The fundamental distinction between the polytheistic worldview and the monotheistic worldview of Torah

So, let's begin: pagan religion. The fundamental idea of pagan religion.

That God is subject to the will of the tzadik.

In pagan religion there's  a fluid boundary between the divine, the human, and the natural worlds. They blur into one another because they all emerge ultimately from the same primordial world stuff. 

Discerning the will of the God is really of little use, because even his will can be thwarted or overthrown by a tzadik.

The pagan cult, is a system of rites.  So the pagan cult, is a system of rites that involves a manipulation of substances — again, tefilin, candles, and so on — that are believed to have some kind of inherent power, There's always an element of magic in the pagan cult. It's seeking through these rituals and manipulations of certain substances to, again, let loose certain powers, set into motion certain forces, that will coerce  God to be propitiated, for example, or calmed or to act favorably or to vindicate the devotees, and so on.

The fundamental idea of Torah, which permeates the entire Torah in his view, is a radically new idea of a God who is himself the source of all being — not subject to a tzadik . 

He doesn't have in the Bible a female consort, a Shechina . 

 Nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine. 

 Magic in the Torah is represented as useless. It's pointless. There's no metadivine realm to tap into. Power doesn't inhere in any stuff in the natural world. So the world is sort of de-divinized. 

Power, or Divinity  isn't understood as a material thing or something that inheres in material substances. God can't be manipulated or coerced by tefilin or words or rituals. They have no power and cannot be used in that way, and so magic is sin. Magic is sin or rebellion against God because it's predicated on a whole mistaken notion of God having limited power. 

There are magical conceptions throughout the Torah . But because God willed them . 

 There's no ritual or incantation,  or material substance that can coerce a revelation from God. So, we will see things that look like magic and divination and oracles and dreams and prophecy in the pagan world and in ancient Israel. But  the similarity is a similarity in form only. And it's a superficial, formal, external similarity. Each of these phenomena he says is transformed by the basic Israelite idea of one supreme transcendent God whose will is absolute and all of these things relate to the direct word and will of God. They aren't recourse to a separate secret lore or body of knowledge or interpretive craft that calls upon forces or powers that transcend God or are independent of God.

Now since God is himself the transcendent source of all being and since he is good, in a monotheistic system there are no evil agents that constitute a realm that opposes God as an equal rival. No divine evil agents. Again, in the pagan worldview the primordial womb spawns all sorts of beings, all kinds of divinities, good and evil that are in equal strength. They're sort of locked in this cosmic struggle. But in the Torah worldview, if God is the source of all being, then they're can't be a realm of supernatural beings that do battle with him. There's no room for a divine antagonist of the one supreme God, which is leading us down here to this point: that sin and evil are demythologized in the Torah. 

There's nothing inherently supernatural about sin. It's not a force or a power built into the universe. In Torah evil is transferred from the metaphysical realm (built into the physical structure of the universe) to the moral realm. I've put it up here for you. Evil is a moral and not a metaphysical reality. It doesn't have a concrete independent existence. And that means that human beings and only human beings are the potential source of evil in the world. Responsibility for evil lies in the hands of human beings. In the Torah, no one will ever say the devil made me do it. There is no devil in the Hebrew Bible. 

 Evil is a moral and not a metaphysical reality 

Even tzadikim are not gods.

In the Torah,  Nature  is not divine. It's demythologized, de-divinized. the created world is not divine, it is not the physical manifestation the Creator. The line of demarcation therefore between the Divine and the natural and human worlds is clear. In Genesis 1, the view of God is that there is one supreme God, who is creator and sovereign of the world, who simply exists, who is  incorporeal, and for whom the realm of nature is separate and subservient. He has no life story, no mythology, and his will is absolute.

In Torah, humans are created in the image of God, but humans are not, in fact, gods. They are still creatures in the sense of created things and they are dependent on a higher power. Even tzadikim are not gods.

This God transcends nature.   He's not identifiable as a force of nature or identified with a force of nature. Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified [with it]. He's wholly "other". He is totally different. He has no Divine substance. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine. 


I write this because I have seen that this issue requires clarification. Though all the above points are clear in the Torah itself, you can see them explained by Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed and in Emunot VeDeot of Saadia Geon.

Is one allowed to learn Torah in order to get ordination and a paid profession?

This is believe it or not not obvious. You can read statements from the sages of the Talmud about not learning for the sake that people should give one honor. But to get an explicit statement is hard.
[In those days there was no profession of having ordination and getting money through Torah. Rather if one was recognized as being learned then it was a mitzvah to patronize his store.]
 We find programs oriented towards getting semicha [ordination].
 However I want to argue here that in fact it is forbidden to learn Torah for the sake of eith making money by doing so (kollel) or becoming qualified to gain ordination in order to make money. . This is in spite of the fact that my opinion is against what is considered to be common knowledge
I base my idea on a small book of sayings of the Gra called "Even Shelema" .

