I actually once heard a pshat that "Ish kol hayoshor b'aynov ya'ase" was a leshevach, not legnai.  The did what they really felt was right. (not the standard pshat)

everyone at the time he sins, he thinks he is doing right, as he is actually blindfolded

Here is a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory.

The core of Jewish vitality and indestructibility is in its pure faith in G-d; not in some kind of an abstract Deity, hidden somewhere in the heavenly spheres, who regards this world from a distance; but absolute faith in a very personal G-d, who is the very life and existence of everybody; who permeates where one is, or what one does. Where there is such faith, there is no room for fear or anxiety, as the Psalmist says, 'I fear no evil, for Thou art with me,' with me, indeed, at all times, not only on Shabbos or Yom Tom, or during prayer or meditation on G-d. And when one puts his trust in G-d, unconditionally and unreservedly, one realizes what it means to be really free and full of vigor, for all one's energy is released in the most constructive way, not only in one's own behalf, but also in behalf of the environment at large.

The road is not free from obstacles and obstructions, for in the Divine order of things we are expected to attain our goal by effort; but if we make a determined effort success is Divinely assured, and the obstacles and obstructions which at first loom large, dissolve and disappear.

I wish you to tread this road of pure faith in G-d, without over [? unclear in original] introspection and self-searching, as in the simple illustration of a man walking: he will walk most steadily and assuredly if he will not be conscious of his walk and not seek to consciously coordinate the hundreds of muscles operative in locomotion, or he would be unable to make his first step.


Wishing you success in all above, and hoping to hear good news from you and yours,

With the blessing of a happy Yom Tov of Receiving the Torah with inner joy,


The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים הלכות בציעת הפת סימן קסח

סעיף כח
אמרינן בגמ' [מ"ב.] לחמניות אי קבע סעודתא עלייהו מברך המוציא ואם לאו במ"מ ופירש"י לחמניות אובליא"ש בלע"ז ואין ידוע לנו מה זה והתוס' הקשו דאובליא"ש הוא לחם גמור ופירשו דזהו נילי"ש וכ"כ הרא"ש ע"ש וגם זה אינו ידוע לנו אך מדברי רבינו הב"י בסעיף ח' מבואר דנלוש במים ושל רש"י בלילתו עבה ושל תוס' בלילתו רכה וז"ל רבינו הב"י לחמניות אותן שבלילתן עבה שקורין אובליא"ש לחם גמור הוא ומברך עליו המוציא וברהמ"ז ואותן שבלילתן רכה ודקין מאד שקורין ניבלא"ש מברך עליהם במ"מ וברכה מעין שלש ואם קבע סעודתא עלייהו מברך המוציא וברהמ"ז עכ"ל:

סעיף כט
והנה גם על פת הבאה בכיסנין פירש"י פת שנלושה עם תבלין והוא כעין אובליאו"ש שלנו כמ"ש בסעיף י"ט ולמה לא הקשו שם התוס' אמנם האמת דאובליאו"ש לא נקרא על שם התבלין אלא על שם אופן הערכתו וגלגולו דהיינו שמגלגלין אותו עד שהוא דק הרבה ופת של תבלין עשוי ג"כ באופן זה וזהו שכתב רש"י כעין אובליאו"ש כלומר שהערכתו כעין אובליאו"ש שלנו וס"ל לרש"י דכיון דהערכתו משונה אינו בכלל פת סתם וזהו כעין פי' רב האי גאון בפת הבאה בכיסנין שבארנו שם ואולי שהאובליאו"ש קשה ג"כ והוא ממש פירושו של הגאון והתוס' והרא"ש לא ס"ל כן וראיתי מי שכתב שדברי רבינו הב"י שבסעיף ח' סותרים דבריו שבסעיף ז' שכתב שם על פת הבאה בכיסנין פת של תבלין כפירש"י והרי זהו אובליאו"ש ואיך כתב בסעיף ח' דהוא לחם גמור [אבן העוזר] ואינו כן דאובליאו"ש אין בו תבלין אלא כמ"ש ואין כאן סתירה ואף שבסעיף ז' הביא גם דברי הגאון ולדברינו זהו לחמניות לפירש"י כמ"ש אך רבינו הב"י לא יסבור כן ויסבור דלחמניות אינו קשה הרבה ואינו דומה לכיסנין של הגאון דשל הגאון אינן לאכילה אלא לקינוח סעודה [מג"א סקי"ט] ויש מי שכתב דאובליאו"ש נאפה מבלי גלגול רק שמערב עיסה עם מים לישה עבה [ט"ז סק"ט] ותימא גדול הוא דהא משמע להדיא דלחמניות הוא מאכל חשוב ושמו מוכיח לחמניות כלומר לחם דק שכן פי' הערוך שהוא כעין פת הבאה בכיסנין וכן מבואר מהרי"ף ע"ש וא"כ איך נאמר שהוא בלי גלגול אלא אדרבא שמגלגלין אותו הרבה עד שנעשה דק:

