One is the sunset time in which it looks to me that Rabbainu Tam was correct.

There are areas in which even the straightest of the straight--the best of the best in the Torah world--that is the Litvaks-seem to fall short. Though it is hard to imagine a most devoted system to keeping the Torah than the Litvak  (Lithuanian) Yeshiva World still there are areas in which questions can be raised.
One is the sunset time in which it looks to me that Rabbainu Tam was correct. Another area is the refusal to serve in the IDF {Israel Defense Force}. To me it is hard to see this refusal in positive light.

Other areas are more iffy. For example the accepting of money in order to be able to sit and learn Torah. This is perhaps the easiest thing to justify based on Rav Joseph Karo in the Kesef Mishna.

On the other hand it is hard to find a group that is more devoted to keeping the Torah just as it says with no frills--no additions nor subtractions than the Litvaks. [Though the Litvak world is far from perfect, they seem to have avoided a lot of the keipot and Dark Side that seems to have infiltrated the rest of the Jewish Religious world]

The opinion of Rabbainu Tam is held by almost all rishonim. i.e that the night starts 72 minutes after sunset. I wrote a little about this in the booklet on Bava Metzia.

) בענין שקיעה של רבינו תם. רוב ראשונים פוסקים כמו ר''ת. קשה להבין את הגר''א.  אם הגר''א היה צודק, היה בהכרח לראות  כוכב ממוצע אחד בשקיעה הראשונה, ואחר כך עוד אחד בתוך כמה דקות. 

  זה כדי ששקיעה תיחשב להיות בין השמשות. וזה רק אחרי שכבר קודם השקיעה, היינו צריכים לראות שלשה כוכבים גדולים. ואי אפשר לדעת את הממוצע של קבוצה מסוימת אלא אם כן יודעים את כל הדברים שיש בקבוצה, ואי אפשר לדעת מה זה כוכב ממוצע אלא אם כן קודם זה רואים את כל הכוכבים (שאפשר לראות אותם בלי משקפת), ואז אפשר לדעת מה זה ממוצע. ואז צריכים לבחור כמה כוכבים ממוצעים, ולראות מתי הם יוצאים בליל המחרת. אני עשיתי את זה, ולפי מה שראיתי, לא מתחילים לצאת כוכבים ממוצעים עד בערך ארבעים וחמש דקות אחר השקיעה בארץ ישראל.

תוספות רי''ד בשבת מפרש רבינו תם גם לשיטת חכמי יוון  (שחכמי ישראל הסכימו אתם בגמרא בפסחים)- והם סוברים שאין מסדרון (פרוזדור) שהשמש נכנס בו בשקיעה.  רב נטרונאי גאון מחזיק בשיטת הגר''א. אבל רב סעדיה גאון מחזיק בשיטת רבינו תם (מצוטט באבן עזרא שמות י''ב פסוק ד'). אני חושב ההלכה כמו רבינו תם. אבל יש אפשרות לתרץ את שיטת הגר''א בקושי.

