Sadly enough i did not merit to learn Torah.  though I did have a few great years in two very wonderful Litvak yeshivot, still i did not appreciate that enough. Still the amazing thing is that even after I gave up learning for years, somehow God ha mercy on my soul and sent to me a great learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. Sure he had learned in Litvak yeshivot in Israel, but also he had it in his blood. it came naturally to him what it means "knowing how to learn."[and I sort of began to get the idea after learning with him for a few years. in fact you can see some of the fruit of our discussions in two little books I put together after our learning sessions.[chidushei hashas] chidushei bava metzia]]but I still have not got the idea very well. ut it does help me a lot when I get a chance to look at Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the Raavad and Rambam in Rambam forbidden relations 3:8 I brought the idea that the Raavad derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the Rambam would derive his law from the gemara in Ketuboth 45a נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned.

Rav Shach says that in the view of the Raavad the important thing is that the Chupa was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the Rambam the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the Rambam put more weight onto the Gemara in Ketuboth while the Raavad put more weight onto the Mishna.______________________________________________________________

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the ראב''ד and  רמב''ם in  רמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה חI brought the idea that the ראב''ד derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the רמב'''ם would derive his law from the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned. רב שך says that in the view of the ראב''ד the important thing is that the חופה was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the רמב''ם the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the  רמב''ם put more weight onto the גמרא in כתובות while the ראב''ד put more weight onto the משנה.___________________

בהתייחס למה שכתבתי על ההבדל בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם ברמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה ח' הבאתי את הרעיון שהראב''ד שואב את גישתו מכיוון המשנה "נכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק", ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עדיין לא קיימה יחסי מין עם בעלה וביצעה ניאוף והיא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. והרמב''ם היה גוזר דינו מהגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א "נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק" ושם נראה שזב רומז שאם עשתה אז יחסי מין עם בעלה לאחר הניאוף ש היא נסקלת. רב שך אומר שלדעת הראב''ד הדבר החשוב הוא שהחופה הייתה בטעות. היא רימתה אותו לחשוב שהיא בתולה. לרמב''ם העיקר יחסי מין עם בעלה היו בטעות והיא רימתה אותו באותו שלב. זה יסביר מדוע הרמב''ם שם יותר משקל על הגמרא בכתובות ואילו הראב''ד שם יותר משקל על המשנה

 the most obvious thing about the Litvak Yeshiva [based on the Gra] is the aspect of learning in depth. (Learning "Beiyun") . This is not the same as in something like math where the basic concept is extended. In the Litvak yeshiva the way one learns is by going deeper.

I admit I did not get this for years. i did not see the difference between going deeper and going broader. so after I had finished Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv i went to the Mir and the first half year there i learned Nedarim. but then they started Ketuboth and I said to myself ''I already did ketuboth.'' and did shabat instead. but I did not realize that even though  had in fact finished Ketuboth with Tosphot and Maharsha and even a lot of Rif Rosh and Tur, that is not at all "learning in depth." That is learning a lot but not in depth.

 I can see the importance of אמונת חכמים faith in the wise. even though the verse that is used most often for this is ככל אשר יורוך''you must listen to all they command you'', still it is often taken for granted that this refers to the  stupid religious teachers of this generation. As opposed to this the verse refers to when a doubt in law comes up then one goes to the Sanhedrin which is formed of people with genuine semicha /ordination. but authentic ordination ceased during the middle of the Talmudic period.

 I have mentioned the path of learning of Rav Nahman on occasion to people and the reaction as you can imagine is always the same,-- ''that learning without understanding is worthless.'' And yet I have noticed that these same people, then drop the subject completely because it is too hard, and end up knowing nothing.

Just to be clear the idea is to say the words and go on without worrying if one understands or not.

See the Conversations of Rav Nachman 76. I mean how terrible would it have been if they had picked up a gemara and gone through one whole tractate with Rashi, Tosphot and the Maharsha--whether they understood every single word or not? If they had, they certainly would now know a lot more than what they actually did do--that is learn nothing. And after doing one tractate in that way, they certainly would have had the desire to continue and do another tractate,..and then another,..  and another until they would have finished the whole shas [Talmud] with Rashi and Tosphot and then again and again many times. And then they would learn the Jerusalem Talmud in the same way.

And the same goes for math and physics. I also said to people that this method also applies to these subjects and the reaction was again the same. ''If you do not understand then it is worthless.'' and so they drop these and also end up knowing nothing. But I guarantee to you that if they had picked up a few books on calculus and algebraic topology and quantum field theory, they would surely know a lot more today that what they do know which is zero. 

for general advice i have found learning the section in the LeM of rav nachman to be helpful. for yesterday i was at a breslov place nearby and learned LeM II chapter 3 about healing and in fact after that came tome some clarity about what i need to do for a certain kind of problem i have, 

Rambam Raavad Laws of Forbidden Relations 3 halacha 8.

 On the way to and from the sea it occurred to me to defend what I wrote in my blog blog about the way the Raavad must understand to the Gemara in Ketuboth 45a. I also thinking of mentioning that the way i understand the Raavad seems at first glance  to disagree with Rav Shach. At any rate, for now let me share the Gemara, and then show how the Raavad understands it. דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלאועל כן אם סרחהואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית הסקילה [Rava said really when the category changes so does the type of penalty.] actually I think this Gemara is clear. the whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the chupa and not had sex with her husband yet and when she has had sex with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע  'ןאי with stoning is different that if she has not had sex with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the Raavad there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning because of whole point of the argument of Rava is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית___________________________________________

To defend what I wrote about the way the ראב''ד understands the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א. Here is the Gemara: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. The whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the חופה and not had יחסים with her husband yet and when she has had יחסים with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע   with stoning is different that if she has not had יחסים with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the ראב''ד there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning, because of whole point of the argument of רבא is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה___________________________________________

להגן על מה שכתבתי על האופן שבו הראב''ד מבין את הגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א. הנה הגמרא: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה. ומשבגרה הוציאה שם עליה רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. כל הרעיון של הצירוף וההשוואה של מתי היא נכנסה לחופה ועדיין לא היו לה יחסים עם בעלה ומתי היו לה יחסים עם בעלה זה רק לומר בפשטות שהמקרה של מוציא שם רע עם סקילה שונה מכך אם היא עדיין לא עשתה יחסים עם בעלה ולכן היא נחנקת. לראב''ד אין שום משמעות לגבי דין חדש של מקרה סקילה, כי כל ​​הטענה של רבא היא להגיע לנקודה האחרונה לגבי הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה