Saadia Gaon, Rambam, John Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kelley Ross.

Mainly the Left is based loosely on Rousseau, Hegel, Freud, Marx, Nietzsche. Also it is highly connected with existentialism. These all seem to me to be wrong turns. It once was considered the most sensible. 

The better approach seems to me to be based on Saadia Gaon, Rambam, John Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kelley Ross.


I perhaps should go into what is wrong with the Leftist philosophers but the critiques are well known.
I do not see what I could possibly add to the discussion except to say that the emphasis in learning and education ought to be shifted away from second rate philosophers to first rate philosophers. Why concentrate on what is wrong and flawed?
[To go into what is wrong with Nietzsche in short: moral values have prima facie validity. To defeat moral values you would have to have starting principles that have more initial plausibility. That is let's say you have a principle A that seems sort of OK. From A is implied B. Then if B makes no sense then you would have to reject A. All leftist philosophers start from some A that sounds sort of OK. They come up with something nice sounding but which has very little initial plausibility, but being a naive first year college student you really do not have the intellectual power to  disagree.  Then from A is deduced some B like all morality is relative. Since B has no initial plausibility it would require some strong A to prove it.  Just the opposite "not B" has more prima facie plausibility than A.] [What is wrong with Post Modernism is this: Frege wanted to expand the a priori. This was easily defeated. But then people took this defeat to mean there is no a priori. The problem was תפסת מרובה לא תפסת. Don't bit off more than you can chew. Do not try to prove too much.]

Rambam

With the Rambam there is a kind of four fold program. The Oral Law, the Written Law of Moses, Physics of Aristotle and the Metaphysics of Aristotle. I would like to say that this is only an introduction. That is, I think the Rambam would agree that after one has finished the Mishne Torah of the Rambam (which he held contained the Oral Torah) that after that he should spend his time  on Gemara, Modern Physics, and Metaphysics as it was developed later by Kant.


The Rambam did hold his book the Mishna Torah is sufficient to know the Oral Torah, however look in the "Laws of Talmud Torah" where he explains that one divides his day into three parts, and one is for deepening one's understanding of the Oral Law, and also the subjects that he briefly touched on in the beginning of Mishne Torah which are called ''Pardes'' and are in fact the areas of Physics and Metaphysics.[He goes into more detail in the Guide.]

If one has a authentic Litvak yeshiva in his area, he should definitely go there to learn Torah,-- especially with a learning partner. But if not, the best thing is to make one's own space into a place of Torah.

I also am a big fan of speed reading in Torah. That is-- to say the words and to go on. That is to have a session in Gemara, Rashi Tosphot in such a way that he will eventually finish the whole Oral Law i.e. the two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri, and the Midrashim. What one does not understand here, they will remind  him of in the next world. I am also a big fan of Rav Shach and Reb Israel Salanter, and thus I believe that everyone should go through the entire Avi Ezri of Rav Shach at least once, and all the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter on Torah Ethics (plus the books of Musar of Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira the grandfather of Bava Sali).

[To understand the Rambam I also think it is important to learn the books and letters of his son, Reb Avraham, and of course the very important Guide for the Perplexed. Some people are so perplexed they do not even know they need the Guide. Reb Avraham Abulafia wrote that the secret of the final redemption is contained in the first forty chapters of the Guide.


In case it is not clear what I was saying: The Mishne Torah is good as an introduction to Torah, but it is a terrible idea to decide any halacha without knowledge of the Gemara and the source of the halacha as the Mahrasha and Maharshal wrote and many others.
[As for learning Halacha as they do  in Authentic Litvak Yeshivas for 45 minutes in the morning my basic feeling is to get through the entire Tur, Beit Yoseph, and Bach. I consider that the prime Halacha book. Though I admit the Aruch HaShulchan is a close second.] [For the halacha session in the morning I recommend one of three things: (3)  Rambam Keseph Mishna, (2) Tur, Beit Yoseph (3) Shulchan Aruch with the Beer Hetev.


