What ever people say about the Ukraine, they are hospitable to Jews coming for Rosh Hashanah. I have heard complaints but in general it is clear that they make a great effort be hospitable. I don't know why people accuse the Ukraine of antisemitism, but that seems to me to untrue. Very untrue.
There is every Rosh Hashanah a massive national effort to make sure people coming to Uman have a good time. The Ukraine sends in every type of police and military force  force to safeguard Jews. I have rarely seen such a massive effort to safeguard Jewish people. What you see on Lag BeOmer in Meron [a festival in Northern Israel] does not even come close.
[To safeguard Jews, the Ukraine brings in every division of their military and police force--to make sure there is no trouble on Rosh Hashanah. Not just the Ukraine version of special forces, the Berekt, but many other branches of their military and special expert units. The Israeli police also come. And the local people bend over backwards to make sure Rosh Hashanah is nice. To accuse these people of Antisemitism is the height of absurdity. I have never met nicer people.]

And this is important to me because I think Rosh Hashanah in Uman is important.
From perceptive I was definite going down until I got to my first Rosh Hashanah.  My world had turned into a surrealistic nightmare.  My world had turned into a Faustian fall, more distorted and nauseating than portrait by Picasso.
One Rosh Hashanah was enough to turn that all around.

Appendix
This post is based on an idea I learned from Reb Shelomo Friefeld  and my first year teacher in Gemara in Far Rockaway. That  is the lesson about gratitude. Since Ukraine has been in fact hospitable to Jews it seems to me to be the height of ingratitude to deny it or to be silent about it in a case when the Ukraine needs someone to tell the truth about how it has been treating Jews for the last twenty years since it gained independence.
In any case I urge the governments of the Ukraine and Russia to settle. The Russian and Ukrainian people are good people and there is no reason for this conflict to continue. As for the eastern provinces I know there was a referendum twenty years ago but I think the eastern areas  should have a degree of autonomy. In that way they remain a part of the Ukraine, but have their own system of education--like Quebec in Canada. In that way Russia is happy, and the Ukraine is happy.
Russia is not trying to annex the East of the Ukraine. They are simply supporting people that want closer ties with Russia. But this can be done without a war.

Three core principles Joy, Private conversation with God, learning fast have been my core principles
But I added another one about truth.
And I want to discuss them each briefly.
1) I might seem serious, but in fact I have taken this idea of joy of as central.
First I want to say that this idea of  can be defended. I know some people might wonder where in the Torah is there a command to be happy? I wondered about this also.
But in fact Reb Chaim Vital, the disciple of Isaac Luria, list the four good character traits thus: (1) humility, and to be infinitely low in ones own eyes תכלית השיפלות, and to go away from all kinds of anger, (2) Silence,- to speak only Torah, or what is absolutely necessary for the body, or for the honor of people; (3) to  minimize body pleasures--even those that are necessary, (4) and joy in ones portion for "Everything that happens from Heaven is for good," and also joy in mitzvot. And these good character traits are the very essence of the Torah and the purpose of the Torah as he explains there. [This short chapter of Chaim Vital is quoted in full in the beginning of the אבן שלמה of the Gra that came out recently.]
So being always happy is a even more that a mitzvah as these four good charter traits are essence of the mitzvot. [To the Rambam the purpose of the mitzvot is to bring to good character and to Reb Chaim Vital good character depends on the foundational soul (which is composed of four parts) and that is the clothing of the Intellectual soul upon which depend the 613 mitzvot. That is basic good character is needed to keep any mitzvah. Otherwise one just thinks he is doing a mitzvah but it is in fact a sin. The evil inclination always dresses up in mitzvahs and come and tells you "come and do a mitzvah." But then after one has good charter the mizvot are to bring to a higher level of good character.


The idea is that there is no mitzvah to be miserable. Nor to make others miserable. And this determines what is a mitzvah is.