הגם שאני חושב הלכה כר''ת עדיין אני רוצה לתת תירוץ אפשרי לגר''א: החלל מתרחב. ולכן לפני אלפיים שנה הכוכבים היו קרובים יותר  לארץ.ולכן היתה אפשרות לראות שלשה כוכבים ממוצעים קודם הזמן שהם נראים היום. היום שלשה כוכבים נראים אחרי ארבעים וחמש דקות אחרי השקיעה. וזה עוזר לנו להבין את הגר''א שמחזיק בשיטה שהלילה מתחיל אחרי שלש עשרה וחצי דקות. אנחנו מוצאים בגמרא פסחים שיש מהלך ארבע מילים מן השקיעה עד הלילה, אבל הגר''א אומר שזה מדבר על הזמן שכל הכוכבים יוצאים, ולא על התחלת הלילה על פי הלכה. ויש סיוע לזה בגלל שהגמרא הפסחים אינה מדברת על התחלת הלילה לפי הדין. והגמרא נתנה שיעור שלשה כוכבים ממוצעם רק לסימן, לא מה שקובע את  הלילה. נוסף.הייתי בישראל כמה שנים וראיתי משהו שאישר את הגישה של ר''ת בדבר הזמן שמתחיל הלילה. כלומר, עבור 59 הדקות הראשונות לאחר השקיעה, אין שינויים דרמטיים בשמים. השמים הופכים כהים. ואז ב59 דקות קורה משהו דרמטי. סוג של צורות כיפה נעשה מעל האזור שבו שקעה החמה. ואז כי הכיפה עצמה מתחילה לשקוע עד בדיוק 72 דקות הוא שוקע מתחת לאופק, והשמים כהים לגמרי. אתה יכול לראות איך זה מתאים לגמרא בשבת. יש גם משהו על מה שאתה קורא ממוצע. למילה "ממוצע" אין שום משמעות מלבד לעומת משהו אחר. לכן מספר 5 הוא ממוצע בין 0 ו10, אבל לא ממוצע לעומת 100 ו1,000,000. אז כדי להיות מסוגל לקבוע או למדוד מהו כוכב ממוצע אתה צריך לראות כל הכוכבים באמצע הלילה. ברגע שאתה רואה את כל הכוכבים שניתן לראות בעין בלתי מזוינת, אז אתה בוחר שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. אז אתה לומד לזהות אותם על ידי לימוד יסודי של מפת השמים. אחד צריך ללמוד לזהות את הכוכבים ואת המקום של כל כוכב בקונסטלציה. ואז אחרי שאתה יודע מה הוא כוכב ממוצע, אתה יוצא לראות באיזה לילה כאשר הוא הופך להיות גלוי. שלושה גלויים ב72 דקות. עם זאת, הכוכבים שנראים חצי שעה אחרי השקיעה, כאשר אתה משווה אותם עם כוכבים אחרים באמצע הלילה הם לא כוכבים ממוצעים. הם ענקים לעומת כל האחרים. הם מה שהגמרא קוראה כוכבים גדולים. כוכבים גדולים לא אומרים לך כאשר הלילה מתחיל. רק שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. במונחים של כוכבים, ראיתי גם משהו שם גם באזורים מדבריים בישראל. אין כוכבים נראים בשקיעה. אף אחד. אז אם בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה, איפה הם שני כוכבים ממוצעים? על פי הגמרא, בין השמשות מתחיל כאשר כוכב ממוצע אחד נראה, לא כוכבים גדולים אשר ניתן לראות לפני כן. אז זה מעניין כי בשקיעה, אין כוכבים גדולים, ולא כוכבים ממוצעים גלויים. זה סותר את הרעיון שבין השמשות מתחיל באותה עת.

The best answer that I have to this question is that Torah and Talmud are to bring to objective morality. That is, it is a consequence based system.

However, I do admit there are legitimate questions on the Talmud. One is the most clear to most people. The same question that you have on any system--that it does not seem to bring people to a higher moral level and sometimes seems even to work in reverse gear.

Now even though you can ask this on any system, it seems worse when the system claims to be perfect.


The best answer that I have to this question is that Torah and Talmud are to bring to objective morality. That is, it is a consequence based system. This you can see in the Rishonim medieval authorities that hold that the commandments of the Torah have reasons and even go about listing the reasons. So they are not goals in themselves but rather meant to bring about some purpose--moral laws that are recognizable by reason. [See Michael Huemer in his essay on why he does not hold in all things by Ayn Rand where he explains this point]
So when there arises a situation in which they seem to work in reverse they do not apply.
That is the opinion of R. Shimon Ben Yochai in page 119 in Bava Metzia. R Yehuda that disagrees with him does hold by the same underlying premise that the commandments have for their purpose to bring about objective morality. But R Yehuda says that when there is a conflict you still go by what the actual verse says--not its reason. [He does not say however what his reason is.] Rav Shach says that the Rambam does not hold by either by rather by a thrid opinion that combines the two.]

an idea of how far people will go to besmirch the name of the Talmud

One of the questions that I heard on the Talmud is that someone heard that there is some kind of permission to do Sodomy on a child less than 3 years old. There is no such statement but it does give you an idea of how far people will go to besmirch the name of the Talmud.
Sodomy at any age is the death penalty.

And not just the death penalty but the most sevre type of stoning. Even murder do not get that. 

Tosphot. To review the same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

My whole blog post about  review yesterday I am sure must have seemed incomplete or just an introduction. The reason is that I was trying to get to what I think is  a major point about Tosphot.
It is not necessarily for everyone because this method might be only because of my own particular circumstances in which I am not learning Torah all day. In fact, in the short amount of time I have for any learning at all, I try to divide between math and physics, and then if I can manage to find a Gemara to learn that also.[Or any of the group Rav Chaim of Brisk, Rav Shimon Skopf , Rav Shach,  among the great Litvish sages/gedolim]  But the way I have discovered about learning gemara and Tosphot seems very important to me. It is to review that same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

In fact review I see as very important. That is at some point to stop in your learning in order and then to go back page by page. 