In chapter 5 paragraph 16 we find him quoting the Gra that when the evil inclination tries to seduce one to learn Torah for the sake of some physical benefit or  in order to become a rabbi it is better to learn books of Musar.

The actual statement of the Gra supports this. It come from Proverbs chapter 21 verses 5 and 6.
And the whole statement certainly supports  Rav Meltzan.

In money issues is where the whole religious thing goes wrong because people change what the Torah says and lie about it in order to keep the money rolling in.

If you are part of such a system then vote with your feet and be willing to be an outcast rather than betray the Torah.

And Musar whether from the Middle Ages or more recent tends to present a straightforward idea of what it means to keep Torah.

This to some degree puts me into confusion since what some people think is keeping Torah is in fact a lot of rituals that have no source in the Talmud. But that is not the only issue.

There is also my observation that character and human decency do not always correspond with exactitude in mitzvot.


This is not any kind of logical objection but still it is enough for me to wonder then what is the right path? For I assume menschlikeit (human decency) ought to be a good indication of a person's place in the next world. I don't expect bad people to be in Gan Eden no matter how much they are strict in rituals.
This is to justify why I feel it is necessary to understand how to keep the Torah and I don't think that it is very simple.
This gives my justification for my at least raising a question about how to go about keeping Torah.

As ad hoc as this sounds try to take a balanced approach based on how I received the Torah from my parents. But I also look at people that according to my judgement reached some kind of human perfection and try to find one or two traits in them that I think are worthy of emulation.


What would be the main things? The Written and Oral Torah, and human decency.  Human decency here means a composite of several things: speak the truth at all cost, never steal lie,  cheat,  and to be self sufficient. Don't accept handouts.

But the Torah is  really a balanced approach to life. It was not anywhere near what you would call frumkeit. The best approximation would be conservative Judaism.

Appendix:
In my opinion people ought to go to public school, and learn Torah when they come home. There should be at home the whole set of the Oral and Written Torah. That is the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, Tosephta, Sifri and Sifra. And if people don't understand Hebrew, then also the Soncino Talmud in English. And they should go through the entire Oral Law from start to finish.

I am not advocating here bitul Torah. As much as a person can learn Torah he should, but he also needs to learn an honest profession. This is a requirement of the Torah itself. And making use of the Torah as a profession is something the Torah specifically forbids.

My learning partner is into the Paleolithic diet. And I thought to give people an idea of what his thoughts are on the diet issue.

To some degree he started out along the lines of Maimonides in the Mishna Torah, and he developed his ideas along those lines.

By his interest in health issues he found that ''bullet proof coffee'' site that I have the link to on my blog. and the Mercola health site.
It was on his suggestion about raw vegetables that I started eating beets. And that got my weight way down. In fact I could have kept on losing more and more lbs that way, but one day the mother of my girl friend said I was too skinny, and that simple comment took the wind out of my sails. But I still  jogged and ate black bread with beets.
I even got a mixer at his suggestion, but that turned out to be too impractical. But it does bring me to what I wanted to mention today. He uses his mixer for greens.  [lettuce, parsley,etc.] 

He is very unhappy with vegetable oil, and sugar. And believe it or not fruit also. He quoted to me the Maimonides statement that one should stay very far away from fruit. And only recently defend his idea by the fact that apples have twice as much fructose as glucose. And that we know is turned 30% into pure fat.

And fat itself he thinks is good. In fact he was recommending to me this idea of the bullet proof coffee site to have butter and coffee in the morning to get a burst of energy. I did not get all the details but look here if you want more information https://www.bulletproofexec.com/

He also mentioned recently about eggs--raw.  I mentioned to him that that was like the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger where he is a cop putting all kinds of stuff into his mixer in the morning--but who ends up saving the world! He commented to me that that is why  he looks like he does.

You might ask why is this essay on this site. I got the idea from the statement in the Talmud about one person asking another about health issues and the the question of "bitul Torah" [time that can be used for learning Torah but was spent on something else which is a  very grave sin called "bitul Torah."] came up. The answer of the Talmud was חיותא דברייתא it is the life of the creatures so it is definitely an important part of Torah

Introduction: If a person bows down to a statue that was once worshiped but he does not know this, and he knows that bowing to an idol is prohibited, is this nothing? Or is it idolatry by accident?

My learning partner asked a question in the Rambam. In chapter seven of laws of accidental sacrifices he says one who does not know a statue is an idol but he knows bowing down to an idol is forbidden and he bows down and sacrifices and offers incense and pours out wine in front of it is obligated only one sin offering.
In Sanhedrin 62b we find Abyee searching for some example of idolatry by accident.
The context is that he is having an argument with Rava if one serves an idol from love or fear but does not accept it as his god. Is he liable or not?
Abyee says "yes," and he starts to fish around for some example of idolatry by accident to say that that is a case of serving from love or fear. So he finds some statement in some place that says there is such a thing. Then he asks what is the case? Did he see a house of idols and bow down thinking it is a synagogue? Then his heart is towards heaven. Did he see a statute of a king and bow down? If  he accepted it as his god, then he is liable; and if not, it is nothing. So it must be from love or fear.
The question that comes from that Gemara on the Rambam is that it seems like exactly the case of the Rambam. He bows down not knowing it is an idol, and knowing that bowing to an idol is forbidden, and the Gemara says לא כלום הוא it is nothing.
My learning partner suggested that the Gemara is talking about a mistake in the facts of the case, And Abyee and Rava are arguing about the law. This sounds really funny at first, but if you think about it you  can see his point. Abyee is saying he bows down from fear of the idol but thinks it is permitted--that is the case of idolatry by accident that Abyee is searching for. So at that point I suggested looking at the Mishna LaMelech on the Rambam (Laws of Accidental Sacrifices, chapter two) where the Mishna LeMelech makes this distinction and goes into some detail about how it works.
I also asked someone to bring me the book of Eliezer Menachem Shach, the Aviezri on the Rambam which I hope will shed some light on this problem.

In the meantime I hope to do some thinking here to decide if my learning partner is right. At this point in time it looks to me that he is correct.

Appendix:
1) I left out a few details in the above essay.
One is that the Gemara does not actually say that the statute in the case of Abyee was worshiped. Rashi does say so. But it is forced by the logic of Abyee anyway. Even if Abyee would have talked about an אנדרטא statue that had not been worshiped he would have had to add an extra clause in the Gemara to get to the case where it had been worshiped.

2) The other very important detail that needs to be brought up is this idea of my learning partner. Let's think for a minute what could he mean?  My learning partner is suggesting that Abyee means two things. If one serves an idol from love thinking that that is allowed then he brings a sin offering. If on purpose then that is the death penalty. If he makes a mistake in material facts like if the statue is in fact an idol then we see right in the Talmud itself that Abyee says that is nothing. So it certainly looks to me that my learning partner is correct.
Now we find in tractate Shabat that there is an argument between Abyee and Rava about cutting a radish and it turns out that it was attached. Abyee says he is liable a sin offering. Rava says no.[Shabat 72b]. But in the case where he picked up a radish and it tuned out that it was attached then both agree he is not liable. So what do we have from this? This: if one picks up a radish on shabat thinking that it is allowed to do so then he brings a sin offering. If he did not know it was attached it is nothing. Exactly like idolatry.--except it is not exact. What is the difference between this and cutting the radish?

Some random ideas in Torah
1] Joseph and his bothers. Joseph was considered by his brothers to be in the category of a רודף one who is running after someone to kill them. [The law is that if you see someone running after another to kill them you are obligated to kill the chaser.] This is clear as the sages of the Talmud said in a Midrash that he was saying about them that they were calling the children of the girl friends  of Jacob "slaves" and they were eating a limb torn from a live animal. The second one is part of the seven laws of the children of Noah which if transgressed incur the death penalty.
Of course Joseph had seen them do just that, but as we find in the Talmud an animal created by means of Sefer Yetzirah does not require shechita and there is no law of אבר מן החי  for it.
The case of calling the children of the girl friends of Jacob ''slaves'' we find that one who calls someone a slave is suspected of being a slave himself. The idea is they thought Joseph wanted to enslave them. גונב נפשות.








2] Rabbi Akiva was being tortured to death. that does not mean water-boarding. it means they were tearing his skin off his flesh and tearing his heart out of his chest.  his crime was that he taught Torah publicly after the Bar Chochba incident. after that incident the Romans forbade teaching torah in public, doing the brit mila (circumcision), sanctifying the new moon, and living in Jerusalem for all Jews.
The Talmud discusses this incident and relates that Rabbi Akiva said to his disciples I have waited all my life for this moment. should I not embrace it when it comes?  And as the Romans reached his heart he said the Shema, "Hear o Israel the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." and his soul left him on the word one.
This means that in general when one says the Shema and feels that his soul is about to leave him from great attachment with God he is supposed to stop his "devekut" in order to remain alive. But in the case of Rabbi Akiva he was under no obligation to limit his devekut because he was going to die in any case. So when he said the Shema he said it with such great attachment to God that his soul left his body on the word One--not because the Romans were torturing him.

3] What is the "peshat" (explanation) in the incident when Joseph made himself known to his brothers?
Joseph wanted to bring his brothers to do repentance on their evil deed and also wanted to make sure that their repentance was sincere.
Bringing them to repentance we see when they said all the evil that was coming on them was because of what they did to Joseph.
But it was only when Joseph saw Judah was willing to give himself up to a life of slavery in order to rescue his younger brother--then Joseph saw their repentance was real.מדה כנגד מדה. they did not mind the pain they caused their father and they were afraid of being slaves. here Joseph saw they were willing to go into slavery to save their father from pain and their younger brother from being a slave. the exact opposite of when they were willing to sell Joseph as a slave,