The books of Chabad were definite considered traif and non kosher in any sense.

Fear of God. It seems that Reb Israel Salanter held that learning Musar was the key element that brings one to this. And Musar in his definition of the thing was a basic set of six Medieval books written by various authors. In spite of this we can see that he allowed this set to be expanded considerably. Just take a look at books quoted by his disciples as authorities in how to come to fear of God. Most are Medieval. Some were more recent. Many had wildly varying viewpoints but all held from a basic world view structure.
Incidentally there is never quoted a chasidic book by him or any of his disciples. I don't know the reason by I assume it is because they did not think that Chasidut brings to Fear of God of good character traits
From everything I have seen in chasidut I can safely say that this is true, and I doubt if you could find a chasid that would disagree with this. After all they do not think Fear of God is a worthy goal. Just ask them about it and they will start of a tirade about what is wrong with Fear of God.

But enough of the detour. I wanted to bring up the fact that the books of Musar themselves that are part of this set did not ignore the question of how to come to Fear of God. And their answer was in general not to learn Musar and it was not to learn Torah. It was to learn what was called Physics and Metaphysics. Sometimes this message is veiled as in the major work the Chovot Levavaot. Sometimes this message is unveiled as in Maimonides. But once you get used to their way of thinking you can see this in most of these books. The two exceptions are Shaari Teshuva and Mesilat Yesharim.
I do not know what they knew or would have thought about Rebbi Nachman.
I heard that the Madragat Haadam gave the books of rebbi nachman to students from chasidic background.
In the Mir yeshiva itself while the old mashgiach from Europe was still there there were most of the basic books of Breslov. Clearly there was some tradition that the books of Breslov were considered acceptable while most other books of chasidut were not. The books of Chabad were definite considered traif and non kosher in any sense.

Shabat and work done not for its own sake in Jewish law. So I will put my comment for today about Reb Chaim Soloveichik on this blog.

I had a few questions about the Reb Chaim approach to shabat and "work done not for its own sake."
Not only that I thought I had a good answer for the basic question that he raises.


The question just for review is that piercing a wound and catching a snake are Ok to the Rambam even though he hold work done not for its own sake is liable. Simple. This question was raised by the Magid Mishna. Reb Chaim completely ignores the answer of the Magid Mishna. Obviously he thinks it is not true. I wanted to defend the answer of the M.M. and say the Rambam holds by only one of the some say in Shabat page 103 and answer the other issues in different ways.
Now I see why this holds no water.


Simply it is because the two separate gemaras, one on page 103b, and the one on 103:a differ.
The one quoted by the Magid Mishna on Page 103:b brings the statements of Rav that piercing the wound and catching the snake are according to Rebbi Shimon and are "work done not for its own sake." The reason the Rambam can’t hold by any of these statements is that all of them hold that each of these actions is work done not for its own sake. Once you have that the guy is liable immediately. Period. The other Gemara on page 103 is Shmuel who holds it is work that is not intended. He has to hold this because he holds by Rabbi Yehuda that work done not for its own sake is liable.

So we see already that the Rambam can't have held for any of the “some say” on page 103 is any shape or form! And therefore Reb Chaim Soloveichik ignores this answer of the Magid Mishna without even mentioning it at all.

[You can see here a basic difference between Rav and Shmuel about what is defined as work done not for its own sake. And that means that the definitions of the Rambam which all frum Jews thinks defines work done not for its own sake is only coming according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. It is not the way Shmuel or Rabbi Shimon define it. And since the Shulchan Aruch is posek like Rebbi Shimon, that means we can't use the definition of the Rambam!

I have seen many things in the Jewish orthodox world which leave me in a moral dilemma.
It is not that I have great doubts about morality myself. And it is not that I waver between moral theories.
[I go pretty much with the path of my parents which roughly could be called the path of the Rambam. That is Torah with science.]


Rather the moral dilemma comes from the question what kind of path can I recommend in general?  This may not seem to my reader as a big question since no one is asking me in particular however I am aware that in a small context what I say and do has an effect on people around me. And however limited this effect is it still is a responsibility to give the right answer. --and besides that I have noticed I get viewers on my blogs from all over the world and I think this creates a responsibility. 

After that short introduction here area few facts about different groups that I would think to recommend. Rebbi Nachman from Breslov. There is a lot of good that I have received from following in his major points. On the other hand there are the strange negative effects of Breslov on people that I see all the time.
I tend to think that Rebbi Nachman awakens the Id. And when the Id awakens you never know what to expect.
On the other hand there is the straight Lithuanian yeshiva path combined with Musar. This looks good also on the outside but again there are strange effects. [people can no longer accuse Breslov with obsession with Sex. Now the Litvaks got into the act also with their "Tzniut" campaign. (i.e.e that women should wear long skirts--and this is the whole Torah!!!)]]
And these are the best of all the groups. The other groups can justly be considered lunatic. 


