Rav Freifeld (informally known as Reb Shelomo)[the founder of Shar Yashuv] in NY was always telling me and anyone else that would listen to do review ten times. This put me in a real dilemma which has continued until this very day. I want and need to make progress. But understanding often only comes after ten times of review.
So what I tried to do was in some areas to do the ten times review idea.  This was both in Far Rockaway [where Rav Freifeld's  yeshiva was. I recall doing chapter 5 of Ketubot a lot of times. I do not recall if it was ten altogether. When later I got to the Mir in NY, I remember doing every Mahrasha and Pnei Yehoshua either ten or more times. I put a dot next to the paragraph to show every time I finished it. But the afternoon sessions were anyway for going fast and that it when I tried to plow through Shas with just Gemara, Rashi, and some Tosphot.

There is a lot to go into about this. But in short I have always felt this tension pulling me in opposite directions. On one hand to stay on the page until everything is clear and understood or to go on and depend that on the second and third time around it will become clear.

What I wanted to say was basically that every rosh yeshiva I ever knew and the good learning partners I had were always into the "Stay on it until it is clear." Maybe that is why they are rosh yeshivas and I am a bum.

The learning partner I had  recently was even more into staying on it until every word is clear more than anyone I every knew.

So my conclusion is this: What I think I smart people are more into the stay on it until you get it. That is the reason they can stay on it until they get it. But for me this sometimes does not work. Often it happens that no matter how long I stay on something I just do not get it. So what I think is what you find in Lithuanian types of yeshivas is the right thing. The morning's should be for "stay on it until you get it."  The afternoon should be for "Girsa," say the words and go on.

I have never heard of any Litvak yeshiva that did not learn in that way and I think the reason is the Roshei yeshiva in Europe discovered that this was the most effective way.

On a side note: Shar Yeshuv is  a very good yeshiva. I have said this before but let me repeat. Even though it starts at the beginning level it goes up to a very high level very quickly. The present day Rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager is probably one of the greatest Torah scholars I have ever known and certainly is no less than the roshei Yeshiva of the Mir in NY.

r15 [r15 in midi] r3 [r3 in midi]  q100 [q100 in midi] q10 [q10 in midi]  q96 e flat major  [q96 in F major in midi] [q96 in E flat major]  mathematics [mathematics in midi]  q60 [q60 in midi]  q6  [q6 in midi]

q96 in e flat and q96 in f are two different pieces--not just the same piece in a different key

In some cases people who disagree with the traditional monotheism of Torah will attempt to redirect it into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely. Hasidim are a good example.

After reading some  nonsense, you have probably asked yourself; "How could anyone in his right mind believe that?" There is an answer to your question. In. fact, the person who believes the nonsense will usually provide the answer himself if you give him half a chance. Go to the source. Read the believer's account of how he came to believe. He will probably give a clear enough description that you can see where he went wrong. 

Usually they build on some preexisting system.


A lot of people  misunderstand the Torah and stress trivial issues, ignore or downplay significant ones, or garble concepts because they find certain concepts in the the Torah not to their taste or mode of thinking. 


In some cases people who disagree with the traditional monotheism of  Torah  will attempt to redirect it into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely. The cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on are a good example.
They changed the Torah to make it more tasty. But it says about the incense "if one had added honey to it no one would have been able to resist it. So why did they not add honey? because the Torah say all leaven and all honey thou shalt not add to it." [I hear once someone say a slight twist on this. "Why did they not add honey to it? Because the Torah says. Period."]




Some adhere to the Torah out of inertia. They feel a need for some kind of spiritual activity, and the Torah is the best (or only) game in town.


Many  adhere to the Torah for social acceptance. They  like participating in special occasions, or may value it as a symbol of national or group identity

Once Torah becomes really established, the Torah itself can be a route to power, prestige, and privilege. Not only do some people adhere to the Torah for cynical reasons, they are entrenched at its very center. They are the leaders.