You can bring support to this idea of the Rambam from the LM Vol II. chapter 12 of Reb Nachman. This idea is this :Even though God's glory fills the whole world there are areas where his glory does not reach. מקומות המטונפים as it says in a verse וכבודי לאחר לא אתן. But since nothing can exist without God's making it exist every second how can those places exist? Answer: They get there life force from the מאמר הסתום. That is in Genesis it says for each act of creation He said" The tenth statement is the very first statement In the beginning God created heaven and earth. That is the highest statement corresponding to the sephirah of Keter the crown. So when one turn to God from those places where God's glory is not apparent he gets sustenance from the highest level of the Crown and brings up all the fallen souls. 

There are many other places in the LM where you could bring support to the Rambam like what Reb Nachman says about stories. This is to be expected because the thought of the Rambam and Reb Nachman are in general highly correlated. 

Universals, Aristotle, Rambam

Avraham rosenblum
Sep 7

to Kelley
Dear Dr Ross. You wrote here : However, a stricter empiricism again creates the difficulty that the apparent "form" of an object cannot provide knowledge of an end (an entelechy) that is only implicit in the present object, and so hidden to present knowledge.

This seems to be the only statement in that essay about the problems with Aristotle.
I thought there were more serious problems with Aristotle like this: from Stanford: Some maintain that Aristotle’s theory is ultimately inconsistent, on the grounds that it is committed to all three of the following propositions:
(i) Substance is form.
(ii) Form is universal.
(iii) No universal is a substance.
This seems important because the  Maimonides is considered to be going with Aristotle. It does not seem that he would have missed these problems. Is there perhaps ways to answer these things? Or Perhaps Maimonides was aware of these problems and therefore took a kind of Middle path between Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists. Sincerely Avraham Rosenblum


Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

Aristotle’s forms must be hidden in part, for we cannot tell from the inspection of an acorn what the grown tree will look like.  The Aristotelian “form” thus becomes separate from its obvious meaning in Greek, i.e. eidos as image.  Since Aristotle wants to be a kind of Empiricist, with the “form” derived in some way from the perception of the object, the universal that is mentally abstracted from the image carries with it things that are not actually visible.

In a Kantian theory,  what we know about universals will only apply to phenomenal objects.  The status of abstract (universal) objects among things-in-themselves is left open, as with other matters of transcendence.  At the same time, hidden features of universals obviously cannot be abstracted directly from perception.  Thus, what the oak will look like is a matter of speculation, scientific investigation, or just waiting around for the tree to grow from the acorn.  What scientific investigation has learned, of course, is that the form of the oak is determined by the DNA in the acorn.  The “entelechy” has a physical basis, but this could be not gathered from the mere inspection of the acorn.  Aristotle’s “entelechy” was thus for real, but not in the way he thought.

I would agree that Aristotle affirms (i) and (ii), but I don’t really see (iii).  Universals are forms, and forms are substance.  I think that Maimonides is actually a Neoplatonist, where the chain of Being is grades of form, and universality, from the four elements up to the One.

So I am curious why you, or anyone, would say that “No universal is a substance” in Aristotle.

Best wishes,
KR

However to know any single halacha properly one needs to know the Talmud from where that halacha comes from.

As for Halacha in fact the only valid source is the Talmud. But because not everyone has the time it is perfectly fine to go by the Rambam or the Tur Beit Yoseph. The only Achron in Halacha I have much respect for is the Aruch HaShulchan. There are people that go by the Gra in every detail like Rav Zilverman in the Old City. These are all very good approaches. However to know any single halacha properly one needs to know the Talmud from where that halacha comes from.

As for the other issues like problems with all religious teachers  being creeps that I brought up in my essay. I would not say what I say if I did not know it to be true.  And like I mentioned before there is such a thing as group behavior.  There are plenty of examples of this in the Gemara. See the end of kidushin "Where it says stay away from that group that are from such and such a city because they are all liars."  In any case my essay was really meant to address a public problem which is very real and everyone knows it except the people that want everyone else to be blind. 

And there are the obvious exceptions of people that are sitting and learning Torah all day who can be trusted and in Israel there is in fact is pretty good rigorous system in place. But these are side issues and tend to detract attention away from the widespread catastrophe that surrounds us.