The way to go about learning the Talmud and Musar I think is in essence to take the best and leave the rest. It is not that I think moral principles are things you can take or leave at will. It is just that I think some things that are written are are simply wrong. You have no choice but to use your best judgment when it comes to morality--even if you accept the entire Torah and Talmud and Shulchan Aruch as being divinely inspired.

Rachel says [http://www.amotherinisrael.com/modesty-mikveh-and-the-female-convert/]

I actually heard about this when I went to an exhibit in the US on mikvahs. I was so intrigued by the idea and at the same time put off by bad experiences. I even took the time to look into perhaps starting to go to the mikveh myself (I grew up conservative and never saw it growing up). The idea of being naked in front of a female or a male scared me off. I’m not religious but I’ve never been comfortable wearing less than a t-shirt and shorts that go to the tops of my knees – never got into short shorts). I’m very private about my family matters and don’t like the idea of needing to make my family purity anyones business but my own. To me, dunking once a month naked in front of either a female or a male is more immodest than wearing a t-shirt. Sorry this is a bit off topic but reading about this has brought back all the memories of when I went through deciding whether or not to try and I eventually chose not to because of the naked part and because of the checking for blood.


My answer:

Going to a natural body of water does not entail standing before a female or male and getting the 3rd degree inspection. It means being near a river or lake. And as for blood--The reason in the time of the Talmud to show blood to a rabbi was they could tell the difference between the five colors of red that were forbidden and the five shades of red that were permitted. Today rabbis look for red. I am sure you can tell the difference between red and orange or yellow yourself. [If rabbis could tell between the shades of red that are permitted and the shades that are not then there would be a reason to go to them. But they can't. ]

I just wanted to mention a small point about teh debate between tosphot and the Rambam concerning the problem of shoveling coals on Shabat.I want to point out that the idea of tosphot to change it from an unintentional work to a work done not for its own sake has some support from the language of the Talmud itself. It says he shovels the coals to put them out and instead they light up. Is not this language itself implying that it is the very coals themselves that he intended to put out lite up? And that would make it openly a work not done for its on sake!

[Incidentally this is the problem that Chaim Soloveichik is trying to solve for the Rambam. I am just trying to stick up for Tosphot.]

I am not for the Yose Faur approach that is Rambam or bust. I see the greatness of the Rambam but I do not see any reason to claim he is somehow infallible or above Tosphot.
The Faur thing is also strange in that he seems to claim the rational tradition for the Sefardim alone. The original Geonic tradition of combining Faith with Reason was not Sefaradi but rather a general Geonic approach staring from Saadia Geon.

One thing you see from Reb Chaim Soloveitchik is that if you have a chain of reasoning in teh Torah , you do not get the result unless every part of the chain is whole.
This I think is the major difference between me and all orthodox rabbis. I think when something has been proven to be forbidden from the Talmud that it is in fact forbidden. But I don't think that you can forbid things unless every part of the chain of logic is whole. For example electricity on Shabat has never been shown to be forbidden. people have twist themselves into pretzels in order to try and show it is forbidden but all that results is you need to accept their ideas that are not from teh Torah and not from the Talmud. And example id the Chazon Ish. If you accept his make believe version of what Tikin Mana is then of course you can forbid electricity on shabat. But it is clear that his definition was made up In Order to forbid electricity.
However i admit that most Orthodox Jews are simply trying their best to keep the Torah in the  most simple basic way possible,
When people are showing honest effort I have no objection. It is only Chbad that I see as being a drug running, child sexual abusing cult that uses the Torah solely for propaganda purposes.
It is in fact teh failure of the Orthodox to distance themselves from Chabad that gives rise to my constant complaining about the Orthodox. I see that they think that Chabad is OK. If that is the case then to me they are all unkosher [Traif Pasul] until they can admit that Chabad is evil. This is no different that if people would be agreeing to the Nazis, even if they themselves are not Nazis. Until people can condemn the Nazis, then  they are Nazis. This is the same thing With Chabad. When people agree with a cult that worships a dead rebbi as God and sexually abuses children,. I do not care if they shout about Messiah or Shabat all day long.

The goal of human life is a problem of the greatest importance; and the knowledge needed to deal with this is open to all men.

I think that all men are in one way or the other interested in this problem. Most people answer this problem by asking, "What group can I be a part of and by that get my animal needs fulfilled?" Then they accept the world view of the group they give the best chances to. They will of course never admit that this is their thinking process. They will always say they did rational research into different world view systems and groups and settled on the one that seemed logically to be true. However this non rational process is always a part of this kind of investigation.

[This has found philosophic justification by the Pragmatic school of thought. Bertrand Russel rightly found this type of thinking to be highly immoral.]

Most religious groups are highly irrational. Sometimes the memes or basic set of belief is even counter intuitive.
An example would be the idea of Islam that by killing Jews and Christians one goes to Heaven. This would seem to any rational person to be counter intuitive. [Or maybe this just seems irrational to our Western way of thinking? Before the days in which the Torah became the basis for Christian and Jewish faith cruelty was highly valued. Just seeing cruelty was a great thing to all people all around the world and if they could get a chance to be the ones to actually inflict the cruelty all the more so this was a great privilege. Only when the teachings of the Torah became the basic meme of western civilization did cruelty seem to be a negative thing.]