Someone posted an idea taken from a censored part of some holy book, reinforced by a "frum psychotherapist woman", that Arizal held mastrubation in a very high esteem for it's "potential power and good" etc.
To quote: "He references R. Isaac Luria (the great kabbalist known as the ?Ari?)
who writes that the souls contained within the ejaculate from masturbation or nocturnal emissions are on a higher level than those that result from sexual intercourse. This is because with masturbation the man is aroused by himself whereas in intercourse he is aroused by woman,and there is a certain energy and power in the self being the source of arousal". Ad kan divrei mee-oos.
Perhaps, R. Tzadok was reading a different Arizal, or perhaps, he was misquoted. Even so, this supposition shmeks to high heaven. Does anyone here beleives for one second that "with masturbation the man is aroused by himself whereas in intercourse he is aroused by woman"? Even if you leave out the issue of porn (external stimulant), a masturbating man is certainly having a woman-related fantasy, and is not merely aroused by himself.
To bring it back to Arizal, here is a shtickle Tanya (end of p. 7 of Likutei Amorim) that addresses this issue and Arizal's take on it:
אך החיות שבטפות זרע שיצאו ממנו לבטלה אף שירדה ונכללה בשלש קליפות הטמאות הרי זו עולה משם בתשובה נכונה ובכוונה עצומה בקריאת שמע שעל המטה כנודע מהאר"י ז"ל ומרומז בגמרא כל הקורא קריאת שמע על מטתו כאלו אוחז חרב של שתי פיות כו' להרוג גופות החיצונים שנעשו לבוש לחיות שבטפות ועולה החיות מהם כידוע לי"ח. ולכן לא הוזכר עון זרע לבטלה בתורה בכלל ביאות אסורות אף שחמור מהן וגדול עונו בבחי' הגדלות ורבוי הטומאה והקליפות שמוליד ומרבה במאד מאד בהוצאת זרע לבטלה יותר מביאות אסורות רק שבביאות אסורות מוסיף כח וחיות בקליפה טמאה ביותר עד שאינו יכול להעלות משם החיות בתשובה:
הגהה (מפני שנקלטה ביסוד דנוקבא דקליפה המקבלת וקולטת החיות מהקדושה משא"כ בזרע לבטלה שאין שם בחי' נוקבא דקליפה רק שכחותיה וחיילותיה מלבישים לחיות שבטפות כידוע לי"ח): אא"כ יעשה תשובה מאהבה רבה כל כך עד שזדונות נעשו לו כזכיות ובזה יובן מאמר רז"ל איזהו מעוות שלא יוכל לתקון זה שבא על הערוה והוליד ממזר שאז גם אם יעשה תשובה גדולה כל כך אי אפשר לו להעלות החיות לקדושה מאחר שכבר ירדה לעולם הזה ונתלבשה בגוף בשר ודם:

In short, zera l'vatolo adds life-force to klipois, and even though there is no woman present (and this fact makes tshuvo easier for hz"l than for biyos asurois), since the woman is present "in thought" it gives "koichois", powers, to the klipo.
In another place he explains, that since this chayus, life-force, is not limited by a woman who absorbs it, the klipois run wild and unlimited (as above,והקליפות שמוליד ומרבה במאד מאד בהוצאת זרע לבטלה יותר מביאות אסורות), and that is the reason why this sin is even more "chomur" than aroyos.
And in Iggeres Hatshuvo (Tanya) he quotes Arizal as recommending 84 fasts to anyone who was nichshal in this sin.
There is no doubt, that if someone is looking for an excuse, one can always find chapter and verse to justify his behavior.
However, I strongly feel, that we shouldn't be perverting traditional Toiro-musogim in order to fit a modern "syko" theory that is against Toiras Emes.
Shabsai Tzvi (may his memory be erased) was once found in a sodomic act with a young boy while wearing talles and tfilin. He explained (and brought Arizal to prove it) that in order to elevate those sparks of holiness that fell the lowest, one has to lower himself to the level of klipois. This is similar to what the article quoted above brings allegedly from R. Zadok that masturbation brings forth neshomois and thereby hastens the coming of Moshiach.
Malarkey is the name of this.
Just because it says something about masturbation and creation of the neshomois in Kisvei HoArizal doesn't mean anyone is free to make an illogical conclusion from this that not only it's ok to be moitzi zera levatolo, it actually brings the world closer to it's intended completion: the Days of Moshiach, may he come immediately and remove all doubt and impurity.

