I am not doing much in depth learning nowadays, but just occurred to me at the beach to ask an obvious question. With a gift we say that if the external circumstances show it was given with a mistaken assumption, then the gift is invalid--even though it was signed and sealed in a legitimate court of law according to halacha. To Tosphot [Ketuboth 37] this applies also to sales. But a forced sale is valid. You might answer that in a forced sale, there is no mistake about the circumstances. But even in the first case, it seems that the mistake in circumstance also ''forced'' the sale.

What I mean here you can see in a few examples. Let's say a person has heard that his son died in a faraway country, and then signs away all his property. Then we discover that his son is alive. We say that gift is invalid. 

But if someone ties up a person, and forces him to sign a document of a sale, that sale is valid- since we say because of the circumstances, he really did intend for the sale to be complete and valid. 

     Even though a lot of the woke and gender insanity depends on the Frankfurt School, that does not mean that Kant and Hegel had nothing to say of importance. Rather it is indicative of where philosophy  went wrong after them. And there were a lot of false leads and trails that veered off into lunacy. But it is hard to get to some sort of '''' birur'' [separating the wheat from the chaff].   High I.Q. does not seem to help much, since the philosophy professors in the USA universities are very smart.  [The highest I.Q.s in universities are the physics and math students and teachers, while the lowest are the teachers in the psychology departments.] 

 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.