My son Izhak held with the importance of Rav Nahman of Breslov but in the way that many do so in the Litvak yeshiva world--that is to accept many of his major principles but not to take it all--especially when it seems not to apply to some present situation.  And I would have to agree with this. After all you do not see real Torah learning except in the Litvak Yeshiva World. and there are clearly no real Torah scholars outside of the Litvak world. 

 You can see in some of the books on ethics from the middle ages the synthesis of faith with reason. But this was not universal. The dividing line seems to be the Geonim from Saadia Gaon down through the Obligations of the Hearts until the Rambam. On the other side [against secular studies] are Rav Hai Gaon Tosphot and the Ramban. 

 But even the side that held with the importance of learning physics and metaphysics there are some differences. Ibn Gavirol went with Plato.In fact his book on platonic philosophy was widely used as an introduction to Plato. And even the system of Ibn Pakuda [author of Obligations of the Hearts] was neo platonic. But Rambam clearly thought Aristotle was superior. [I don't mean that Plato and Aristotle are the end. Rather philosophy did make progress in Plotinus, Kant, Fries, Leonard Nelson.]

[There is a way for everyone to become an expert in Physics and Mathematics; that is mentioned in the gemara tractate Shabat pg 63--to say the words and go on. This is called ''bekiut'' in Litvak yeshivot, but it is not meant tor replace in depth learning, but as a supplement. Even so when Rav Nahman learned in this fast way, it was I think a major part of his learning. See Conversations of Rav Nachman 76 where it is brought that he said in the few minutes in the morning before the morning prayer, began he would go through four pages of the Shulchan Aruch with all the commentaries, i.e., Shach, Taz, Pri Chadash, Beer Hagola etc.

This relates to Bava Batra page 37 where the subject is selling three trees and Arachim page 14

Introduction-Rav Huna said one who sanctifies a field with it's trees redeems each one separately, and  the Gemara says that is going like the opinion that a person that sanctifies does so with a kind eye.  Rav Papa said a statement that the Gemara says means if one sanctifies trees which include the ground, then the redemption is on both together, and as far as one can tell that could be like the opinion that one who sanctifies does o with a selfish eye. The Rambam does bring the part of that statement that one who sanctifies a field brings the trees along with it, but leaves out the part that the redemption is together. 

[i might mention that to sanctify a field means to offer it to the Temple. Then the owner might redeem it by giving its worth to the temple plus a fourth or someone else might redeem it by giving its value to the temple.] 

According to Rav Shach in his explanation of the Rambam laws of Arachim chap 4 halacha 15 if one sanctifies three trees  [and thus along with them comes the ground that is between them and around them by the amount one would plow] when he redeems the field, the trees are redeemed along with the field.  But if instead he would sanctify the field with the trees, then when he redeems the field, the trees come along with it. But this approach of Rav Shach is based on a few missing words in the Rambam where he says, ''If one sanctifies three trees, the field comes along with them'', but he leaves out that each is redeemed separately. Only when the Rambam writes that ''If one sanctifies more or less than three trees in such a field, that the field and trees are redeemed separately.'' However in no place does the Rambam ever mention the idea or case in which one redeem the field and the trees come along with it. One could argue that since Rav Huna [in Arachim 14 side a] holds that one that sanctifies sanctifies with a good kind eye, then in all cases when one redeems a field with trees, they are always redeemed separately,  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------According to רב שך in his explanation of the רמב''ם laws of ערכים פרק ד' הלכה ט''ו  if one sanctifies three trees  [and thus along with them comes the ground that is between them and around them by the amount one would plow] when he redeems the field, the trees are redeemed along with the field.  But if instead he would sanctify the field with the trees [and thus the trees come along with the field], then when he redeems the field, the trees come along with it. But this approach of רב שך is based on a few missing words in the רמב''ם where he says, ''If one sanctifies three trees, the field comes along with them'', but he leaves out how each is redeemed. Only when the רמב''ם writes that ''If one sanctifies more or less than three trees in such a field, that the field and trees are redeemed separately.'' However in no place does the רמב''ם ever mention the idea or case in which one redeems the field and the trees come along with it. One could argue that since רב הונא [in ערכים י''ד ע''א] holds that one that sanctifies, sanctifies with a good kind eye, then in all cases when one redeems a field with trees, they are always redeemed separately,  