2) Conversation with God. People often think of God as being far away. And they think he is accessible only through hard types of actions.  all you need to do to get close to God is to talk with him as you would talk with a friend.
Where can you find God? In Times Square, in a church, even in a synagogue. In any place you decide it is time to tell Him your troubles and ask for help.
If possible I would like to start a world wide talking with God movement. That is to make it a project to go up into the mountains every weekend (with proper outdoor gear and boots) and to go off to some secluded spot and talk with God. But also to speak with Him on the way to work every day and on the way back home and on the subway. And to know and believe that this is all you need to get to God. You don't need to go to any spiritual person. You can go to God directly.


3) Learning fast has been a big help for me. Not only has it helped me learn the Oral Law much more thoroughly than I could have without this advice but also in the natural sciences.

[But in terms of learning Torah I ask people to learn at home. Get yourself a full set of the two Talmuds Babylonian and Jerusalem, Mechilta, Sifri, Sifra and Tosephta and plow through them.}
Also the Mishna Torah of the Rambam with the commentaries on the page.

4) Truth at some point become important to me. When my world was falling apart and I saw myself sinking rapidly I decided the one thing I needed to hold onto was never to say an untruth under any circumstance. I discovered after that the amazing power of truth to hold one up under all kinds of floods and disasters. It provides an invisible force field than nothing can penetrate.

The major support of Reform and Conservative Judaism comes from Musar Ethical books of traditional Judaism
I mean the major principle of Reform Judaism is what? That between man and your fellow man comes before between Man and God. This is the exact same principle of Musar.
The Chafetz Chaim brings this from the verse, "You should walk in his ways, and keep his mitzvot."
The command to walk in his ways we know is the commandment: "What is he? Kind. So you too should be kind."
R. Chaim Vital (the disciple of Isaac Luria) in chapters one and two of his Musar book Sharei Kedusha makes the same point. And the great Yemenite Kabalist, R. Shalom Sharabi, goes into this exact point in detail. He says the soul of a person is his character traits. The mitzvot are simple the clothing and food of the soul but not the soul itself.
Reb Chaim Vital says, "One must be more careful to stay away from bad character traits than be keeping positive and negative commandments because bad traits are very much worse that sins."


Reform Judaism is right about Ethical Monotheism. This is first of all true. Also it is what the Torah is about.  But Reform is wrong in ignoring the Oral Law and the efforts of the  Sages to understand Divine Law. Also-It is bourgeois. They have no Gra, or Chaim from Voloshin,   or Issac Luria, Israel Abuchatzaeira. No juice. No taste. The batteries need charging.

And it ignores the most important aspect of Torah the holy numinous aspect.
.

Also "social justice" is an 1840's invention of two catholic priests meant to replace noble obligation (Noblesse oblige). It is not the main idea of the Torah, nor the prophets, nor the writings. 

In spite of this I would only pray in a Reform temple or a Conservative one. I would run from the insane religious world  like one runs from a charging leopard. That is just how frightened I am from them.

And it would not matter if the only mikvah in town was in an the insane religious world  (Synagogue). I would still simple refuse to go anywhere near the the insane religious world for shear and utter terror what they would do to my immortal soul.
The Sitra Achra just got too much intertwined with the insane religious world  until it is impossible to separate the two.

This fact is hidden to many religious people because they think their approach is based on Talmud and Halacha. They are unaware that it is not based on Halacha at all but rather it takes a few halachas and rituals to cover up  a vast body of Sitara Achra. The few halachas they do only serve to cover the real essence.

This was not always the case. Before the time of Shabati Tzvi things were straightforward. But after his time the energy of teachings of the Shatz (Shabati Tzvi) got totally entwined with the insane religious world . What makes this almost impossible to know is that people today rarely every learn the books of the Shatz and his prophet Natan from Gaza. But if you have had the sad experience of A reading those misguided books then you can see right away how the most basic teachings of the Shatz are part and parcel of the insane religious world  today.

An idol can be anything from heaven and earth. It does not have to be a physical object.
If one accepts it as his god by accident, then he is liable to bring a sin offering. If on purpose, he is liable the death penalty.
What if he did not accept it as his god, but served it from love of the image, or fear that it might hurt him?







This is the argument between Abyee and Rava about doing idolatry from love or fear. [Sanhedrin 62b]
The argument is very simple at first. Abyee says: One who serves an idol from love or fear is liable. Rava says, he is not.

