have a fast session and an in depth session.

My basic feeling about Torah is to have a fast session and an in depth session.
The fast session should be to get through the Written and Oral Law a least once completely.
That is the Babylonian Talmud with Rashi, Tosphot and Maharsha. Every single last word.
Next step is do the same with the Jerusalem Talmud with the three commentaries on the page.
Next the Tosphta with the Chazon Yechezkiel.
Then the Sifri and Sifra. An hour per day on this will get you through this in a few short years, and you will have plenty of time to  do university too.

That is the entire corpus of the oral law that was handed down generation after generation.
However Zohar and later Halacha writings are good to learn, but they are not the Oral Torah.
 Maimonides wrote, "Just like you can't add to the Written Torah, so you can't add to or subtract from the Oral Torah."
.


The Shulchan Aruch is a book written by Joseph Karo (as an abridged version of his large work the Beit Joseph). The Shulchan Aruch on the printed page has a few large commentaries on it e.g. the Shach, Taz, Magen Abraham etc. It would usually take about forty minutes to go through one page even if you are reading very very fast.  Go really fast.
After you have finished the book once fast you go back over it and the second time you will understand more than you did the first time. And then you do it again a third and forth time etc.


I have found this to be helpful when it came to my having to go to collage to get an education.
I applied to Polytechnic Institute of New York University and they gave me a small sample test in Math to see if I could go to Calculus the first year, or if I had to take remedial course. I had no idea which side of the paper was up. So I  got a textbook that covered basic algebra, trig, vectors, matrices etc and just plowed through in is the way that he said and believe it or not when I took the exam I got all the questions right!
[I was in Uman, for three months before I took the test. The fast session I did in my spare time from Rosh Hashanah until the end of the festivals. Then I reviewed, reading every chapter, plus the exercises. Plus I did a Calculus text which was great, but oriented towards economies. So when it came to right hand sums of Riemanian integrals I was lost, and unprepared.]
(Since then I went on doing the same kind of learning--saying the words and going on, and no repeats until I get to the end of the textbook. )
[During my university years I learned saying the words of every textbook forwards and backwards--twice. This I based on an idea I saw in Isaac Luria (The Ari'zal) and Moshe Chaim Lutzato (The Ramchal). Later I decided it was just taking too much time to do everything that way, and I went back to the approach of the Talmud in Shabat לעלם לגרס אינש עא''ג דמשכח ועא''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר
This approach is gone into detail in אורחות צדיקים  a classical Musar book



My basic point here is that learning Torah does not depend on place, but on commitment. Like it says in the prayer in the morning right before the Shema "unite our hearts to serve you". When one unites his own heart to learn Torah he can succeed.  But I think it is best to do this only at home or else in a place that is devoted only to Torah learning. Otherwise one will be distracted.
My impression of local synagogues is that they are in general not good places to learn Torah. Learn at home.

Islam has a problem with being from what could be called the "Dark Side."

 The god of Islam is the Satan, and that is simple to see from the actual events surrounding Mohamed. The revelations supposedly from God allowing him to do things which we would not considered very kosher were clearly not coming from the Creator, but from Satan.  And it is not news that Satan comes to people and makes them think they are getting revelation from the Creator.

  Christianity is not idolatry
  We have the original defense of the Trinity from Boethius. Later people tried to defend it by means of Plato and Plotinus. And after about a thousand years they gave up on that, and went to Aristotle.
(The Protestant way of defending this is to ignore the question.) So we have basically two kinds of defense. The Neo Platonic way is simple. It is the same as what we call sepherot. The Aristotelian [Aquinas] way is also rather straightforward-- aspects or modes of God. Whether any of these defenses works is not the issue. But what is the issue is the fact that they believe they are worshiping the God of Israel, the Creator. [This site http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/12/incarnation-approached-subjectively-the-mystical-birth-of-god-in-the-soul.html  seems to have a Martin Buber kind of approach. In any case, Catholics nowadays try to defend it by means of Aristotle, because the Platonic approach had too many problems. So Aquinas went over to Aristotle and that is how things have been since then. See the blog of Edward Feser. ]
  As we see in Abyee Sanhedrin 62 that one who bows to a house of idols, but thinks it is a synagogue is not idolatry because his heart is towards heaven.
So in any case it is not idolatry. And that is that. So Merry Christmas and good will unto men, and peace on Earth.