INTRODUCTION        רב הונא  said one who sanctifies a field with trees  must redeems each one separately.  The גמרא says that is going like the opinion that a person that sanctifies does so with a kind eye.  רב פפא said a statement that the גמרא says means if one sanctifies trees (which includes the ground), then the redemption is on both together. and that could be like the opinion that one who sanctifies does so with a selfish eye. The רמב''ם does bring the part of that statement that one who sanctifies a field, sanctifies the trees along with it, but leaves out the part that the redemption is on the field and the trees come along with it.. 

הקדמה. רב הונא אמר המקדש שדה עם עצים חייב לפדות כל אחד בנפרד. הגמרא אומרת שזה הולך כמו הדעה שמקדש עושה זאת בעין טובה. אמר רב פפא אמירה שהגמרא אומר משמע אם מקדשין עצים (שכולל את הקרקע), הרי הפדיון הוא על שניהם יחד. וזה יכול להיות כמו הדעה שמי שמקדש עושה זאת בעין רעה. הרמב''ם אמנם מביא את החלק של אותה אמירה שמי שמקדש שדה, מקדש עמו את העצים, אבל משאיר את החלק שהפדיון על השדה והעצים באים איתו

לפי רב שך בביאורו להלכות הרמב''ם של ערכים פרק ד' הלכה ט''ו אם מקדשים שלשה עצים [וכך יחד איתם באה הקרקע שנמצאת ביניהם וסביבם בכמות שהיה צריך מחרישה] כשהוא פודה את השדה, נגאלים העצים יחד עם השדה. אבל אם במקום זה היה מקדש את השדה עם העצים [וכך באים העצים יחד עם השדה], אז כשהוא פודה את השדה, באים איתו העצים. אבל גישה זו של רב שך מבוססת על כמה מילים חסרות ברמב''ם ששם הוא אומר ''אם מקדש שלשה עצים בא עמם השדה'', אבל הוא משאיר איך כל אחד נגאל. רק כשהרמב''ם כותב ש''אם מקדשים יותר או פחות משלושה עצים בשדה כזה, שהשדה והעצים נגאלים לחוד'' אולם בשום מקום הרמב''ם לא מזכיר את הרעיון או מקרה שבו פודה את השדה והעצים באים אתו. אפשר לטעון שמכיוון שרב הונא [בערכים י''ד ע''א] סובר שמקדש, מקדש בעין טובה, אז בכל המקרים כשפודים שדה עם עצים, תמיד נגאלים בנפרד.

----

 I would like to suggest the best way to learn Talmud is to go through half page per day with  Tosphot and Maharsha. [I mean this as the going fast session, not the in depth session.] If people are just starting out learning, the best way to do this half page is with the English Soncino edition [if possible to find it]. But after the first year, the best way is with one finger on the Gemara and the other on Rashi.

As for in depth learning, the best is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which goes in the depth of the subject matter. 

Rosh Hashana seems to be a bit ambiguous.

 Rosh Hashana seems to be a bit ambiguous. On one hand, there is the Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10b where the first opinion is the conjunction  [molad] is the day of Rosh Hashanah. But then, most of that Tosphot points out the gemara in tractate Rosh Hashana where you find the time the Sanhedrin would set it was when the new moon was visible which is almost always  a day later. And what makes this confusing is the fact that in Sanhedrin 10b you find that the time of Rosh Chodesh [new moon] depends on heaven. It says, ''If the earthly court sanctifies the new moon on time, then fine. But if not, the the heavenly court sanctifies it anyway''. 

The calendar was adopted from the ancient Greeks. It is the Meton calendar and has little validity except in so far as when Jews were dispersed, no one had a set court that would tell them when the new moon was. At least during the time of the gemara, there was some stability. But at some point there was a revolution in Iraq and the yeshivot were closed for a hundred years. So at some point, Saadia Geon decided to accept the Meton calendar which more or less corresponded to when the Sanhedrin would have decreed Rosh Hashanah. 