I support Trump because from the standpoint of policy. That is,- I know there is a lot of ad hominem arguments that are attacking the character of people that support him. But I am looking at this more from the context of the Constitution of the USA and the job of the chief executive to uphold and support that Constitution.

I might try to go into this in more detail but for right now let me just say that I think the Constitution has been ripped to shreds by the present government.

I do not do a lot of thinking about government. So off hand it would be hard to write a whole essay.
I did a good deal of reading about government over the years. Especially Plato, Aristotle, Locke Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Arendt. I noticed in practice that the USA had become an amazingly hostile place for the white male. That it is was hostile towards white people and hostile towards males. So when you put both together you get (hostility)^2. Add to that hostility towards working people and hostility towards private property and it seemed to me that the USA had changed from the amazingly wholesome moral decent society that I had once knew to become a mocker of its former self. So when Trump comes along to bring back the older order I am impressed.

I know this is not an argument. But it would take some thinking on my part to form a decent argument for Trump.  Maybe I should do some thinking in that direction. As background let me say I am somewhat familiar with communist systems and in fact many other systems that people live under and I have not seen anything that compares even remotely to the Constitution of the USA.

The problem of Halacha [Jewish Law].

I want a Yeshiva Bachur that knows how to learn.

 Halacha does not cover everything or even the most important parts of Torah. There is for example the חובות לבבות Duties of the Heart whose whole premise is that obligations of the heart are also obligations.
The Guide for the Perplexed and all the books of the Rishonim that deal with world view issues  consider world view issue to be in the category of obligation, moral obligation.

There is also the nightmarish world of people that think they are keeping halacha, but are animals. Clearly Halacha is not covering as much as it should. Obligations of the Torah go way beyond Halacah, and in fact the balance of weight is on the side of things not considered in the realm of halacha. Midot. Character.

These are just a few points I wrote down quickly in order not to forget some of the basic issues. But each point should be examined and expanded. Also I forgot to mention  that people have in daily practice only a few guiding principles [a mental model]. So when the emphasis is on halacah, the tendency will be to forget the things that the Torah requires that are way more important than halacah.

Also I do not want to forget the Reshash {Shalom Sharabi} and the Chafetz Chaim.

Where to start? First the Chafetz Chaim. In the book Shemirat Halashon ([שמירת הלשון] which is the sister book of the Chafetz Chaim--the Musar book meant to encourage people not to slander) the Chafetz Chaim says the verse והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו (to walk in His ways and to keep his mitzvot) should be understood as meaning order of precedence. [That is to walk in His ways comes before keeping mitzvot.] The meaning  of walking in his ways is  "What is he? Compassionate. So you should be compassionate. What is he? Merciful. So you should be merciful." That is, the whole range of good character.

The Reshash {Shalon Sharabi} brings from the Zohar in the Nahar Shalom that the mitvot are the clothing of one's soul. The Torah one learns is the food and drink of the soul. Then he asks, "So what is the soul?" He answers it is one character (Midot). And he says there that a lack in Torah and miztvot can always be corrected. But a lack in ones character can never be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The problem of הלכה. I wanted to deal with this issue based on a few things.

One is the obvious problem that הלכה does not cover everything. There is for example the חובות לבבות  whose whole premise is that obligations of the heart are also obligations.
The מורה נבוכים and the books of  סעדיה גאון, הרמב''ם וראשונים that deal with השקפה obviously consider world view issues to be in the category of obligation, moral obligation.

There is also the nightmarish world of people that think they are keeping הלכה, but are animals. Clearly הלכה is not covering as much as it should. Obligations of the תורה go way beyond הלכה, and in fact the balance of weight is on the side of things not considered in the realm of הלכה היינו מידות.

These are just a few points I wrote down quickly in order not to forget some of the basic issues. But each point should be examined and expanded. Also I forgot to mention שטרנמן  brings the idea that people have in daily practice only a few guiding principles. So when the emphasis is on הלכה, the tendency will be to forget the things that the תורה requires that are way more important than הלכה.