  This is not like the Rambam. However it is not a principle of faith that the Rambam can never be wrong. The Rambam can be wrong, but we believe he is 99% of the time not wrong. But in a least four cases I know he is wrong. One is the mouse that is  half dirt and half alive. Spontaneous generation. (Look at that Halacha and you will see he means literal spontaneous generation, not evolution.)

  The Menorah we know was like Rashi. The reason the rings were invented was that Venus gets brighter and dimmer and that could not be explained by the spheres--contrary to the Guide. And in Pirkei Avot there is one place where the Rambam explains a Mishna based on a mistaken text  in Onkles.
So while in actual decisions based on the Gemara it is certain he could not make a mistake. But that is because that was his forte. But in other areas he was not infallible. (And according to the Rambam the authority in halacha is the Oral Law, not the Rambam. That we see by his order of decision making concerning a beit din or  a judge that makes a mistake. The first thing is that any decision not like  דינים המפורשים בש''ס (things stated openly in the Talmud)  are simply thrown out of court without a second's thought.)

Appendix:

1) Not that it has anything to do with the issue of this blog but still I think in the background people wonder what the Torah has to say about Jesus? The hagadah in Sanhedrin did come up recently in my studies. I just happened to be there in Sanhedrin. And I think on and off I have seen things on this subject but never put them in my blog because it did not seem relevant to any Jewish audience.
So I forgot most of what I saw.
Now let me make clear even if Jesus would be everything Christians would say, it would not mean we could worship him or any human being or pray to him or even to praise him.
That being said let me at least mention that the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud is not Jesus son of Miriam because we have a good idea of the time period Jesus lived in. We know when Peter was crucified and the other disciples also. We even know when the brother of Jesus was killed. All these events were right around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Jesus the Talmud refers to it says openly was a disciple of Yehoshua ben Prachia who lived at towards the beginning of the Second Temple period. [see Pirkei Avot] The minimum separation in time here is two hundred years.
They can't be the same person.
Besides that I have seen few positive references. One from Isaac Luria. That was in those days I was learning Kabalah. So I might be forgetting exactly where I saw it. I think it was in the book of Chaim Vital on the Torah at the end of the book of Genesis. Plus it is well known the very positive things that The mystic Avraham Abulafia had to say about this subject. Professor Moshe Idel brings him in several places. Plus there is Yaakov Emden. And that is that. All these people clearly thought very highly of Jesus.  But no one thinks it is proper to pray to him or any human being. And that is why this issue is so charged with emotion. This is because some people think if Jesus was as great as they say we should all worship him. But that is wrong. We only should worship God alone, and great people and even great tzadikim we should respect and learn from.

In any case, sex between males is among the things not allowed according to the Torah.

In any case sex between males is among the things not allowed according to the Torah. As for dissident children בן סורר ומורה - there are rather strict conditions for which that law applies. (e.g. the amount of meat he needs to eat to be liable is almost humanly impossible to eat in the required time period).
In any case there is never a death sentence unless any act is done in front of two kosher witnesses and warning is given. The warning has to be about the reason for the prohibition and also the punishment and the perpetrator has to acknowledge the warning. It is like Miranda rights in that respect. Otherwise the case is thrown out of court.