It is for good reason I have mentioned the importance of  a legitimate Lithuanian yeshiva. If you do not have one there, then at least  get the book of Rav Shach so you can be yourself a walking Litvak Yeshiva, keeping the whole Written and Oral Law. Get to you also the books of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and the other great sages of Lita.
[For example, the Even HaAzelof Rav Isar Meltzer, the rav of Rav Shach.] My learning partner, Dadvid Bronson, had a mind that could go deeply into Tosphot , but I know of no achron with that capability. So I confine myself to recommending the great sages of Lithuania that had a more global approach.
[What people call halacha nowadays is a joke. They take the majority of the frauds and liars that are as crooked as snakes and go by the majority opinion. That is what they call Halacha.]

The Rambam considers Torah and Mitzvot to be an introduction to Physics and Metaphysics. And he makes it clear he means the kind of things the ancient Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics. (See the introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed.) Not Mysticism.

The Rambam considers Torah and Mitzvot to be an introduction to Physics and Metaphysics. And he makes it clear he means the kind of things the ancient Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics. (See the introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed.) Not Mysticism. For this reason I thought to say over what kind of path I think can help people in this direction. It is the idea that you see in the Talmud לעולם ליגרס אדם אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר. One should always be "גורס". One should always just say the words and go on even though he does not remember and even though he does not know what he is saying. This does not take the place of time and effort though.But I have found this to be helpful. You can see this idea expanded on in Sichot HaRan chapter 76.

In any case this is not to take the place of learning Gemara. The basic idea of the Rambam is this: That the fulfillment of the commandment to love and fear God is by learning Physics and Metaphysics. But one can't get to that level without first learning the Oral and Written Torah. Now in fact you could say the Rambam holds the entire Oral Law is contained his  book the Mishne Torah and you could go through it in a week easily. Fine. Do so. But still in order to understand the Mishne Torah one needs to learn the Talmud.
And this should not be taken as an excuse for Bitul Torah. [Bitul Torah means not learning Torah when one has the time to do so. It is considered a major sin Talmud. ] When one can be learning Torah he must do so. It is just that the Rambam considered these two fields to be part of the Oral Law.You can see that if you compare the beginning of Mishna Torah where he says Physics and MetaPhysics =Pardes, and the Laws of learning Torah where he says Pardes is in the category of the Oral Law.

An answer to a question in the Rambam

 ראש השנה י''ד וט''ו.רמב''ם מעשר שני פרק א' הלכה ה' ו'(
מבוא. אני רוצה לענות על שאלה ברמב''ם. הרמב''ם מחליט הלכה כמו רבותינו באושא,  היינו שהולכים לפי זמן לקיטה למעשר ולביעור. ואז בפסקה הבא [הלכה ו'] הוא מביא את הגמרא שאתרוג שנכנס משנה השישית לשנה השביעית הוא טבל אפילו אם זה היה רק בגודל של זית בשנה השישית ולאחר מכן בשנה השביעית הפך גדול כמו כיכר לחם. (לכאורה לפי מבט ראשון, זה נראה כמו שהולכים לפי חנטה בשביל מעשר.) התשובה שלי היא שהולכים לפי זמן הלקיטה אלא שאם הלקיטה הייתה בתקופה שבין ראש השנה של השנה השביעית עד ט''ו בשבט, אז זה עדיין נחשב כמו שנה הששית למעשר.