Then Abyee finds some place where the idea of idolatry by accident is mentioned and he asks what is it referring to? One who bows to a house of idols thinking it is a synagogue is not doing anything wrong because his heart is towards heaven. If he bows to a statue thinking it is not an idol also it is nothing. Why does he skip the simple case-he forgot it is an idol?

Now my learning partner has suggested that  a sin without pleasure (הנאה) will be liable only if it is a mistake in material facts. [For in most sins either a mistake in facts or law would be counted as an accident.] Now that idea would help us here in Sanhedrin 62, but not in Shabat where we know if one forgets Shabat he is liable. Forgetting Shabat certainly is not the same as making a mistake in law.

That leaves us where we began. So far I have no decent idea of why Abyee skips this seemingly obvious case.


 (A case of mistake in material facts would be if he ate forbidden fat חלב which he thought was normal fat שומן. That is liable because there is pleasure involved. A case of mistake in law would be if he thought there is no prohibition in eating forbidden fat חלב. That also is liable a sin offering.)

הבעיה כאן היא זאת. כשרבא רוצה למצוא שגגת עבודה זרה, הוא הולך לטעות בדין, ואז האדם חייב קרבן. וכשהגמרא רצתה למצוא שגגה שהוא פטור בשבילו היא הלכה לטעות במציאות. איפה הדיון הפשוט? שהוא שכח שהצורה הזאת היא עבודה זרה
  רואים מזה שהגמרא והרמב''ם מדקדקים לומר דווקא טעות בהוראה
לא כמו שבת שבמצב שאדם שכח שהיום שבת כן הוא חייב קרבן.




Appendix:
1. A person can be an idol. If a person says, "Serve me." He is automatically liable. [Sanhedrin 62a]. If others tell you to serve a certain person or that if you serve him you will get such and such benefits then they are liable the death penalty. This explains why the Gra [the Villna Geon], signed that particular excommunication [the famous cherem] on hasidim. He must have known that with hasidim serving a tzadik is an important principle.  Since in the Torah, serving a tzadik is idolatry, he decided to sign the excommunication. If the terminology of destructive manipulative cult leaders would have been around in those days that is what the Gra would have said about it.

Stay put.

The Gra defines the path of Torah.
The Gra  equates Joy with the world of "Bina" Understanding. Which is the root of all holiness.

1) Joy is holiness in itself.
It is much more than just extra extra credit. If I was doing some kind of practice that I thought was obligatory according to Jewish law, but I knew this practice made me depressed, I dropped it.

I said to myself, "If this would really be an obligation according to the Torah, it would not be making me depressed."

This would especially apply to how I would keep Shabat or pray.

The idea in  the LM: "Joy is the realm of holiness in itself. Depression is the evil realm, and God hates it."
And I also thought that to make people upset also was not a mitzvah. This related to how I would interact with others. I assumed the only interaction with others that could count as a mitzvah would be when I would bring them joy. This in fact has support from the Gra when he equates Joy with the world of "Bina" Understanding. Which is the root of all holiness.

2) Talking with God. It is the highest goal of all to be talking with God all the time. Mainly in a forest.  When I was down and out, this gave me a connection with God that has kept me going through thick and thin. I dread to think where I would be today without this amazing piece of advice.

3) Say the words and go on. This amazing piece of advice has gotten me through the Talmud and Rambam and writings of Isaac Luria  and much more. And he was right that when I thought I was not understanding, later on understanding just came spontaneously. Without this advice, I would never have gotten as far as I did in the Oral and Written Law,-- or Mathematics and Physics either.
(Obviously there are lots of things that remain mysteries to me. I am just not very smart. But in this way I learned and understood a lot more than if I would have gotten stuck on details and ended up dropping the whole thing; or even worse--think that I understood stuff when if I had gone on to read the whole subject, it became clear only by the picture  what the  details were about. In fact, it is a lot easier to decide what a DNA molecule of a tree is saying by looking at the forest, rather than trying to decipher the actual molecule. )
4)I learned from the Rambam that the belief system of the Torah is Monotheism. This is not the same as Pantheism. Pantheism is the faith of Hinduism and I can understand why people might be attracted to it. But then they should just say they are teaching Hinduism. Not claim to be teaching Judaism. 