The problem is this is where the West shot itself in the foot. The strategy is remarkably simple. Say to the scientist and philosopher: “Your kind of inquiry is sound enough if kept within the bounds of nature, but it becomes illegitimate the moment you cross into the region of the supernatural.

Now here is where The Rambam and Saadia Geon said no to this kind of thinking. They held that Torah itself  conforms with Natural Law and laws of reason. And not just that it does conform but when there is conflict it must conform. [See Professor David Hartman's book on this subject. He made his case and I see no reason to repeat it here.]


Just for the record I might as well state what I think is the main idea of human life. It is  a set of values which start with all form and no content [mathematical logic] and then go through the whole spectrum of values up until  all content and no form{God}.

That means that even if one has come to total attachment with God I would still see  that as lacking in the other values.  The modern word for this is "equilibrium" and it expresses well what the approach of the Torah is in my opinion.
Full scale balance would be hard for any person but I think the basic Ten Commandments gives a good idea of how to go about it.
The Commandments in this context would have to be understood as commandments not as suggestions.
God did not give the Ten Suggestions at Mount Sinai.

[It is hard to see how a person obeying the tend commandments would not have  balanced life. He would not be in Kollel because he knows that using Torah to make money is theft. He would not lie about the obligation of serving in IDF or working honestly for  living. He would have balance between his obligations towards God and his fellow man.]











To be fair to Catholics let me quote Edward Fesser: What is at issue is the question of why Catholicism is -- as it most definitely is -- grounded in objective reality rather than in wishful thinking, or religious feelings, or a will to believe, or a love for some cultural heritage, or personal aesthetic preferences, or refined moral sensibilities, or any other such purely subjective considerations. Absolutely anyone -- Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Unitarians, Zoroastrians, neo-pagans, you name it -- could appeal to such considerations in defense of their religion, and in absolutely every case this would count for squat if what is at issue is whether the religious claims in question are true (and not merely practical, or inspiring, or aesthetically pleasing, etc.)

This is why official Catholic doctrine is hostile to fideism and insists on the rational preambles to the faith. Without the preambles, theology floats in mid-air and is made to seem what its critics falsely claim it is, something arbitrary and subjective.



So it is not just the Torah of Maimonides that is based on Objective reality.

God offered the Torah to all the nations of the world before he offered it to Israel.

God offered the Torah to all the nations of the world before he offered it to Israel. First he offered it to the Muslims.
They asked: "What is written in it?"
"Thou shalt not murder."
"In that case, we are sorry, but we can't accept it."

He then offered it to other nations. They also asked "What is written in it?"
He said "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me."
They said: "In that case we do not want it."

He then offered the Torah to the children of Israel.
They asked: "How much does it cost?"
God answered: "Nothing. It is free!"
"OK we will take it!"

comment on the Edward Feser blog about natural law

It is part of Greek thought that there is a kind of moral reality separate from the gods. This began from what we can see from Socrates. we definitely see in the Talmud that the reason for the commandments is outside of the Torah itself. For example rabbi Shimon says we look at the reason for a commandment --not the literal text. The Rabbis disagreed with him and said we look at the text and go by that. But both agree there is a reasonable understandable known reason for every commandment of the Torah. This you see later in Maimonides also. Saadia Geon held some the laws of the Torah that are based on reason.
What i wish to add is that human beings are so low as to need the Torah to wake us up to what human decency means. After we have the Torah then it becomes a matter of reason.

So for today I will mention an important point about the laws of Shabat.

This blog has become more about Halacha and the other (Prius)  for Philosophy.


So for today I will mention an important point about the laws of Shabat. The Rambam as is known holds by R. Yehuda that a work done not for its own sake is liable. He also mentions the three things that one can do that look for all the world like a work done not for its own sake. I am in the middle of doing the background work to see what Chaim Soloveichik answers to this difficulty.
While doing this it occurs to me a few answers of my own.
First of all the answer the Magid Mishna  gives is perfectly reasonable. The Rambam can throw out some of the "some say" on Shabat page 107b. That leaves us with some space. in this space we can do some thinking.
One is the trapping of the snake and tying it! That is clearly not mitasek [accidently]. It looks like a work done not for its normal purpose[melacha sheaina zaricha legufa] -which should be liable according to the Rambam.

Now I want everyone's attention because here comes the main point. The Mishna  says: trapping  the Eight Lizards is liable. But for other lizards trapping is liable only for need.

This means as follows there are many kinds of work that are defined by the intention. For example if a sofer comes along with his work equipment and erases a few letters on Shabat with absolute perfection , but he has no intention of writing over the place where he erased he is not liable. because that is how the work is defined--by means of a certain intention. Here the work of capture of other lizards is defined by the fact that it needs to be needed. without that it is not even a work done not for its own sake. It is not work at all. Period. and tying also done not count as work sine it is not to be continued for 24 hours as knots need to be neither i it the work of a sailor's knot