[The idea that Hillel the second set the calendar is a fiction. If that had been so, the gemara would have mentioned it.

My opinion is that it is best to go by the molad since there is no Sanhedrin nor any valid semicha. [I mean to say that at least if the was valid ordination, then any court of three judges with valid ordination could sanctify the new moon. But valid ordination disappeared in the beginning of the Talmudic period. [Some of the first Amoraim had ordination like R. Yochanan. But after that, it was lost. Ordination since then has been a fiction. ] [However, the ability to decide halacha was not lost. That ability continued until Ravina and Rav Ashi-as the Gemara says ''רבינא ורב אשי סוף הוראה.'' [''Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the ability to render a halachic judgment'']. Later, when the Geonim and Rishonim decide a halacha, they are trying to decide what the gemara holds.

Also I have to add here that I think the gemaras in Sanhedrin and in Rosh Hashana are in conflict. While in most cases Tosphot is right to reconcile gemaras that seem to be at odds, but this is one case that I do not think it possible. 

 The רמב''ם writes הלכות נדרים פרק י''ב הלכה י' that ''If a wife  says, 'My hands are holy to He who made them,' or took a נדר that her husband should not derive any benefit from the work of her hands, her husband is not forbidden in the work of her hands because that work is under obligation to him. ...but he must revoke her נדר because he might divorce her and then be forbidden  to remarry her.'' The ר''ן asks כתובות נ''ט that that should be only in the case she said ''Her hands will be holy to He who made them'' but not when she forbids the work of her hands because that work has not yet come into existence and so the נדר does not apply to them  at all. And the כסף משנה says that the רמב''ם  is going like רב אשי that holiness of body does apply even to things not yet in existence. רב שך uses that same answer for aש similar question. But this answer is contradicted by רמב''ם  הלכות מכירה כ''ב הלכה ט''ו והלכה ט''ז . There he writes ''If a man says ''what my animal gives birth to will be holy for the בית המקדש or will be forbidden to me or I will give it to charity,'' even though it does not become holy , still he has to fulfill what he said'' and when he said ''will be forbidden to me'' that is a נדר which is in the category of holiness of body. 

The place where רב שך uses that answer of the כסף משנה is in in רמב''ם הלכות מכירה כ''ב הלכה ט'  .  But that answer is going on רמב''ם הלכות מעשר שני ט' הלכה ז. ''MODEST  PEOPLE would leave money in the year of שמיטה and say 'anything taken from the fruits of the fourth year that holiness is חל on this money'. The question there is the fruits are not in the possession of the owner, but of him who picked them.  

see below where this question is answered by saying the cases where the vow is valid even on something not yet in existence is where he said ''like a sacrifice''. the fact of the matter is that sometimes the rambam leaves out a few details. i noticed in laws of ''zarat'' on houses where you can see yourself that he leaves out important details about the green green or red red. you can ask why he left things out but never the less that is a fact.  here in this place leaving out a detail that can be filled elsewhere does not seem like a important thing. but over there in zarat, i did not see any place else that could have filled in the details.

הרמב''ם כותב הלכות נדרים פרק י''ב הלכה י' ''אם אומרת אשה 'קדושות ידי למי שעשה אותן' או נדרה שבעלה לא יפיק תועלת ממלאכת ידיה, בעלה אינו אסור במלאכת ידיה כי עבודה זו חייבת לו. ...אבל הוא חייב לבטל את נדריה כי עלול להתגרש ממנה ואז להיאסר להתחתן איתה שנית .הר''ן שאל שזה רק כשאמרה שידיה תהינה קדושות למי שעשה אותן'' אבל לא כשהיא אוסרת את עבודת ידיה כי העבודה ההיא עדיין לא באה לעולם. ולכן הנדר אינו חל עליהם כלל. והכסף משנה אומר שהרמב''ם הולך כמו רב אשי שקדושת הגוף כן חלה גם על דברים שעדיין לא קיימים. רב שך משתמש באותה תשובה לשאלה דומה. אבל תשובה זו בסתירה לרמב''ם הלכות נדרים כ''ב הלכה ט''ו והלכה ט''ז . שם הוא כותב ''אם יאמר אדם 'מה שהבהמה שלי יולדת יהיה קדוש לבית המקדש או יאסור לי או אתן לצדקה' אף על פי שלא נעשה קדוש, בכל זאת יש לו. לקיים מה שאמר'' וכשאמר ''יאסור לי'' זה נדר שהוא בגדר קדושת הגוף.