In Shabat the Rambam decided like Rabbi Yehuda that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה [work done not for its own sake]  is liable. So then why is צידת נחש [capturing a snake so that it does not hurt one] allowed? Because it is פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. [Something not intended but which had to happen by his action and he has no pleasure from the unintended result] (Like the Aruch.) But the obvious question is why is it דבר שאינו מתכווין (something not intended)?
I mean Reb Chaim has a point that it is only in the opinion of Rav Yehuda that it is considered a work done not for its own sake. But here  we are not in the opinion of Rav Yehuda. So surely it could be something not intended, but why?








This idea I had yesterday when I was think about Tosphot and then it occurred to me today that it might apply be what Reb Chaim is trying to get at.
The idea is this we find that something not intended can be composed of lots of subsets. We find for example with find even a total accident מתעסק can be liable if there is pleasure involved. And even if one does something he know what he is doing, but makes a mistake in law thinking it is allowed, is also an accident.

And the list goes on and on.

It is for this reason I think that Tosphot (Shabat 94) wanted to confine  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה [work done not for its own sake] to a very limited set, i.e. a small and closed set. That is work done for the purpose for which it was done in the Tabernacle alone is called "work done for its own sake." Everything outside of that is not for its own sake, but it can be intended.

This type of reasoning can help us understand Chaim Soloveitchik


I want to say the reason is because the Rambam is like Tosphot in wanting to define מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה [work done not for its own sake]  as a very restricted category and that everything outside of it is in category of דבר שאינו מתכווין. [That is the Rambam will not define it like Tosphot, but he still will confine it to  a very restricted area.]

The question on this is that something not intended is not at all the same thing as being obligated a sin offering. So I still have to do some thinking about this way of explaining what Reb Chaim might be getting at. Until I can get this idea past my learning partner I don't want to present it as anything but ad hoc. [I would like to say there is a connection between not intended and normal sin offerings. My idea is that sin offerings need some degree of knowledge but not to actual intend them.E.g picking up a radish on Shabat that one thought was already picked but turned out to be attached to the ground is not liable, but to cut it is to Abyee. So some knowledge is needed to be liable--but not too much. And that is what makes something an accident.]

אני רוצה להסביר תירוצו של ר' חיים הלוי על הרמב''ם בעניין  דבר שאינו מתכווין ומלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה וצידת נחש. דבר שאינו מתכווין יכול לכלול הרבה דברים, למשל מתעסק במקום שיש הנאה. שם ההנאה מספיקה קצת כוונה בכדי שיהיה חייב קרבן.ו עוד יש טעות בדין או במציאות שנחשבים בכלל אינו מכווין. נראה לי שזאת הסיבה שתוספות רצו לצמצים את גדר מלאכה שצריכה לגופה להיות רק מלאכה הנעשית לצורך מה שהייתה צורכה במשכן. הסברא הזו עוזרת לנו להבין ר' חיים סולובייטשיק.בשבת הרמב''ם פסק כרבי יהודה שמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייבת. ולכן למה צידת נחש מותרת?בגלל שהיא דבר שאינו מתכווין דלא ניחא ליה כשיטת הערוך. אבל למה זו דבר שאינו מתכווין? אני רוצה להגיד שהרמב''ם כמו תוספות רוצה לצמצים את הגדר של מלאכה שצריכה לגופה, וכל מה שחוץ לגדר הזה הוא דבר שאינו מתכווין.

If you look at the book of Reb Chaim you will see why this whole commentary is necessary. Without this explanation it is not clear what he means at all, nor is it  not clear how  his explanation of the Rambam  does not contradict  how the Rambam explains דבר שאינו מתכווין in chapter 1 of Laws of Shabat. I think you have to come to this commentary of mine to have the Rambam make sense.

