18.2.20
The Cold War was easy to figure out. USA values opposed to Communism. Where ever you were on that spectrum it was easy to see what the issues were. Now things seem a lot more hard to see.
When the issue was about Communism I at least could read the basic books and see where I held on that issue. [I did not think Communism made much sense. However I did not think it was as terrible as some made it out to be either. The oddest thing in Uman was every single person I meet and asked about how things were back then always told me "Things were better then".]
As for myself, I figure my parents had things right. Be a "mensch" (decent human being). Be self reliant. Basic American values. But they taught by doing and almost never by words. I also ought to add that when the USA needed my Dad he volunteered for the USAF, and afterwards helped with inventing stuff. [Infrared Camera, the second camera on the U-2 (not the first team but the second team)) and then the satellites that used Infra red and then laser communication.]
In any case I hope this gives the basic idea. I mean to say that in the USA there was a set of basic values that are not easy to explain now that most of them have been forgotten.
When the issue was about Communism I at least could read the basic books and see where I held on that issue. [I did not think Communism made much sense. However I did not think it was as terrible as some made it out to be either. The oddest thing in Uman was every single person I meet and asked about how things were back then always told me "Things were better then".]
As for myself, I figure my parents had things right. Be a "mensch" (decent human being). Be self reliant. Basic American values. But they taught by doing and almost never by words. I also ought to add that when the USA needed my Dad he volunteered for the USAF, and afterwards helped with inventing stuff. [Infrared Camera, the second camera on the U-2 (not the first team but the second team)) and then the satellites that used Infra red and then laser communication.]
In any case I hope this gives the basic idea. I mean to say that in the USA there was a set of basic values that are not easy to explain now that most of them have been forgotten.
In terms of trust in God, I would like to add this idea of Kant--that you are not aware of what goes on under the surface of consciousness. You can be aware of what you are now thinking. And you can recall what you were thinking before. But under that surface you do not know what is going on. And I would like to add that you have a certain amount of control over what you are thinking about. While you might not have absolute control all teh time but at least some part of the time , you can control what you are thinking about. So you can think to yourself that God will help you. And you can replace negative thoughts with that positive thought.
Faith and trust depend on one's words.
In terms of trust in God I wanted to mention that Rav Nahman of Breslov says in LeM Vol II, chapter 44 and later the idea that "faith depends on the mouth." [That is,-- saying words of faith in God counts as faith itself, and also brings one to faith. So one has to be very careful never to say words of denying faith-- even if one does not mean them. [The next place this is brought I think is around LeM Vol II. 86.]
So I wanted to add an idea that since we know that faith and trust in God are connected that therefore trust in God also depends on one's words. That is just saying words of trust in God like "God will help me. God will protect me. God will guide me," is in itself counted as trust in God and also brings one to trust even when at first one does not have it.
So I wanted to add an idea that since we know that faith and trust in God are connected that therefore trust in God also depends on one's words. That is just saying words of trust in God like "God will help me. God will protect me. God will guide me," is in itself counted as trust in God and also brings one to trust even when at first one does not have it.
The most famous issue concerning trust in God is when does one do "effort" [Hishtadlut]? This is an argument among rishonim [first authorities. i.e. authors from the Middle Ages] And it is a known fact that concerning any argument among rishonim each is "the words of the Living God" so you do not expect to find a resolution. [note 1] [The way this is referred to in Hebrew is "a machloket Rishonim" "argument of first authorities". Once you have gotten to the point something is a Machloket Rishonim that is the resolution of the discussion.]