Also I do not want to forget the רש''ש רב שלום שרעבי and the חפץ חיים

Where to start? First the חפץ חיים. In the book שמירת הלשון which is the sister book of the חפץ חיים the חפץ חיים says the verse והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו  should be understood as meaning order of precedence. That is to walk in His ways comes before keeping מצוות. The meaning  of walking in his ways is  "What is he? רחום. So you should be רחום. What is he? חנון. So you should be חנון. That is, the whole range of good מידות.

The רש''ש רב שלום שרעבי brings from the זוהר in the נהר שלום that the מצוות are the clothing of one's soul. The Torah one learns is the food and drink of the soul. Then he asks, "So what is the soul?" He answers it is one's מידות. And he says there that a lack in תורה and מצוות can always be corrected. But a lack in ones מידות can never be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________________________

הבעיה של הלכה. בעיה זו מבוססת על כמה דברים. האחד הוא הבעיה הברורה כי הלכה אינה מכסה את הכל. יש למשל את חובות הלבבות אשר ההנחה כולה היא כי חובות של הלב הם גם חובות. המורה הנבוכים  והספרים של סעדיה גאון, הרמב''ם והראשונים   שוקלים השקפת עולם להיות בקטגוריה של חובה, חובה מוסרית. יש גם העולם המסויט של אנשים שחושבים שהם שומרים הלכה, אבל הם חיות. ברור שהלכה אינה מכסה ככל שצריך. חובותיהם של התורה הולכות הרבה מעבר להלכה, ולמעשה יתרת המשקל היא בצד של דברים שלא נחשבו בתחום הלכה היינו מידות. אלו הן רק כמה נקודות רשמתי במהירות כדי שלא לשכוח חלק מסוגיות היסוד. אבל כל נקודה יש לבחון ולהרחיב. כמו כן שכחתי להזכיר שטרנמן שמביא את הרעיון שיש אנשים בפרקטיקה יומיומית רק כמה עקרונות מנחים. לכן, כאשר הדגש הוא על הלכה, הנטייה תהיה לשכוח את הדברים  שתורה דורשת כי הם הרבה יותר חשובים מאשר הלכה. כמו כן אני לא רוצה לשכוח את הרש''ש (רב שלום שהרעבי) ואת החפץ חיים. איפה להתחיל? תחילה החפץ חיים. בספר  שמירת הלשון  (שהוא הספר האחות של חפץ חיים) חפץ חיים אומר הפסוק והלכת בדרכיו ולשמור מצוותיו צריך להיות מובן שיש סדר עדיפות. כלומר ללכת בדרכיו מגיעה לפני שמירת מצוות. המשמעות של הליכה בדרכיו היא "מה הוא? רחום. אז אתה צריך להיות רחום. מה הוא? חנון. אז אתה צריך להיות חנון. כלומר, המגוון השלם של  מידות טובות. הרש''ש (רב שלום שרעבי) מביא מן הזוהר  בתוך הנהר שלום  כי מצוות הן הבגדים של נשמת האדם. התורה שלומד הוא האוכל והשתייה של הנשמה. ואז הוא שואל, "אז מה היא הנשמה?" הוא עונה שזאת  המידות . והוא אומר שם כי חוסר בתורה ואת מצוות יכול תמיד להיות מתוקן. אבל חוסר במידות לא ניתן לתקן

 There is a definite set of books that is the actual Oral Law. The two Talmuds, Sifra, Sifrei, Tosephta, and the Midrash. That is the actual books handed down to us by the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud. There is not one straightforward Halacha book without arguments among them. Not one. What the Rif and Rambam did was to try to derive the halacha from the Oral Law.

And the Rambam wrote in his letters "כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. Just like you can not add or subtract to the written Law, so you can't add or subtract from the Oral Law.