המקום שבו רב שך משתמש בתשובה זו של הכסף משנה נמצא ברמב''ם הלכות מכירה כ''ב הלכה ט'. אבל התשובה הזאת שייכת לרמב''ם הלכות מעשר שני ט' הלכה ז'. ''אנשים צנועים היו משאירים כסף בשנת שמיטה ואומרים 'כל הנלקח מפירות השנה הרביעית שהקדושה חל על הכסף הזה'. השאלה שם היא שהפירות אינם ברשות הבעלים, אלא של מי שקטף אותם

 נדר בא מהחוק על קורבנות. מי שאומר 'הלחם הזה כמו קרבן לי' אסור לאכול אותו

כדי לענות על שאלה זו על הרמב"ם ועל תשובת הרב ש"ך צריך לעיין ברמב"ם הלכות מעילה ד' הלכה ט' שם הרמב"ם מחזיק חייב בהקרבת קרבן מעילה רק כשאמר, ''חפץ זה יאסור לי כמו קרבן''. אבל אם לא אמר "כמו קרבן", אינו חייב. לפיכך במקרים שלמעלה שבהם הרמב"ם אומר שהנדר או הכסף יכולים להיות '''חל'' אפילו על משהו שעדיין לא קיים שזה חייב להיות במקום שבו אמר ''כמו קרבן''.

 i am not  saying that you can see this idea in the gemara in that being liable a sacrifice for the vow would make it strong enough to settle on something not yet in existence  but it seems to be a possible answer

 The Rambam writes [Laws of Vows 12 law 10] that ''If a wife  says 'my hands are holy to he who made them' or took a vow that her husband should not derive any benefit from the work of her hands her husband is not forbidden in the work of her hands because that work is under obligation to him. ...but he must revoke her vow because he might divorce her and then be forbidden  to remarry her.'' The Ran asks [Ketuboth 59] that that should be only in the case she said ''her hands will be holy to he who made them'' but not when she forbids the work of her hands because that work has not yet come into existence and so the vow does not apply to them  at all. And the Kesef Mishna says that the Rambam is going like Rav Ashi that holiness of body does apply even to things not yet in existence. Rav Shach uses that same answer for a similar question. But this answer is contradicted by Rambam Laws of Buying 22 laws 15 and 16. There he writes ''If a man says ''what my animal gives birth to will be holy for the temple or will be forbidden to me or I will give it to charity,'' even though it does not become holy , still he has to fulfill what he said'' and when he said ''will be forbidden to me'' that is a vow which is in the category of holiness of body. 

The place where Rav Shach uses that answer of the Kesef Mishna is in in Rambam Laws of Sale 22 law 9.  But that answer is going on Rambam Laws of the Second Tithe 9 law 7. ''Modest people  would leave money in the year of shemita and say 'anything taken from the fruits of the fourth year that holiness is settled on this money'. The question there is the fruits are not in the possession of the owner, but of him who picked them.  

 I might mention that a vow comes from the law about sacrifices. One who says 'this bread is like a sacrifice to me' is forbidden to eat it.

To answer this question on the Rambam and the answer of Rav Shach one needs to look at Rambam Laws of Meila 4 halacha 9 where the Rambam holds one is obligated for a sacrifice of meila only when he said this object will be forbidden to me like a sacrifice. But if he did not say ''like a sacrifice'', he is not obligated. Thus in cases up above where the Rambam says the vow or money can be '''chal' even on something not yet in existence that must be where he or she said ''like a sacrifice.''