For example if you find an argument between the Ri and Rabbainu Tam you do not expect to find a complete solution. You rather expect to find support for one or the other. You never expect to disprove one or the other. If one thinks he has disproved a Rishon that means he is either stupid or insane. [note 2]
[It would be like today if someone says they can accurately predicate the value of a stock or the whole stock market in the ten ten years. They simply means the fellow thinks he is a lot smarter than he really is.] [I do not know the reason for this. It probably has to do with a fact noted by Michael Huemer that the logic of the Middle Ages was always logically rigorous. The problems had to do with the beginning axioms. After the Middle Ages the axioms always sound a lot better but the logic is almost always circular. Notes: [note 1] The idea of "these and these are the words of the living God" comes from the Gemara in terms of arguments among the sages of the Gemara or Mishna. The idea is that even if it has been decided that the law is like or or the other, that does not mean the other was wrong. Rather "both are the words of the living God" even though the law was decided by one.] [note 2] This does not apply to "achronim" people that wrote after the Beit Yoseph [Rav Yoseph Karo].[After the Middle Ages] They can be wrong and often are. [note 3] Reb Israel Salanter published a monthly magazine "tvuna". In it, he mentions that the opinion of the Ramban is to have trust with no effort. I think this was a mistake of the printer. Rather, he actually was refering to the opinion of the Rambam . [The Rambam and the Chovot Levavot both hold with this approach for people that devote themselves to sitting and learning Torah and serving God all day. Thus, when the Madragat HaAdam [a disiple of Israel Salanter] writes about trust in god with no effort he quoted the Ramban--. He was drawn after that mistake of the printer. But he also quotes the Gra in Mislei (Proverbs) who in fact holds with this approach of trust with no effort. I might add here that the case of king Asa is sometimes brought up, and I have heard people say his mistake was to trust in the doctors alone. But, that is a mistake. The verse itself makes it clear that by going to the doctors, that in itself was not trusting in God, i.e., the verse makes it clear you can trust in God or in the doctors not both. It is a case of the exclusive ""or”. This or that, but not both.]------I myself think that doctors today are different because there have become procedures that are common. I think the case of King ASA was when medicine was less understood. i think there is a difference between parnasa [making a living] and medicine. So today I think going for generally accepted procedures is like parnsa. It is in experimental medicine [i.e., medicine that has been around for 50 years or less.] that there is a problem.-------------------ר' ישראל סלנטר published a monthly magazine "תבונה". In it, he mentions that the opinion of the רמב''ן is to have trust in God with no effort. I think this was a mistake of the printer. Rather, he actually was referring to the opinion of the רמב''ם. [The רמב''ם and the חובות לבבות both hold with this approach for people that devote themselves to sitting and learning Torah and serving God all day. Thus, when the מדרגת האדם [a disciple of ישראל סלנטר] writes about trust in God with no effort he quoted the Ramban--. He was drawn after that mistake of the printer. But he also quotes the גר''א in משלי who in fact holds with this approach of trust with no effort. I might add here that the case of king אסא is sometimes brought up, and I have heard people say his mistake was to trust in the doctors alone. But, that is a mistake. The verse itself makes it clear that by going to the doctors, that in itself was not trusting in God, i.e., the verse makes it clear you can trust in God or in the doctors not both. It is a case of the exclusive ""or”. This or that, but not both. I myself think that doctors today are different because there have become procedures that are common. I think the case of King אסא was when medicine was less understood. I think there is a difference between making a living(פרנסה) and medicine. So today I think going for generally accepted procedures is like פרנסה. It is in experimental medicine [i.e., medicine that has been around for 50 years or less.] that there is a problem.-----------------------ר' ישראל סלנטר פרסם מגזין חודשי "תבונה". בו הוא מזכיר שדעת הרמב"ן (משה בן נחמן) היא לבטוח בה' ללא השתדלות. אני חושב שזו הייתה טעות של המדפיס. אלא שהוא התייחס לדעת הרמב"ם. [הרמב"ם והחובות לבבות מחזיקים בגישה עבור אנשים שמקדישים את עצמם ללימוד תורה ועבודת ה' כל היום. לכן, כאשר המדרגת האדם כותב על בטחון בה' ללא מאמץ, הוא ציטט את הרמב"ן. הוא נמשך אחרי הטעות הזו של המדפיס. אבל הוא גם מצטט את הגר"א במשלי שלמעשה מחזיק בגישה זו של בטחון ללא מאמץ. אני חייב להוסיף כאן שמקרה של המלך אסא מועלה לפעמים, ושמעתי אנשים אומרים שהטעות שלו הייתה לבטוח ברופאים בלבד. אבל, זו טעות. הפסוק עצמו מבהיר שעל ידי פנייה לרופאים, זה כשלעצמו לא היה אמון באלוהים, כלומר, הפסוק מבהיר שאפשר לבטוח באלוהים או ברופאים, לא בשניהם. זהו מקרה של "או" בלעדי. זה או זה, אבל לא שניהם. אני עצמי חושב שרופאים כיום שונים משום שיש מהלכים שהפכו להליכים נפוצים. אני חושב שהמקרה של המלך אסא היה כשהרפואה הייתה פחות מובנת. אני חושב שיש הבדל בין פרנסה לרפואה. אז היום אני חושב שהליכים מקובלים הם כמו פרנסה. דווקא ברפואה הניסויית [כלומר, רפואה שקיימת 50 שנה או פחות] יש בעיה
[It would be like today if someone says they can accurately predicate the value of a stock or the whole stock market in the ten ten years. They simply means the fellow thinks he is a lot smarter than he really is.] [I do not know the reason for this. It probably has to do with a fact noted by Michael Huemer that the logic of the Middle Ages was always logically rigorous. The problems had to do with the beginning axioms. After the Middle Ages the axioms always sound a lot better but the logic is almost always circular. Notes: [note 1] The idea of "these and these are the words of the living God" comes from the Gemara in terms of arguments among the sages of the Gemara or Mishna. The idea is that even if it has been decided that the law is like or or the other, that does not mean the other was wrong. Rather "both are the words of the living God" even though the law was decided by one.] [note 2] This does not apply to "achronim" people that wrote after the Beit Yoseph [Rav Yoseph Karo].[After the Middle Ages] They can be wrong and often are. [note 3] Reb Israel Salanter published a monthly magazine "tvuna". In it, he mentions that the opinion of the Ramban is to have trust with no effort. I think this was a mistake of the printer. Rather, he actually was refering to the opinion of the Rambam . [The Rambam and the Chovot Levavot both hold with this approach for people that devote themselves to sitting and learning Torah and serving God all day. Thus, when the Madragat HaAdam [a disiple of Israel Salanter] writes about trust in god with no effort he quoted the Ramban--. He was drawn after that mistake of the printer. But he also quotes the Gra in Mislei (Proverbs) who in fact holds with this approach of trust with no effort. I might add here that the case of king Asa is sometimes brought up, and I have heard people say his mistake was to trust in the doctors alone. But, that is a mistake. The verse itself makes it clear that by going to the doctors, that in itself was not trusting in God, i.e., the verse makes it clear you can trust in God or in the doctors not both. It is a case of the exclusive ""or”. This or that, but not both.]------I myself think that doctors today are different because there have become procedures that are common. I think the case of King ASA was when medicine was less understood. i think there is a difference between parnasa [making a living] and medicine. So today I think going for generally accepted procedures is like parnsa. It is in experimental medicine [i.e., medicine that has been around for 50 years or less.] that there is a problem.-------------------ר' ישראל סלנטר published a monthly magazine "תבונה". In it, he mentions that the opinion of the רמב''ן is to have trust in God with no effort. I think this was a mistake of the printer. Rather, he actually was referring to the opinion of the רמב''ם. [The רמב''ם and the חובות לבבות both hold with this approach for people that devote themselves to sitting and learning Torah and serving God all day. Thus, when the מדרגת האדם [a disciple of ישראל סלנטר] writes about trust in God with no effort he quoted the Ramban--. He was drawn after that mistake of the printer. But he also quotes the גר''א in משלי who in fact holds with this approach of trust with no effort. I might add here that the case of king אסא is sometimes brought up, and I have heard people say his mistake was to trust in the doctors alone. But, that is a mistake. The verse itself makes it clear that by going to the doctors, that in itself was not trusting in God, i.e., the verse makes it clear you can trust in God or in the doctors not both. It is a case of the exclusive ""or”. This or that, but not both. I myself think that doctors today are different because there have become procedures that are common. I think the case of King אסא was when medicine was less understood. I think there is a difference between making a living(פרנסה) and medicine. So today I think going for generally accepted procedures is like פרנסה. It is in experimental medicine [i.e., medicine that has been around for 50 years or less.] that there is a problem.-----------------------ר' ישראל סלנטר פרסם מגזין חודשי "תבונה". בו הוא מזכיר שדעת הרמב"ן (משה בן נחמן) היא לבטוח בה' ללא השתדלות. אני חושב שזו הייתה טעות של המדפיס. אלא שהוא התייחס לדעת הרמב"ם. [הרמב"ם והחובות לבבות מחזיקים בגישה עבור אנשים שמקדישים את עצמם ללימוד תורה ועבודת ה' כל היום. לכן, כאשר המדרגת האדם כותב על בטחון בה' ללא מאמץ, הוא ציטט את הרמב"ן. הוא נמשך אחרי הטעות הזו של המדפיס. אבל הוא גם מצטט את הגר"א במשלי שלמעשה מחזיק בגישה זו של בטחון ללא מאמץ. אני חייב להוסיף כאן שמקרה של המלך אסא מועלה לפעמים, ושמעתי אנשים אומרים שהטעות שלו הייתה לבטוח ברופאים בלבד. אבל, זו טעות. הפסוק עצמו מבהיר שעל ידי פנייה לרופאים, זה כשלעצמו לא היה אמון באלוהים, כלומר, הפסוק מבהיר שאפשר לבטוח באלוהים או ברופאים, לא בשניהם. זהו מקרה של "או" בלעדי. זה או זה, אבל לא שניהם. אני עצמי חושב שרופאים כיום שונים משום שיש מהלכים שהפכו להליכים נפוצים. אני חושב שהמקרה של המלך אסא היה כשהרפואה הייתה פחות מובנת. אני חושב שיש הבדל בין פרנסה לרפואה. אז היום אני חושב שהליכים מקובלים הם כמו פרנסה. דווקא ברפואה הניסויית [כלומר, רפואה שקיימת 50 שנה או פחות] יש בעיה
17.2.20
how to encourage devotion towards God while being aware of the pitfalls? My own experience is that Torah scholars tend to be demons. The exception is the true and authentic ones that are learning Torah for it own sake.
Even though I hold highly of the importance of learning and keeping Torah, the trouble is that there are obstacles such as the agents if the dark side. This was clearly the point of Rav Nahman when he referred to the Torah scholars that are demons. Clearly his intention was to increase devotion to God--not to diminish it. So his question was how to encourage devotion towards God while being aware of the pitfalls? His choice was this approach to openly warn people. This is unusual I admit.
However the only people that I have heard of that take this warning to heart is the Na Nach group.
However the only people that I have heard of that take this warning to heart is the Na Nach group.
My own experience is that Torah scholars tend to be demons. The exception is the true and authentic ones that are learning Torah for it own sake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)