I think I saw the Chazon Ish ask this on Reb Chaim, but I have neither his, nor Reb Chaim's book. I am writing this from memory. Nor do I have the Talmud Shabat in front of me.
Certainly, I remember my learning partner ask this on Reb Chaim. I tried to tell him the basic idea of Reb Chaim, and I remember his first question was from the way the Rambam explains a ''thing not intended.''

I had some idea that part of my family [Rosenblum] was in Poland during World War II.
Now I see the NY library has a book on Poltusk and I found some of my family members who were killed during the Holocaust. I did not not see any pictures of the people that were killed. But there was one of my grandfather's brother, Fishel ben Alter Rosenblum.  It looks like we were a semi religious family. Fishel Rosenblum in the picture had a tie. It seems we were probably what you would call Conservative.
I know my grandparents kept Shabat and Kashrut, but certainly were not obliviously religious.



Before this all I knew was that my Dad was a captain in the US Air Force flying B-29s.

I saw on a list of victims,  two families of Rosenblums that were killed in the Holocaust, Avraham and his wife Zirel and a daughter Feige, and another Rosenblum, Ben Zion with his wife Finkel and children, Mendel, David, Reishel, Roiza, Golda, Feiga.

They all must have been young because the father Avraham was one of the children of Alter.

 His father was Alter Rosenblum (1870 – 1922) and his mother was Shaindel Marcusfeld (1870-1903). 

His younger brother Yaakov was my grandfather who came to the USA right after during WWI.

The Rambam has an idea of what constitutes the Oral Law that gives some support to the idea that learning Physics and Meta-Physics is an actual obligation.
And it is important to know whether this is an obligation or not because of the concept of Bitul Torah.
And the idea of Bitul Torah is that it is not just a mitzvah to learn Torah but it is a sin not to learn Torah. ביטול תורה כנגד כולם. That is we have a statement from that sages talking about the worst types of sin (גילוי עריות שפיכות דמים עבודה זרה) a person can do and then they and on the end of this discussion that not learning Torah during a time period when one could be learning Torah is the worst of all sins.

In the Rambam's  Laws of Talmud Torah about how one should divide his day, the Rambam says  הענינים הנקראים פרדס הם בכלל הגמרא "The things called Pardes are in the category of learning Talmud"
And that obviously refers to what he said at the beginning of Mishna Torah the the subject matter discussed there is called "Pardes." [Orchard]  That means the Rambam understood "Pardes" to means Physics and Metaphysics and he considered learning these two subjects as a part of the mitzvah of learning Torah. [There is no surprise here. The Rambam in the Guide says what the sages means by the work of Creation and the work of the Divine Chariot the Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics. And if you put his ideas about this in Guide together you get the same conclusion]

I looked into the history of Pultusk, Poland.[http://yizkor.nypl.org/index.php?id=2548] And I can see that the idea of public school [secular studies] was frowned on by the some religious people.  But  regular Jews did not share that attitude. For example when my grandparents came to the USA they sent my Dad to public school and later he majored in Mechanical Engineering at Cal Tech worked on almost every top secret project that was around, the U-2, the Orion, SDI, etc.
Clearly there were and still are plenty of Jews that think Science and Math are an important part of Torah study like the Rambam.

But as far as things are today  both ultra orthodox religious schools and also public schools in the USA are extremely bad. If I had the choice I would home school my children in Torah and natural sciences. And if that was not an option I would send my children to some kind of Religious Zionist school like Bnei Akiva [or whatever they are called in the USA]

At the Mir in NY the books of Breslov were in the Musar section.
And that was during the era right after they got to the USA from the Mir in Europe.
That means the books were considered a regular part of the cannon of Musar books by Reb Avraham Kalmonovicth, and the Mashgiach Reb Feldman.
And it goes without saying that Breslov was an important part of the world view of the Mashgiach that came after Reb Feldman that is Don Segal, the Mashgiach of Ponovicth.
And I specifically asked both Don Segal and Leibel Berenbaum about this subject. And this was definitely in the context of the\ issue of the excommunication that was signed by the Gra.

The excommunication is as valid today as it was when the Gra signed it.

Certainly no one thought that is has expired. And in a large degree this seems also to have been the opinion of Rav Shach of Ponovitch was was the Gadol Hador at that time.

