7.6.15
It is hard to know how to go about learning Torah.
There is a general principle that to know any subject even half way decently you need at least 10,000 hours.
And if you are able that is the best thing to do with Torah. Find a yeshiva that does Torah ten hours a day and do that program for four years. Then you get 12000 hours. That is not enough however to become expert. It is just to get your feet wet.But if you have that basic four years under your belt then when later you go to college and work the foundation is laid for good work.
But even with that you start your own program at home. In theory it should not be hard. You get a regular Talmud Bavli with Tosphot and the Maharsha. You have one hour of in depth learning and then the rest of the time you just plow through it. Most tractates also have some major achron (authority after the Middle Ages) on them, Like the Yadot Nedarim on Nedarim.When I was doing Ketubot there were few achronim that I used. The major one was the Pnei Yehoshua. But I was alone in this. In both yeshivas that I was at [Shar Yashuv and the Mirrer in NY] most people did not even look at achronim. They just prepared for the Rosh yeshiva's class and that was that. and in the afternoon they reviewed the class. And the classes were always along the lines of Chaim Soloveitchik.--which was kind of Rambam oriented.
But this Rambam approach seems to me to be more relevant to Halacha. I don't mean to downgrade it, but it seems to me to be different that straight Gemara learning. As for Halacha I think it is a good thing to learn. What I think is the best to get the book of Chaim Soloveitchik on the Rambam along with the Avi Ezri of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and just go through the Rambam along with both of these two books. Then to do the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and the Aruch Hashulchan.
This is all great stuff but it is not the same as learning Gemara.
[With Rav Shach's book it is best just to plow through it straight. Not along side the Rambam.]
There is a general principle that to know any subject even half way decently you need at least 10,000 hours.
And if you are able that is the best thing to do with Torah. Find a yeshiva that does Torah ten hours a day and do that program for four years. Then you get 12000 hours. That is not enough however to become expert. It is just to get your feet wet.But if you have that basic four years under your belt then when later you go to college and work the foundation is laid for good work.
But even with that you start your own program at home. In theory it should not be hard. You get a regular Talmud Bavli with Tosphot and the Maharsha. You have one hour of in depth learning and then the rest of the time you just plow through it. Most tractates also have some major achron (authority after the Middle Ages) on them, Like the Yadot Nedarim on Nedarim.When I was doing Ketubot there were few achronim that I used. The major one was the Pnei Yehoshua. But I was alone in this. In both yeshivas that I was at [Shar Yashuv and the Mirrer in NY] most people did not even look at achronim. They just prepared for the Rosh yeshiva's class and that was that. and in the afternoon they reviewed the class. And the classes were always along the lines of Chaim Soloveitchik.--which was kind of Rambam oriented.
But this Rambam approach seems to me to be more relevant to Halacha. I don't mean to downgrade it, but it seems to me to be different that straight Gemara learning. As for Halacha I think it is a good thing to learn. What I think is the best to get the book of Chaim Soloveitchik on the Rambam along with the Avi Ezri of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and just go through the Rambam along with both of these two books. Then to do the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and the Aruch Hashulchan.
This is all great stuff but it is not the same as learning Gemara.
[With Rav Shach's book it is best just to plow through it straight. Not along side the Rambam.]
6.6.15
See this link Ideas in Bava Metzia
In כתובות you have to say that the טענת וודאי aspect of her טענה helps because if it was just her מיגו we say we don't say מיגו to take out money. So it is her מיגו with her weak טענת וודאי that takes out of חזקת ממון. There is not a קל וחומר from that where there is a strong טענת וודאי but it is against a מיגו as in the case of רב יהודה with the two people in בית דין and one says you owe and the other says I don't know.
בכתובות צריכים לומר שטענת וודאי שלה עוזרת שאם זה היה רק שיש לה מיגו אנחנו אומרים לא אומרים מיגו להוציא כסף.ואפילו לפי השיטה שאומרים מיגו להוציא זו לא אמורה כאן להיות הסיבה היחידה. אז זה מיגו עם טענת וודאי חלשה שמוציא מחזקת ממון. אין קל וחומר מזה כשיש טענת וודאי חזק אבל נגד מיגו כמו בדיון של רב יהודה עם שני אנשים בבית דין ואחד אומר שאתה חייב ואחר אומר שאני לא יודע
This is just a quick review of something that was in my English note. Tosphot had said that there is a difference between a strong definite plea and a weak one. Rav Judah said when 2 people come to the beit din and one says you owe me 200 and the other says I don't know the definite plea wins. But in Bava Kama we say money stays where it is until there is proof. The different is between a weak and string plea. But then in Ketubot there is a weak plea and Abyee says the law of Rav Judah is of Shmuel. Then Abyee is pushed off. Then Tosphot says even with Abyee we have to say the aw of Rav Judah is the same as that of Shmuel. I am just showing how there is no way to show this to be the case. Rather I answered and explained Tosphot that they mean it is the same law. Not that one came from the other.
(1) I did not realize that excommunication was very serious until recently I saw the Mishna Lamelech say it has a halachic category of an oath.
This opens up a few interesting questions. For example what about the excommunication of the Gra? What about people that I know had done something wrong and were really under need to be excommunicated? Even if no one pays attention to these legal issue they remain valid halacha questions. This is just like any other halacha question. If no one pays attention to it does it become invalid? Certainly not.
(2 )So just as an introduction let me say that the idea of an oath is thus. One says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." The loaf becomes forbidden to him as if it was a sacrifice. If he says to someone this loaf of mine is forbidden to you like sacrifice then also the other person is not allowed to eat it. A person can forbid his object to others.
The Mishna LaMelech says an excommunication gets its strength from this law. It is a type of Isur Neder. That means that one that transgresses it is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
(3) It applies to coming generations.
(4) It is not just for the 24 specific list but for anyone who transgress a prohibition for the Torah or a rabbinical prohibition on purpose.
(5) You don't need actual testimony When the facts of the case are public knowledge.
What this seems to mean is that the excommunication of the Gra was in fact according to halacha and was valid and still is. This helps us understand why when people join the groups he banned, they become crazy.
This opens up a few interesting questions. For example what about the excommunication of the Gra? What about people that I know had done something wrong and were really under need to be excommunicated? Even if no one pays attention to these legal issue they remain valid halacha questions. This is just like any other halacha question. If no one pays attention to it does it become invalid? Certainly not.
(2 )So just as an introduction let me say that the idea of an oath is thus. One says, "This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." The loaf becomes forbidden to him as if it was a sacrifice. If he says to someone this loaf of mine is forbidden to you like sacrifice then also the other person is not allowed to eat it. A person can forbid his object to others.
The Mishna LaMelech says an excommunication gets its strength from this law. It is a type of Isur Neder. That means that one that transgresses it is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.
(3) It applies to coming generations.
(4) It is not just for the 24 specific list but for anyone who transgress a prohibition for the Torah or a rabbinical prohibition on purpose.
(5) You don't need actual testimony When the facts of the case are public knowledge.
What this seems to mean is that the excommunication of the Gra was in fact according to halacha and was valid and still is. This helps us understand why when people join the groups he banned, they become crazy.
Trust in God without effort was the major idea of Navardok. I mentioned the Ramban from Leviticus 26:11 which holds this way. And there is the Gra also that says the same. It is known that the Duties of the Heart had the opinion that one should do some effort.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.
This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.
This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)