I was learning Shabat while engaged to my future wife and spent that year learning Shabat and then Aruvin during my first year of marriage and then Pesachim. While a lot of my learning Shabat was done with Tospot and the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua, still some parts I did with a learning partner that wanted to concentrate on Halacha so we did the Gemara, Rashi, and some Tosphot and then the Rosh and Rif and Shiltei Giborim on the Rif and the Tur and Beit Yoseph. When it comes to the laws of Shabat, that is about the only way I have ever heard that gives a clear understanding of the material.
I am not saying I liked that last approach. It as the approach my learning partner insisted on. But I admit when it comes to Halacha that the only way to understand Halacah is by doing the Gemara with the Tur Beit Yoseph. But if it had been up to me, I would have rather just done the Maharsha, Pnei Yehoshua and Tosphot. On my own I not only learned the Maharsha, but the book Maharsha HeAroch which combined five commentaries on the Maharsha.
I can not say which approach is better. When I was starting out learning, I combined both approaches. But by the time I got to the Mir, I was pretty set on "Lumdus," = learning in depth with intense analysis of Tosphot. Though I was ignorant, still the deeper levels of the Gemara were what interested me. But I guess what happened was at the Mir, the group that was doing Shabat that year were "halacha oriented" so I just went along with it.
To me "learning" still just means Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin. Everything else is extra credit.
[As for the actual laws of Shabat, I am lenient about things like the public domain needing 600,000 as Rashi and Tosphot both say. Also electricity and writing in English as per the Rema that in Hebrew in the actual prohibition. Muktze also according the the later Mishna in chapter Beit Shamai where the Gemara turns the mishna around, so the school that allowed mutzah was Beit Hillel. I am not going into these subjects here, but just stating in what areas I am lenient. It is OK to be more strict,-- as long as being strict does not cause one to do less of what he should in obligations between man and his fellow man.
One important point is that there is little reason to be strict unless one knows he or she is taking the strict opinion. But often people think the more strict opinion is the only opinion. Being overly religious is not a substitute for being a decent human being.]
I can not say which approach is better. When I was starting out learning, I combined both approaches. But by the time I got to the Mir, I was pretty set on "Lumdus," = learning in depth with intense analysis of Tosphot. Though I was ignorant, still the deeper levels of the Gemara were what interested me. But I guess what happened was at the Mir, the group that was doing Shabat that year were "halacha oriented" so I just went along with it.
To me "learning" still just means Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin. Everything else is extra credit.
[As for the actual laws of Shabat, I am lenient about things like the public domain needing 600,000 as Rashi and Tosphot both say. Also electricity and writing in English as per the Rema that in Hebrew in the actual prohibition. Muktze also according the the later Mishna in chapter Beit Shamai where the Gemara turns the mishna around, so the school that allowed mutzah was Beit Hillel. I am not going into these subjects here, but just stating in what areas I am lenient. It is OK to be more strict,-- as long as being strict does not cause one to do less of what he should in obligations between man and his fellow man.
One important point is that there is little reason to be strict unless one knows he or she is taking the strict opinion. But often people think the more strict opinion is the only opinion. Being overly religious is not a substitute for being a decent human being.]
