatever was based on the Zohar itself does not have much merit.
 Mystics in general were not lacking. There were plenty of Jewish Mystics that had revelations. But when they base themselves on the Zohar, it seems to me they get off track.

[The main problem I see with the Zohar is עם כל דא a translate of עם כל זה. And עם כל זה was made as a phrase to substitute for אף על גב or אף אל פי--"even though". But this phrase על כל זה was invented by the Ibn Tibon family. So what is it doing in the Zohr which was supposedly written a thousand years before the phrase was invented?

Rav Avraham Abulafia was a figure shrouded in mystery.

Rav Avraham Abulafia was a figure shrouded in mystery.  He was one of the most famous mystics of the Middle Ages and he had a definite positive attitude towards Yeshua (Jesus of Nazeret). But that is not what made him subject to scrutiny. It was rather his mystic approach. 

The Rashba definitely was against him and also Yehuda the Tailor. [Yehuda Hahayat]. Yehuda Hahayat was the one who collected all the writings that were  thought to be part of the Zohar that were scattered in his time.[The way the Zohar was a originally published by Moshe De Leon was that he would sell page by page of it for a high price. So it was never put together until much later by Yehuda the Tailor.

These two people were very much against Rav Abulafia.

The major reason that Rav Abulafia got to be considered important and kosher was that the later mystics like Rav Moshe of Cordoba quotes him extensively in his Pardas and also Rav Haim Vital quotes him at length in his שערי קדושה חלק רביעי
The Chida [Rav Haim David Azulay] brings this whole controversy. He wrote a book listing all the great sages [Shem Hagedolim], and he brings Rav Abulafia. And there he says "The Rashba was against him, but I do not know why because he as in fact a great man."

Now I can say what I think Rav Abulafia was thinking. It is clear he held Yeshua [Jesus] was what is called in the Talmud, "messiah son of Joseph." But that does not mean anything like the Trinity. Rather the idea is more along the lines that you find in Rav Nahman's books [of Breslov] about the ideal of "believing in a true tzadik." That is he would be thinking of Jesus more than what we would call a saint, but less than what Christians think about the Trinity.  That is a "tzadik emet" a true tzadik is one whom by means of believing in him-there is imparted to one's soul a certain amount of the holiness of that tzadik.

I might mention that the Ari clearly held the same opinion as Rav Abulafia as you can see in the end of Genesis where he discusses Joseph [HaTzadik] ben Jacob. [There are three books from the Ari which discuss the verses of Torah, and in all three of them he mentions this. However it is well known that the Ari himself did not do the actual writing, but it was Rav Haim Vital who wrote, and then Rav Shmuel Vital (his son) who organized the whole thing into the famous Eight Gates שמנה שערים


What makes this such an emotional issue to people is beyond me. It seems to me simple that once Rav Abulafia and the Ari have expressed their opinion concerning this matter, that would be the end of the discussion.


The reason I ought to add why this does not imply the Trinity is well explained in the Obligations of the Hearts about the difference between אחד האמת The true One and something that is one  by accident--very Aristotelian concepts.
Simply that means God is not a composite, and that he is the true One in that his essence is oneness.

Learning Torah requires saying the words-not just reading them

Learning Torah by saying the words is brought in the Talmud as the only legit way of learning. Just reading is not thought to be in the category of learning Torah at all. אין התורה מתקיימת אלא למוצאיהם בפה

Once I got the idea from Maimonides [Rambam] about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks, I began to apply the same idea to learning Physics.

Furthermore I saw in the אורחות צדיקים [a mediaeval book of Ethics/ Musar] the importance of just saying the words and going on and not to worry if I understand or not. [But combined with this one should also have a separate time to review --ten times every paragraph.]

Not that this takes the place of learning regular Torah. So what I think is that one ought to divide his time in such a way that he gets through the two Talmuds, the Midrashim, Rif, Rosh, Tur, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach -- plus the basic set of Physics and Math up until and including String Theory.

[The importance of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is that it is the best representation of a kind of learning that was implicit since the commentaries on the Rambam but began to be more explicit in Rav Haim Soloveitchik's Hidushei HaRambam.] That is to bring to light the reasoning of the Rambam and its place among the other Rishonim [mediaeval writers especially Tosphot.] This approach of Rav Haim of Brisk is now the golden standard in all Lithuanian type of yeshivas



[I think the idea of learning fast by just saying the words and going further was also brought down in בנין עולם  a book printed in Bnei Brak a few years ago that brought this idea from a lot of great people in Torah thought.]

In the Obligations of the Hearts,  [Hovot Halevavot], Rav Ibn Pakua brings the obligation to learn Aristotle's Metaphysics as necessary for Torah in his introduction [on the very first page]. But at that point he does not sound like he thinks the same about Aristotle's Physics or Biology. But later in שער הבחינה it is clear that he is thinking of the natural sciences as brought in Aristotle's also as obligations but for a different reason.  The first--the Metaphysics he understands as being necessary in order to understand Torah properly. The second--the natural sciences-he understands as the way to fulfill
 coming to love and fear of God.
[The fact that the Hovot Levavot and the Rambam have the same opinion here is I think because they are both depending on Saadia Gaon . ]

[If the Obligations of the Heart had been written in Christian Spain, we would not know what he was talking about. For Christian Europe only had limited books of Aristotle. But the fact that he was writing in Muslim Spain makes it clear. Also he does not mention specifically Aristotle because these subjects had been developed by later people like Al Kindi and Farabi--so Ibn Pakuda wanted to make clear he meant the whole subject matter, not just the actual writings of Aristotle.]

Two arrows of time and two arrows of entropy.

Feynman thought his diagrams reflected an actual reality. So what are the particles that travel backwards in time? Are they not tachyons? Is that not what Relativity implies? The faster a particles goes, the slower it goes in time. So going faster than light means going backwards in time. And now we see in String Theory that the structure of D-branes of dimension 24 are made of tachyons.

[I would imagine that eventually there will be found a dimension in which entropy also goes backwards because for some reason or other the equations of motion with just backwards time do not reveal anything of interest as Feynman noticed in his 1948 paper. But putting negative entropy along with time going backwards does result in very interesting things.