Appendix

1) It is understood that the laws of the Torah were all addressed to Jews alone. Every single last one.
The question of what gentiles are obligated in is simply uninteresting to the Torah. As far as the Torah is concerned if someone wants to keep the Torah--very nice.
[''I have put before you this day the life and the good, and death and evil. So choose life by keeping these commandments.'' Deuteronomy. Now there is a deal you can't turn down. Who does not want life and the good? No one.]
2) In any case the subject does come up. We have the well known seven laws that were given to Noah. And how much of later laws that were given to Moses apply is subject to debate.
A ger toshav גר תושב the Rambam decided is one who accepts the seven laws in front of the Sanhedrin.
But there is an argument about that. To some opinions in Mesechet Gerim--a tractate outside the Mishna- a ger toshav is one who accepts on himself not to do idolatry.
In the middle ages the idea of gerei hashar גרי השער came up and the Beit Joseph did consider gentiles that were civilized to be in that category. That is a step up from gerei toshav, but not yet a full ger.
3) The Seven Laws, include not to murder, and not to do idolatry. Islam seems to be idolatry since they are worshiping   a false god. (They call him God, But you can call many people by the same name. That does not mean they are the same person. When they worship Satan, it does not help if they give him the name of the Creator. In fact it makes it worse.)

We all know that one brings a sin offering for doing a sin by accident. But do accidents combine?

Introduction: If one does any one of 43 sins he brings a goat or a sheep to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Only in the case of idolatry must it be only a she goat.
The sin has to be done by accident. You can't bring a sacrifice for intentional sin.
The sins are Shabat, sex with close relatives, sex with a male, sex with an animal, idolatry, walking into the Temple before getting purified, eating a sacrifice before getting purified, and a few others.
Sin offerings are commanded in Leviticus 4 for general things and in Numbers for idolatry.


I am going to share my questions about this with the general public even though I have not gone over it thoroughly with my learning partner.

Fact 1) One does work on the Sabbath day. He forgot that work is forbidden or he made a mistake in law and thought that it is in fact permitted, plus he forgot Shabat.

This is an unresolved question in the Talmud. [Sanhedrin 62, Shabat perek klal gadol] (That is does he bring one sacrifice or 39 for each work?) (I say it is unresolved because the Talmud brings it up in serval places and suggest maybe we can answer it form this or from that etc.? It sounds like It has not come to any conclusion and is always keeping it in the back of it mind to try to find some answer.)
Fact 2) If one depends on the Sanhedrin that made a false ruling and they allowed forbidden fat plus he got a piece of forbidden fat and permitted fat mixed up. Rav said he does not bring a sin offering.
He depended on the Sanhedrin so his additional error does not make him obligated.

So my question here is do accidents mix? [Horayot page 2]
Or lets say he forgot two things--that forbidden fat is forbidden and and it got mixed up.  From the Gemara in Horayot you would say he already brings only one sin offering. Just because he forgot something extra that does not add to the number of sin offerings. and you would be right in that reasoning. So I ask again, why don't we say the same thing on Shabat? He already brings only one sin offering because he forgot it is Shabat. So why would he bring more just because he forgot more stuff?

It has been a long day so I am not going to try and make my question clearer right now. If you want a little background take a look at those two Gemaras and also the Mishna LeMelech on the Rambam הלכות שגגות פרק ב

APPENDIX:
1) There are two kinds of accident. One is in the facts of the situation. The other is in law.
2) One reason I am bringing this to public attention is because I am looking for some help in my argument with my learning partner. I can't seem to convince him about this point that if one is liable only one sacrifice because he forgot Shabat then he can't be liable more for forgetting more. On one hand he is right that the Gemara itself seems to consider this question undecidable. But to me it looks like I have a proof from Rav. And who knows if perhaps that statement of rav might be part of the reason the Rambam did in fact decide that if one forgets both work and Shabat he brings only one sacrifice. I mean we do find the Gemara seems to  lean in that direction anyway, but this statement of Rav ought to be the smoking gun.
3) Forbidden fat is the fat that is in general sacrificed. It covers the area of the stomach. Because it is such a  serious issue,  Reb Shmuel Berenbaum never ate meat, only chicken. I think his wife sometimes served meat on Yom Tov to the guests like myself but for him it was only chicken.
4) I think it should be clear that Eliezer Menachem Shach's book the Aviezri probably deals with this. It is right up his alley to answer "shver" Rambams {hard to understand Rambams}. But I don't have his book. [I am right now in Uman, and they do not usually have too many Litvak books in the local synagogue.]