But the books of Breslov are kosher

My path is a balance between different things.
I can't justify everything here right now and also I can't claim that everyone should be doing everything on my own private list.
But at least for those who are curious here is my basic list of things to do.
(1) Math or Physics session for an hour after I get up, and had coffee and tea in the same cup and folic acid.
(2) A session of Gemara (Talmud) Rashi and Tosphot with a learning partner.
(3) Music session.
(4) Rosh HaShanah  in Uman.
(5) Musar.[Jewish Ethics] That could be classical Musar or Musar from the school of thought of the Geon from Villna or his disciples. And try to fulfill what the books of Musar say to do especially the Gra. [Musar has two parts: (a) Classical Musar like the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart and also  (b) a Israel Salanter part that includes books of his disciples like Navardok.]

The above I do as a kind of service towards God. But sometimes there have been practical benefits  also. There was for example a time I was in the Mir in NY and was getting a monthly salary. But in general I try to intend what I do to be not for personal benefit.

Also, it seems to me that my wife, Leah came to me to NY mainly because I was at the Mir. That is I think she was attracted to me more by what I was doing [learning Torah] more than by who I am, or my personality.

If you do any sin from the set of all sins in the Bible where it says he that does such and such will be cut off from his people, you bring a sin offering to the temple in Jerusalem. That is a she goat or a she sheep. (Leviticus 4) If you did idolatry by accident you bring only a she goat. Numbers 15
[Examples, Shabat, sex with close relations, sex with males, walking into the Temple without having gone to the mikvah and the ashes of the red heifer, eating a sacrifice before having gone to the mikvah, four kinds of service to an idol burning, pouring, sacrifice, bowing, or a service special to that idol.]





 If a person bows to a statue that he forget was an idol,  he is not liable a sin offering. What is the difference between this and if a person forgot it is the Sabbath day?

I want to answer that the difference is that Sabbath he is expected to remember from the very beginning of the week. There is a degree of liability in just forgetting Shabat all by itself and if furthermore he acts  on that forgetting then he is liable.
Idols one is supposed to forget.

In more detail here is my idea:
Abyee  and Rava argue if serving a false god from love or fear is liable. To prove his point Abyee finds any random place in the Mishna where the idea of serving an idol accidentally is liable. And he tries to go through the different possibilities what that could mean until he reaches to the point that it cant mean anything but serving a false god from love or fear. Then Rava says it means he says serving it is allowed.

Why don't Abyee and Rava both say serving a false god accidentally is the exact same case as Shabat? What is an accident on Shabat that one is liable for? He did one of the 39 types of work because he forgot it is Shabat today.
Say the same thing about idolatry. He knows idolatry is forbidden by he forgot this particular statute is an idol. An example would be when he was at the ceremony consecrating the idol but got mixed up later and forgot that he was there and thought he was at a different ceremony on the other side of town celebrating a statute built to honor a king.
That is the question my learning partner posed.
My answer is that Shabat he is expected to remember, not idols. He is not supposed to be thinking about idols all the time. So if he forgot about an idol he did a mitzvah.

I want to suggest a connection between good character traits and mitzvahs.
The main points are the Reshash ר' שלום שרבי. To him the traits are the actual soul of a person.
The subject of the soul is contained in the Eitz Chaim of Isaac Luria is great detail. But I forgot the whole thing. But also Reb Chaim Vital goes into some detail in his Musar book Shaarai Kedushah.
His idea is that in fact there is a connection. And keeping the mitzvot brings light and sustenance to the soul.
1) Also to Reb Chaim Vital  and the Chafetz Chaim the main purpose of the mitzvas is to bring to good character traits.
2) But in theory good character and mitzvas might be completely separate. You could in theory have someone keeping all the mitzvas with 100% perfection and have  bad character.[This is well known from the Ramban about מנובל ברשות התורה]
3) This fits well with the Rambam that the purpose of mitzvas is divided into several sub categories, one of which is in fact to bring to good character.
Character here means what men want from other men--to be a man. That is,-- to be someone you can trust in an emergency. When the chips are down and you are with a small group of men fighting for survival, then good character means someone loyal and trustworthy and has the skills that contribute to the group. If you put him on  watch to guard the perimeter to guard from other groups of men that want what you have,- you don't want him sleeping on the job. Character in terms of women means a wife you can trust. Not someone who will betray you for gain-- unlike the vast majority of women today.