But regardless of that, the Sages definitely had an idea of a final pesak halacha. But why there was no book written that contained it is beyond me.

So we have first order Oral Law. The actual books given to us by Chazal [the sages]. Then there is second order Oral Law--the books of the Rishonim that derive halacha and Musar and world view issues from the first order Oral Law.

In a practical vein what this means is to learn the Oral Law one ought to learn the actual Oral Law. Derivatives of it are good, but not the same thing as the thing in itself.

Talmud Sanhedrin 61b. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The Gemara asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of quadrant II is forbidden? [That is idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.] As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for quadrant II then quadrant II would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of quadrant II, Then all quadrant II would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the Gemara asks if we would learn from bowing then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for quadrant II then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the teaching that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious. This might not seem like a big deal but to me making all three עבודת פנים to be only לאוים seems curious.


Appendix: The actual teaching goes like this: We use "How do they serve" {Deuteronomy 16}to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use "And so not sacrifice to them" to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to God. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. Do not bow comes for itself. Rashi says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our Gemara does not agree with Rashi because our Gemara treats bowing as a כרת.

___________________________________________________________________

 The actual teaching goes like this. We use איכה יעבדו  to tell us service to an idol according to its way is forbidden. We use זובח לאלהים יחרם  to forbid the three kinds of service done in the Temple to an idol. That is sacrifice, pouring  wine, offering incense. לא תשתחווה comes for itself. רש''י says it is just a לאו. I was thinking that perhaps our גמרא does not agree with רש''י because our גמרא considers bowing as a כרת



______________________________________________________________________________

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. I want to mention something that seems curious to me. The גמרא asks why don't we learn from bowing that all of the second quadrant  is forbidden?  Idolatry not according to its usual way but in a way of honor.  As things are we use bowing for ללאו אצאת. So if we would use it for the second quadrant  then the second quadrant  would only be forbidden by a לאות not by כרת. Well clearly the answer to this question is obvious. The only reason we say השתחוויה  is ללאו יצאת is because there was nothing else to do with it. So if we would use it for all of the second quadrant, then all the second quadrant  would be כרת. So why mention this? Because now the more powerful question comes up. When the גמרא asks if we would learn from לא תשתחווה then what would we use איכה יעבדו for? Why do we not ask if we would use לא תשתחחוה for  the second quadrant  then what would זביחה come to tell us? And the answer would have to be just like in the Braita that זביחה would come for ללאו יצאת. That would end up meaning all three עבודות פנים would only be a לאו and not כרת. And that is curious.

סנהדרין ס''א ע''ב ס''ב ע''א. הגמרא שואלת למה אנחנו לא לומדים שכל רביע השני אסור מהשתחוויה? (עבודה זרה לא על פי דרכה הרגילה אבל בדרך של כבוד). כפי הדברים הם משתמשים עם השתחוויה עבור "ללאו אצאת." אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור רביע השני אז רביע השני יהיה אסור רק  על ידי לאו ולא כרת. אבל ברורה התשובה לשאלה זו. הסיבה היחידה שאנחנו אומרים ההשתחוויה  ללאו יצאת היא כי לא היה משהו אחר לעשות עם זו. אז אם היינו משתמשים בו עבור כל רביע השני, אז כל רביע השני יהיה כרת. אז למה להזכיר את זה? כי עכשיו השאלה חזקה יותר עולה. כאשר הגמרא שואלת אם היינו לומדים עם לא תשתחווה אז מה היה "איכה יעבדו" אומר? למה אנחנו לא שואלים: אם היינו משתמשים עם "לא תשתחחוה" עבור ברביע השני, אז מה היה זביחה בא לספר לנו? והתשובה תצטרך להיות בדיוק כמו הזביחה: יצאת ללאו. זה היה בסופו של דבר כלומר כל שלוש עבודות פנים היו רק להיות לאוים ולא כרת.