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.