Learning fast and without much in depth thought is called bekiut [learning fast.] Going slow with lots of review is call Yiun and both are emphasized in Litvak yeshivot. The morning is for the in depth type and afternoon for fast learning.

Questions on the Talmud. Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.

Most of those subjects are in " "Nashim" that is the tractates of Ketuboth and Yevamot. And those tractates I learned a long time ago and forgot most of. 

The best I can say is that  what ever it is in the Talmud that is disturbing--it is usually the best thing to open up the Gemara itself and see inside exactly what is being said in the context of the subject. In fact, when I myself had questions of that sort with David Bronson, his usual reaction was to suggest opening up that sugia [subject] and to learn it in depth to find out what is actually being said.

Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.


To give one example: the value of "pi". This seemed to me to be  a big question until David Bronson and I opened up the actual Gemara and saw that the Talmud states openly that they are just making an approximation.

For another example, I noticed that the time scale of the Torah in Genesis is kind of short. That is to say that you can trace from Adam until the destruction of the first Temple, and you only get a few thousand years. While we can see that the universe is expanding and starting from a point that stated around 13.5 billion years ago. But even before I saw that question I noticed that the Ari understands the Torah in a completely different way. It is not that he says he is explaining the secrets of Torah, rather he says he is giving the simple explanation while the secrets he himself hides in hints that need to be deciphered.

Sometimes norms of society to me do not seem so moral anyway. But other times they do.

One place on the internet I found helpful to answer lots of questions is the Kant Fries School of Kelley Ross. Other places are Michael Huemer's ideas about how reason perceives universals including moral values. And that does seem to be similar to the general approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. and in fact all the other rishonim that I can think of.

-there is a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Review every chapter of Gemara (Talmud) ten times was a theme in Far Rockaway -Shar Yashuv yeshiva. But somehow this idea got over to Brooklyn to the Mir in NY. There was I recall a store owner around the corner of the Mir that was known to have reviewed the third chapter of tractate Shabat ten times. I think I never did that except for the fifth chapter of Ketuboth I vaguely recall that I did a few times but if it ever got to ten I do not know.
In any case I do remember that Moti Freifeld used to make a big deal about the importance of review.

But I had also the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous about the importance of covering a lot of ground. And that certainly was mentioned a lot in the Litvak yeshiva world-. The question always was "Did that guy finish Shas?" If not then who is he to have an opinion?

My own approach at that point was to do review on anything I was learning mainly twice and then to go on. I see now that that surely was not enough but at the time it seemed like  a good compromise. The only times I recall that I deviated from that was when I was learning the Pnei Yehoshua. There I needed to review each paragraph at least ten times before I would get what he was saying.

In the Gemara itself you do have this idea of review forty times. And in fact Rav Shick [of Breslov] did talk about learning things forty days in a row. He was talking about the book of Rav Nahman but I found this idea to be helpful for other things. For example--when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson, I always came to the learning session unprepared. But he always was well prepared. But when I needed to do learning on my own of Tosphot and I was not learning with him anymore--but I still wanted to get to some comparable depth I used to review each Tosphot or chapter in Rav Haim from Brisk or Rav Shach about forty days in a row.

So after that whole introduction I want just to say that as is well known in the Litvak world --there is  a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Some saints are thought to be more than average saints. For example in Rav Isaac Luria, we find different people that are thought to be souls that stem from Emanation. Examples would be the patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David.
[The entire Shar Hagilgulim is devoted to this theme.]


 However I only use the Emanation idea because it makes sense to me. But I do not want to put too much emphasis on it because of Kant and Leonard Nelson that there is a limit to reason. [So even if you go with Hegel that a kind of dialectical process helps to go beyond those limits--I still feel that in areas of faith, reason has limits.


Emanation has its roots in Plato and Plotinus and so in and of itself--it makes a lot of sense to me- That is it is not just because that Rabbainu the Ari said so. Rather Reason itself indicates that this is  a right track. And you certainly see this in Hegel also.--Though with Hegel it is more hidden how he gets the dialectical process. But to me it seems clear he is going with the Ari and Plotinus.

The Ari held the soul of Rav Haim Vital his disciple was from Emanation.

The thing about Emanation is that it is considered "Divine" [That is there is no dividing curtain between Emanation and the Source.--even though Emanation itself is a lot lower than Adam Kadmon]--while the lower worlds of Creation and Formation and the Physical Universe are not.