כדי לעשות את זה ברור תן לי להביא קצת רקע. (1) רבה אמר אתרוג שנכנס משישית לשביעית אינו מחויב מעשר ולא בביעור. אבל שנכנס מהשביעית לשמינית, הוא חייב בביעור. ( היינו החוקים של השנה השביעית). אביי שאל על זה.  ונראה  שאביי חושב שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה וכך מהשישית לשביעית היא בעיה. בכל מקרה רבה עונה לו. רב המנונה אמר שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה. רשב''י (רבי שמעון בן יהודה) בשם רבי שמעון אמר השישית לשביעית והשביעית שלמינית אינו מחויב בשום דבר, כי אנחנו צריכים את זמן הגידול וזמן הלקיטה להיות במצב של חובה. הגמרא השיבה שרבה ורב המנונה הולכים כמו חמשת הזקנים (שיטת רבן גמליאל) שלביעור הולכים לפי חנטה. רבותינו נמנו וגמרו באושא שלגבי אתרוג הולכים אחר לקיטה בין למעשר בין לשביעית. ואז  רבי יוחנן אמר אתרוג שנכנס משישית לשביעית נחשב טבל--היינו מחויב מעשר.  (2) רבן גמליאל אמר לאתרוג הולכים לפי חנטה לשנה השביעית ולפי לקיטה למעשר. רבי אליעזר אמר שאנחנו הולכים לפי לקיטה לכל דבר.  (3) הראש השנה לשנת השמיטה ונטיעה הוא היום הראשון של תשרי. לאילן הוא ט''ו בשבט. (4) לא ניתן לשתול 30 ימים לפני ראש השנה של השנה השביעית כי מוסיפים מחול על הקודש. ומשהו שניטע כשמגיע לשנה הרביעית אחרי ראש השנה אסור להשאיר. ראש שנה דף י'. העובדה המפתח  היא רש''י שם, בעמוד י' שמסביר את העניין. רש''י זו היא נקודת  המוקד. לדבריו, למרות שהעץ הוא בשנתה ה -4 בגלל ראש השנה עבר, עדיין פרותיה ערלים ואסורים לנצח כי ט''ו בשבט לא בא. (5) לכן כאשר רמב''ם כותב אתרוג שנכנס משישית לשביעית מחויב מעשר, הוא מכוון  מא' תשרי לראש השנה לאילנות בט''ו בשבט. אז למרות שלמעשר הולכים לפי זמן הלקיטה, אבל עדיין  הוא לפני ט''ו בשבט והוא  שהוא נחשב עדיין להיות בשנה שעברה - שנה השישית לעניין מעשר.

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction.
 I want to answer a question in the רמב''ם. In brief the רמב''ם decides the halacha like רבותינו שבאושא. and then in the next paragraph he brings the גמרא that a אתרוג going from the ששית into the שביעית year is טבל even if it was only the size of an olive in the ששית year and then in the שביעית year became as big as a loaf of bread. My answer is that he is referring to the period between ראש השנה of the שביעית year until ט''ו בשבט. That is what he means by saying it is a fruit of the ששית year that has gone into the שביעית.

 To make it clear what I mean let me try to bring some background information.

(1) רבה said an אתרוג going from ששית to שביעית is not obligated in מעשר nor ביעור.
But going from שביעית to שמינית, it is liable to ביעור the laws of the שביעית year. אביי asked on this and it seems off hand that אביי is thinking we go by the time of חנטה and so from ששית to שביעית is a problem. In any case רבה answers him. רב המנונה said we go by the time of חנטה. The רשב''י in the name of רבי שמעון said ששית to שביעית and שביעית to שמינית is not obligated in anything because we need the זמן גידול and the זמן לקיטה should be in a state of obligation. The גמרא answers that רבה and רב המנונה are going like the חמישה זקנים that for the שביעית year we go by חנטה.
Then comes the two statements of רבי יוחנן which the רמב''ם brings. The אתרוג going from ששית to שביעית is considered  טבל--obligated in מעשר. And  בת ששית לשביעית לעולם שביעית

(2) רבן גמליאל said for an אתרוג we go by חנטה for the שביעית year and by לקיטה for the מעשר,
רבי אליעזר said we go by לקיטה for everything.

(3) The ראש השנה for the שביעית year and נטיעה is the first day of תשרי. For אילן it is the ט''ו בשבט.

(4) You can't plant 30 days before ראש השנה of the שביעית year because we add from the secular onto the holy. And something planted that reaches the forth year after ראש השנה is forbidden forever. ראש השנה 10.

The key fact is theרש''י over there on page 10 that explains this last statement. This רש''י is the focal point of everything I have written here. He says even though the tree is in its 4th year because ראש השנה has passed, still its fruits are ערלה forbidden forever because ט''ו בשבט has not come.