Places that are openly connected with the path of the Gra the Villna Geon you can see Torah being studied and kept to a high degree of accuracy.

 I would like to propose that to get to the Torah it is impossible expect by means of the Gra.
I admit that on the face of this, it seems ridiculous. But I think I have see enough evidence to make this proposition  believable.

What this means is that if you look at places that are openly connected with the path of the Gra the Villna Geon you can see Torah being studied and kept to a high degree of accuracy. But outside that perimeter you see nothing but catastrophe.

The Gra, The Villna Geon, held is is an absolute obligation to go through the Oral and Written Torah.

Once he was with his disciple Chaim from Voloshin and saw some person in a inn who was not keeping Torah. The Gra said he will have to give an account of why he did not learn the secrets of the Chariot [mystic aspects of Torah] also.

We know that there is a statement in the Talmud that when a person goes up to stand before the higher court of law in Heaven to decide his fate, he will have to give account  and answer these questions:"Did you learn the Written Law?  [the Old Testament]? Did you learn the Oral Law?Did you finish the Mishna? Did you learn the Talmud? Did you learn the work of the Divine Chariot? Did you do your business dealings with honesty?"

The Gra understood this to be literal. There will not be an excuse on the day of judgment for a person to say, "I was not religious."
And further he held that one does not need to understand every word he learns. Sometimes people say that the Gra held that one needs at least to understand the meaning of the words. But f you look in the new edition of the אבן שלמה that brings down the sources from the actual language of the Gra you can see that is not so. You can just say the words and what you don't understand in this world they will remind you of in the next world. The main thing is to have gone through every single last word of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, and Maharsha, and the Jerusalem Talmud with the Pnei Moshe, and also all the writings of Isaac Luria.

I don't want to make it sound as if I have done all this. I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I am still in the middle of this process. And even the small amount of time I have to learn Torah I spend most of it on a tiny in depth session with a learning partner. So I am well behind schedule. So I hope at least I can explain this subject to others that might be able to take up this project.
[To some degree I have an excuse that my time in limited. I also have to give violin lessons and other kinds of activities in order to pay the rent.]

A lot depends on what you think is the main service of God.  This is subject to debate in the Jewish world. The Gra had a two tier system. Learning Torah was the top. After that is keeping the Torah [Oral and Written]. But he did not think one should go searching for mitzvahs to do. He said it is better to sit in ones room and twiddle ones thumbs rather than go searching for mitzvahs. There are lots of variations. Prayer and talking with God are also important. But there were a few other main things.
Learning Torah is hearing what God says to us  and talking with God is to help us be open to the Torah.
But my opinion is that Love and Fear of God are the goals. And the mitzvahs are to help us reach these goals. That comes from a commentary on the Rambam. And it seems to me to be basically  what the Rambam himself was getting at.

The idea of the anonymous commentary [הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ב' הלכה א] is that one verse says do mitzvahs to come to fear God. Another verse Deuteronomy 10:12 says, "What does God want from but but to fear God in order that you should do his mitzvahs?" The answer he gives is the lower fear is to do mitzvahs. And Mitzvahs are to come to the higher fear. And that higher fear leads to Love of God.


The Stipler Rav (Chaim Kinyevski) [author of the set of books קהלת יעקב Kehilat Yaakov] said lets us look at the different groups that emphasize one point or other. It is usually in that particular point they are the worst of anyone.  So he said they only advice is to keep the Torah just like it says, nothing more or less.

Introduction:
The Rambam in chapter one of the Laws of Idolatry explains that essence of idolatry is to try to come close to God by means of a intermediate or a mediator. This would include people.
Later in chapter 2 he explains that a mediator can be anything from the highest heavens until anything composed of basic elements, or any created thing. People are created things so people can be mediators. Idols do not have to be physical objects. They can be even great and special human beings. Even a true tzadik. [Clearly the Gra saw this problem in his days when he signed the excommunication against Hasidim, that said not to sit within four yards of a hasid, or have any interaction in business or in any other way with them..]