o-gedavente

get the davening over with quickly

Below is my free translation from the original Hebrew:
It says in Chullin 58a: Every creature that has no bonesdoesn’t exist for more than 12 months, and Talmud Yerushalmi adds, that itdoesn’t even stay alive for more than 6 months, and then within the next sixmonths it disintegrates totally. (Yerushalmi Shabbos 83, h. 5).
This, then, raises the question: Being that the mabul lasted1 year and eleven days, how did all the boneless creatures survived?
The Talmud in Sanhedrin , 108b, learns out from the posuk“l’mishpochoiseichem yotz’u min hateivo” (they left the teivo according totheir families) that the animals left the teivo by their families but not thosesame animals who entered. As a proof, the gemoro in Chullin 58a, is brought: Everycreature that has no bones doesn’t exist (eino miskayem) for more than 12months.
So if we are to understand the gemoro in Chullin without theclarification from Yerushalmi, that these creatures do not live for morethan 12 months, we have a good answer: The original boneless creatures (insectsetc) came into teivo pregnant, gave birth to offspring, and died. And it weretheir children who left the teivo after the mabul was over (by their familiesbut not themselves).
However, if you take into account Yerushalmi’s opinion thatthey didn’t even live for more than 6 months (and 12 months mentioned inChullin refers merely to their body’s existence), then their offspring wouldalso be dead be the end of the second 6-month period.
And since procreation was prohibited in the teivo (and onlythree creatures transgressed this prohibition as in Sanhedrin 108b), we areback to the original question: where do boneless creatures come from if therewas no way they could have survived the mabul, even in the teivo?
This question is asked by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ZTz”L, inhis Reshimois that were printed for Parshas Noyach in 1997.
The Rebbe says, that we cannot answer this question bysupposing that all boneless creatures come to be by spontaneous generation, andtherefore, since they don’t need a father and a mother to generate offspring,they came to life spontaneously after the mabul. This idea is not mentionedanywhere in Talmudic literature, and even though there is a concept ofspontaneous generation, it is never said to include all creatures with no bones.
Additionally, the proof that even boneless creatures rely onmale/female procreation is from Chullin 58b, where the gemoro brings down amale name and a female name for a particular boneless creature, suggesting thatthere is gender division within these species.
So the Rebbe offers the following explanation:
The supposition that all boneless creatures do not live formore than 6 months, and their bodies disintegrate after 12 months, relies onthe movement of celestial bodies and on the pronouncements of new months. Theproof of it is this: there is a halocho psuko ( a known Rabbinical verdict) inYore De’o 124, that during a leap year even a boneless creature survives for 13 months. This is learnt out fromYerushalmi Ksubois, and brought down by Pri Magodim regarding checking of driedfruit for toiloyim (bugs).
The Shulchon Oruch says, that those fruits which becomeinfested while on the tree, need checking for bugs up to twelve months fromharvest, but could be eaten without checking after that time because “kolberiyo sh’ein bo etzem eino miskaym 12 choidesh” (boneless creatures do notexist for more than twlve months). Adds the Pri Magodim, that during the leapyear you must check for 13 months.
If this is the case, and the life-span of boneless (orperhaps all) creature is dependent on the movement of celestial bodies and theBeis Din’s pronouncements of leap year (as in the case in above Yerushalmi),the answer is clear:
During the year of the Flood, stars and planets did not move(see Yerushalmi Psochim P. 1, H. 1; Breishis Rabbo 25 and 33; you can alsodeduce from Sanhedrin 108b, that this is also the opinion of Talmud Bavli), somuch so that even when figuring out the years since Creation, the year of theFlood is not counted (according to Rabbi Yehuda in Breishis Rabbo, and RabbiNechemya seems to agree). Therefore, this year didn’t count towards thelife-span of the boneless creatures, and they survived the year in the teivo.

Dovid Hamelech writes in Tehillim 116;3 "אפפוני חבלי מות ומצרי שאול מצאוני צרה ויגון אמצא"


...But his attitude, the way he perceived what was happening, that he looked at it with a negative attitude, that was of his own doing, those things he brought upon himself, therefore "I found them".

Whatever our situation, we can choose what our attitude will be towards them!!