(5) Therefore when the רמב''ם writes the אתרוג comes from ששית to שביעית is obligated in מעשר he means the first משנה that ראש השנה for trees in ט''ו בשבט. So even though for מעשר we go by the time of לקיטה, but still since it is before ט''ו בשבט it is as far as the אתרוג is concerned still the last year--that is year ששית and thus obligated in מעשר even though it in the שביעית year as far as the laws of the שביעית year is concerned.

(6) You have to consider this like two fields. One is a gravitational field and the other is an electrical field. They don't interact. You have a מעשר  field from tu beshavat to tu beshvat and another field  for shemitah from rosh hashanah to rosh hashanah

Gaon from Villna

We find that world view issues were important to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. It is not just that he wrote the Guide for the Perplexed to  answer questions concerning, well, world view issues, but that these ideas pop up often in all of his writings.

 But when you try to get into the Rambam [Maimonides] you find several pitfalls.

One obvious one is Jose Faur. While his devotion to the cause of the Rambam is admirable but  his knowledge and understanding of the Rishonim [medieval authorities] is ziltch and when he attacks the other  Rishonim based on his lack of knowledge it come out looking like he went of a bit much into the "Sefardi pride" trap.

I think it is a true thing that the best way to learn the Rambam is in conjunction with the regular normal Rishonim like Topshpot and not to make a fetish out of him. [This is the way Ashkenazim have always learned the Rambam and Reb Ovadia Joseph also for that matter.]

On the other hand it is a good idea for people to start the task of understanding the Rambam in world view issues a little better. 

 I need to mention here that the Rambam had children and descendants that continued to be the rav roshi [chief rabbi] in Cairo for many generations. And a lot of them wrote books along the lines of the Rambam. So even if they are not the last word on what the Rambam was thinking, still they are instructive to give some hints about his path.

One curious issue that does come up in the Guide and in the book of the Rambam's son [Avraham ben Moshe] was the issue of pantheism.

You can guess why the Guide for the Perplexed is the most unpopular book in the world for Hasidim. You certainly do not want people finding out that the Rambam did not think that Torah belief and pantheism or panetheism were compatible.

In fact I once went through a book concerning the Gaon from Villna and it was clear form reading the actual documents of his time that the Hasidim were using a sophisticated strategy to  convert Jews to another religion. They were holding on to Jewish ritual even more strongly than normal religious Jews. This gave them the ability to substitute Jewish beliefs with pantheism. And they also learned how to use seemly sincere acts of kindness to promote their movement.

 The original Guide that you used to see hanging out in the frum world [you know the one with the commentary of Joseph Albo and someone else.  It is a very difficult book but it rewards the effort. 

There is a great book on the Rambam by David Hartman which is the best modern commentary on the Rambam that I have ever seen.

(1)The God of Maimonides and Aristotle

(1)The God of Maimonides and Aristotle tends to lack personality. (2) The omnipotence and benevolence of God, while happy and comforting to contemplate, generates the Problem of Evil, that the evidence of the world and of events frequently would seem to contradict an omnipotent and benevolent agency.
(3) It seems to me that Yaakov along with Job and King David [עד אבא למקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם in Psalm 73 ] found some way of dealing with these issues. The way they did this was to project God's goodness out over a longer period.
To me it seems that this was the opinion of Job and God himself who agreed with Job.
The friends of Job said: "God is just". God said they were wrong. Point blank. At point blank range. There is no way to misinterpret this because the entire Book of Job shows this.


 The first statement is that Job was without sin. So trying to fudge the variables here does not work. Trying to make it that there were other faults is clearly not what it says. Then the whole story of how God caused him to suffer in order to win a debate with Satan just shows the point. Because you want to win a debate with someone does not give you cause to make someone else suffer. This is the clear position of the narrator of The Book of Job 



What enrages people is that the Rambam understands the Torah thorough the eyes  and world view of Aristotle. And that he is not embarrassed about that makes it worse. At least he could try to hide where he gets his ideas from like everyone else. And what makes it even worse is that no one can claim to understand the Torah better than the Rambam unless they want to seem like an arrogant, ignorant fool. Thus people just ignore the Rambam when it comes to the world view of Torah.

