the emphasis of the Litvak world was to learn in depth along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk and Rav Shach.

 Rav Nahman has in one Torah lesson the idea that when one finds that he learns but does not understand the advice is to shout  the words. On occasion I have tried that myself and it works, but it seems to be advice for occasions that present the opportunity to do so. Because in general, I find it simpler to take the basic path of learning of Rav Nahman of just saying the words and going on more practical.

Also Rav Nahman did bring the idea of review both in the LeM and Sefer HaMidot. But clearly according to the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76, that is only a part time affair. Still I want to bring one way of review that I have tried and seems to work for me. As I progress through a book, I go one page forward and then keep my place and then review all the way back to the beginning. Then I go one more page forward and then from that new place also review back to the beginning. 

[But I should add that there were different ideas of how to learn in depth in Shar Yashuv in NY and the Mir in NY. But in any case, the emphasis of the Litvak world was to learn in depth along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk and Rav Shach. [That is a more global approach than the previous achronim later authorities [like the Pnei Yehoshua and Maharsha] that concentrate more on local issues.]

Slander [lashon hara]

Slander [lashon hara] is causing damage. That is the main issue. This fact can get obscured within all the details you find in the Hafez Haim. In lesser degrees of severity comes the points of the Hafez Haim that speaking even truth  that results in damage that would not happen if judged in court is lashon hara pliss all the other conditions. [There are 7 condition altogether to be able to say something negative about someone else. In issues of between man and his fellow man. In issues of between man and God the conditions are not the same but seem to be related.]

Rehilut is different. That is causing hatred between people. That is not the same thing as lashon hara.

In any case, the point of the Hafez Haim that lashon hara is dived into between man and fellow man and man and God does not come out of this principle-of causing damage. [Causing damage to one's reputation is also causing damage.]

[There however is a sort of balance in that to warn others of to stay away from evil people is a positive command. And the prohibition of lashon hara does not forbid that. Thus the letter of excommunication of the Gra is important to abide with since it in fact warns us of danger that we would not know otherwise. In fact it would be hard to know without the warning of the Gra and Rav Shach.]

When at the Mir there was a sort of emphasis on not speaking lashon hara [slander]. I noticed this in a few ways. One was that right after the morning prayers there were people that had a small session in learning two laws per day in the book about the laws of slander [Hafez Haim]. Also I noticed a general emphasis on this particular law in the daily conduct of most people pus the roshei yeshiva. 

There was another specific emphasis on laws about monetary matters.

And these two points were in addition to the general atmosphere of emphasis on learning Torah.

So looking back on that period I think it is clear why I and so many others look back on our time at the Mir as a golden age.

Correspondence of R Akiva Eiger letter 23.

 Rav Shach brings two arguments of Rav Akiva Eiger and and asks on both arguments. This is in the  Correspondence of R Akiva Eiger letter 23.

[The issue is also brought in the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo in the commentaries].

The case is this. Hamez [yeast or leavened bread]  belongs to a gentile that is in the domain of a Israeli, and the Israeli has accepted responsibility and an obligation to pay for it if it is lost or stolen. He can not keep it on Passover. But let's say he did not get rid of it and kept it on Passover. After Passover is it allowed or not to derive benefit from it?

The Yerushalmi [The Jerusalem Talmud] brings two opinions about this. One forbids and the other allows.

The Rambam states the law as the opinion that it is forbidden. Why? It is a law of the sages and any law of the sages we always go by the lenient opinion. Rav Akiva Eiger wants to answer this.

One answer if based on the Mishna:  One stole hamez and it was still in his possession on Passover. After Passover he wants to return it to the owner. He can say (הרי שלך לפניך) "What you own, you can now take."

One way to explain this is that it is not forbidden to derive benefit from the hamez. [The reason is on whom would the law of the sages apply to? Not the person that was the victim of the theft. But not the thief either since even if it would be forbidden he could still say "what you onw now you can take."]

So the law that hamez that Passover has passed over on is forbidden would not apply. This explanation of the Mishna would be like the opinion in the Yerushalmi that hamez of a gentile in the domain of a Israeli is permitted after Passover. But since we see that our Gemara [Pesachim 105] holds the explanation of the Mishna is that even though the hamez is forbidden in use so we do not go with the lenient opinion of the Yerushalmi.

One question I have on Rav Akiva Eigger. is the very idea in itself { even if it would be forbidden the thief could still say "what you onw now you can take."] This is sort of hard to see since the whole question in the first place is is it forbidden?  Presumably this opinion would hold that if teh hamez is forbidden in use then the thief could not say this. 

But that is not the question of Rav Shach. Rav Shach simply brings two Gemaras in Pesachim that show that the explanation of the Mishna is not in question. The hamez is forbidden.

 x96   x96 in midi

Only a court with authentic ordination can sanctify the new moon.

 Since the conjunction of sun and moon was on the 13th I think Passover comes out on the 27 of March. That is Friday night, the night of the 26. That would be like R. Elazar in Sanhedrin page 10 that the new moon does not depend on the court on earth. Rather if the court on earth sanctifies the  new moon at the right time then fine,-but if not, then the heavenly court does so anyway.

Everyone seems to think that the new moon depends on the lower court according to all opinions, but you certainly do not see that in Sanhedrin. Just the opposite. The later opinions of Rav Ashi and Rava go with the idea of R. Elazar. And even if the new moon would depend on the lower court, there has not been a lower court to sanctify it since the middle of the Talmudic period when the authentic semicha died out.

And the idea of Hillel II sanctifying the later new moons is a myth never mentioned anywhere in the Gemara.

Since semicha disappeared during the time of the amoraim [Talmudic sages] the dates were in doubt. Only a court with authentic ordination can sanctify the new moon. During the time of the geonim at some point they accepted the calendar of Meton. But there is no indication that Hillel II sanctified it. 

letters from the early geonim have the dates of their writing to not be in accord with the present calendar, but sometime around the time of saadia gaon you see the present day calendar being accepted. but at least we knw the present day calendar is not from the talmud. 

at least one major reason I went to the Mir in NY was the Musar aspect (learning ethics).

I wanted to mention that at least one major reason I went to the Mir in NY was the Musar aspect (learning ethics). Or at least that was one thing that attracted me to the place. Even though Shar Yashuv is also a very great yeshiva, still the lack of Musar left me feeling somewhat empty. Although I am looking at this from hindsight which can be faulty, still it is clear to me that this small drop of Musar made a world of difference for me. So I would like to suggest in fact the idea of having two Musar sessions per day just like at the Mir. 

Musar has three separate aspects. The books of the rishonim [mediaeval]. Books of the achronim which are also thought to be part of the Musar movement.  Then the books of the actual disciples of Rav Israel Salanter. 

[Obligations of the Hearts of Ibn Pakuda is the best of the books of the Rishonim. As for the later authors, the books of Rav Isaac Blazer are the best. The main one, Or Israel is known. The other was a collection of his writings and only printed once. I saw it in Netivot. But I should mention that the books of all the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter are great in terms of getting an idea of Musar is all about.]