There is a permission to have a girl friend in the Torah.

Mainly this is an argument between the Rambam (emphasis on first syllable) who forbids and the Ramban (emphasis on the last syllable) (Moshe ben Nachman) and Raavad who permit. This comes up in the Shulchan Aruch also where the commentaries say that even the Rambam only forbids it as an איסור עשה a prohibition that comes from the force of a positive commandment.
The Gra brings down the notable fact that כלב בן יפונה [caleb ben yefuna the friend of Joshua] had a girl friend. He and Joshua were the only two of the spies that Moses sent into the promised land that gave a positive report. he is the only person in the Torah that it says about him וימלא אחרי השם he went after God completely

The only reason I mention this is that we live in a time when shiduchim  are impossible for most people.
The Rosh (Rabbainu Asher) seems to think that mainly it is permitted, but that because of nida issues he rules against it.
And that is the way the Tur also rules.
I also happen to know a few people with several wives.. Nowadays when a woman wants a guy she will get him. She won't care if he has another wife.  Woman want the Alpha Male and rarely let anything get in their way.
The Cherem of Rabbainu Gershom had a time limit according to the Shulchan Aruch. It has expired.



In general though I would keep this private. You personal life should never be allowed to be examined in public or subject to the approval of anyone.

The Geon from Vilnius has a few ideas which I wanted to share. that God runs the world with a different trait from time to time.

1) The Geon from Vilnius has a few ideas which I wanted to share.

that God runs the world with a different trait from time to time.

Now I shared this with someone and they thought I meant in cycles. Now cycles might be an idea but it is not what the Gra meant from what I can tell. The cycle idea might help us understand the rise of civilization. The Sumerians [cities and infrastructure], the the Jewish people [the Ten Commandments and the Law], the the Greeks (science, art, music, philosophy, politics), then the Romans, and then the Renaissance.

2) The Torah portion of the week corresponds to every hundred years. That is why the Gra found himself mentioned in Tetze. And also we find the Holocaust in Ki Tavo with the curses. That put us in a parsha that mentions the verse "Moshe called to Joshua" {VaYelech}.

The idea of infinity is in itself kind of paradoxical.

The idea of infinity is in itself kind of paradoxical. It is not a limited thing and it does not keep going. The strange nature of infinity was what led Kant to conclude that space itself can't be finite nor can it be infinite.  It is the way we conceive of things in themselves (dinge an sich).


) The thing that is difficult to understand here is where is the primary emphasis? The mind or external reality? With Kant external reality contains the dinge an sich (the thing in itself). In this way he is like Plato. We humans are down here in the cave of non reality. On the other hand with Kant sometimes the mind seems to take precedence. As when we say the mind makes external reality possible.
 To answer this  Schopenhauer-that the subject and the object each contribute a half to the final representation.
Frankly I like this. It gives us two levels of reality which is "just right" from my point of view. [Plato]
But these two levels of Kant  are not empirical and interior. They are phenomenon, and dinge an sich.
And the understanding is applied to both.



2) To show morality is objective  
\\All we have with Kant and Schopenhauer is that the representation is made half by the subject and half by the object. But what is that representation? It is a universal. It is not the dinge an sich! The dinge an sich exists independently from the subject as Kant says openly! The dinge an sich or a moral principle exist independently from the subject.  It's character--how it applies in any situation --part of the moral principle that is a representation is dependent on the  subject.
hink it is right.