My approach is different than the generally accepted approach. I say the Rambam was right, and everyone else simply does not understand the Torah.

In any case  the Rambam's approach to Torah is I think about as close to the actual Torah approach as possible. In another approaches there are strong elements of polytheism. They may not reach pure polytheism but they certainly come close. Today  Torah practice often contains polytheist beliefs. In fact it is almost an axiom that the more strict one is in practices the more likely there are underlying polytheistic beliefs. Monotheism is not the same as polytheism except in number. There is more than a quantitative difference. There is a qualitative difference. A difference in world view. And the world view of Torah could not be further away from what people think it is today. It presents a reality that is radically different than what people think the Torah is about.

A Rambam Yeshiva would not be anything like the yeshivas we see today. The books there would be the Mishne Torah and Aristotle's encyclopedic work, Physics and his other encyclopedic work, the Metaphysics.   In the beginning of Mishne Torah he writes that the Mishne Torah contains all the Oral Law and take a good look at his language there when he says "One does not need any other book from among them."  "One reads the Old Testament and then the Mishne Torah and one does not need any other book from among them for any law," i.e. the books that he just mentioned in that paragraph. However he says one needs no other books to know what the law is (that is what among the laws of the Talmud is the halacha. But that does not mean that one understands the meaning of the law without knowing the Talmud. That is how all sages of Israel after him understood him. That is without the Talmud one can not know the meaning of any law in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam. Just like the Guide require background in Aristotle and Plato so the Mishna Torah requires the background of the Talmud.



So you can ask then what to do after you have read the Mishne Torah? You can finish it in two weeks easily. Start at 9:00 AM and go until 5:00 PM. A normal working day. You can finish it in two weeks. Then he explains you learn "the work of Creation and the Divine Chariot which are the Physics and Metaphysics of the ancient Greeks." Here too he explains this clearly in several places in the Mishe Torah and  Guide. And he not ambiguous in any way. You can see what enraged people about the Rambam. He says after one has finished reading the Written and Oral law (as he defines Oral Law to mean his book the Mishne Torah) then he spends all his days learning Physics and Metaphysics.



So clearly a Rambam approach to Torah  would be a radical departure from what people think today compromises a Torah approach. And he writes in a letter that the only reason that his book was not accepted as the final decision is because of the arrogance and pride of people wanting honor and power. So when the final redemption comes and arrogance and the evil inclination will be eliminated from the world then his book will be accepted as the objective truth. In the future the Mishne Torah of the Rambam will be considered as the truth and final decision. The son of the Rambam who became the Rav of the city after the Rambam in fact taught the Mishna Torah instead of Mishna or other things that had been customary to teach between the afternoon and evening prayers.

 My personal opinion is that Physics today (and Metaphysics) has gone considerably beyond Aristotle and that today the Rambam would hold to learn the Old Testament, then the Mishne Torah and then modern Physics and Kant. (I must admit I  have not gotten far in Mathematics or Physics. My impression is they both need about the  same amount of time and effort as knowing the Talmud even at the most amateurish level.  That is about 20,000 hours each. That is you have the normal 10,000 hours for just barely scratching the surface. Then the next 10,000 hours for gaining expertise. That was in any case my own experience with Talmud and it seems to me that Math and Physics are not all that different.)

And I should mention that this is the way I have accustomed myself to be learning for some time now. The only thing is I admit I do learn Talmud as I thing it is the only way to understand the Mishne Torah. Without knowing from where the Rambam gets his decision, people always misunderstand what he is saying. [And they think they understand.] For that reason, one should also learn Talmud and Rav Shach's commentary on the Rambam together with the Rambam..

[I should mention that this is not how Litvaks go about learning. And for myself if I have any time for learning at all I go straight to the Gemara. Being limited to what you can get I would say get a Bava Metzia (one full Talmud Tractate with Tosphot Mahrasha and Rif.). One Musar book and one of Jewish world view like the Guide for the Perplexed.