In chapter 3 he says if one serves an idol  from love or fear [i.e. he loves the beauty or is afraid the idol will hurt him] then he is liable only if he accepts the idol as a god with spiritual powers.
We don't see this condition elsewhere.


The Remach רמ''ך [Rav Moshe HaKohen] asked, "Why in throwing a stone at Markulit one is liable without accepting it as ones god?"

The Rivash [A Rishon on the Rambam] and the Beit Yoseph answer this in some way I did not have a chance to figure out.

My learning partner said the Rambam means he is liable a sin offering for doing idolatry by accident. He might not be referring to liability for the death penalty.

But I think what the Rambam is saying is in all cases. Because the condition of accepting as ones god is only when one is openly not using the idol as a mediator as in the case he serves it from love or fear. But in any other case, it is enough to serve the idol as a mediator in order to be liable.




הקדמה: בתחילת הלכות עבודה זרה הרמב''ם כתב שעיקר עבודה זרה היא לעבוד או לפאר אמצעי כדי להתקרב להבורא יתברך. וכן הוא כתב הפירוש המשנה פרק חלק. בפרק ג' הוא אומר שהעובד מאהבה או מיראה אינו חייב אלא אם כן הוא מקבלו עליו כאלוה. הרמ''ך שאל למה הוא חייב כשזורק אבן למרקוליס בלי לקבל עליו כאלוה? החברותא שלי תירץ שכוונת הרמב''ם היא שחייב חטאת בגלל עבודה זרה בשוגג. והוא לא כיוון שחייב סקילה. אני רוצה לומר שהתנאי לקבל עליו כאלוה הוא רק במצב של עובד מאהבה או מיראה. ובדרך כלל העובד רק בתור עמצאי חייב בגלל שהעובד לאמצעי הוא עיקר עבודה זרה

Navardok was trust in God.

The idea of Israel Salanter was simple people ought to learn Musar. Musar about thirty books that deal with Jewish ethics and Jewish world view written from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the later Renaissance.

 Joseph Yozel Horvitz was a disciple of Israel Salanter.
Each disciple had a different approach.


 What made Navardok different was trust in God.
Rav Horvitz based his idea of trust in God on a small paragraph written by the Geon Elijah from Vilnius as a comment on a verse in Proverbs 3:5 .
The verse is בטח בה' בכל לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען Trust in God with all your heart and don't depend on your intelligence.
The Gra (the Geon Elijah from Vilnius) said this means to trust in God with all your heart and not with just a percentage of your heart. And not to depend on your intelligence even as a slight support.
A disciple of the Gra said this is parallel to what the Gra said about a story in the Talmud. The local students  did not know what this verse means: "Throw on God your burden (יהביך) and he will give you your means of a living." One day Raba Bar Bar Chana was walking with a merchant and carrying a burden. The merchant said to him ,"Take your burden יהביך and cast it on my camel."

The Gra explained that the idea here is that the  students  thought one should trust in God and also go around working for ones needs. Therefore the word יהביך (burden) was a problem. It should have said your needs. When they saw that Raba had a burden that he needed to pay to have carried and yet the merchant asked to do him a favor, they saw that  even for things you need to work for, if it is decreed from heaven, people with beg you to do it for you.

What the Gra is saying here is that the word יהב means to give. So it does not make sense to say cast on God your "give." But when the students saw what happened with Raba they understood the merchant said take what you need to give to me and put your burden on my camel.




4) My own path is that I don't think God is obligated to do anything for me or for anyone at all. I definitely go with the idea of Schopenhauer that the Dinge an Sich is "the Will." The Will is not rational. The Will does not have human good in mind. Human good is not the goal of the Will.
Rather if you turn towards the Will, then the Will turns towards you.
And when the Will turns towards you, then you have someone to depend on. this someone might not grant to you all you wishes, but you know that what ever it does in your life is right and good. especially when it does not grant to you your wish.