One way of learning I think helped me a lot was that every paragraph I would repeat twice and then go on forward.

 One way of learning I think helped me a lot was that every paragraph  I would repeat twice and then go on forward. To my mind this combined what I saw in the books of Rav Nahman about learning fast (that is to say the words in order and then to go on) and the way of learning in Litvak yeshivas which was to stress in depth learning with review. In this way of repeating each paragraph twice I felt I was making progress and also doing review. This seemed to help a lot when it came to learning Gemara and later I used this same method for Mathematics and Physics.

[The thing is that in Shar Yashuv there was an emphasis on in depth learning that almost seemed to negate the value of "bekius" fast learning. And in the book of Rav Nahman [Conversations of Rav Nahman 76] the emphasis is the exact opposite. So this sort of compromise was the only way I could make sense of this. And this method definitely helped  me.]

[That was for Gemara and Tosphot. But when it came to the Pnei Yehoshua I used to repeat very paragraph more than 10 times--or at least that much. That was based on Rav Freifel's emphasis on repeating every chapter of Gemara 10 times.]](Rav Freifeld was the rosh yeshiva of Shar Yashuv)

גמרא פסחים דף צ''ה

 

רב שך מסביר שהרמב''ם מחזיק כמו החכמים נגד ר' יהודה בכך שהוא מחזיק שאפשר להיפטר מחמץ  בכל אופן, לא רק על ידי שריפה. והוא מחזיק שמי שקונה חמץ בפסח מקבל מלקות. אז הוא חייב לקבוע שגמרא פסחים דף צ''ה לא מתנהל לפי הדרך בה החוק הוחלט כחכמים אלא לר' יהודה. שגמרא שם אומרת שהבעלות על חמץ בפסח היא איסור לאו הניתק לעשה שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית. זה אומר שהוא חייב לחשוב שלר' יהודה האיסור והפקודה החיובית מגיעים בו זמנית. אם הפקודה החיובית תבוא לפני הפקודה הנגדית, זה לא יכול להיות לאו הניתק לעשה. כך שהסיבה שמישהו יקבל מלקות על קניית חמץ תהיה משום שלפי החכמים, הפקודה החיובית להיפטר מהחמץ באה לפני האיסור להחזיק בה. רמב''ם זה שונה אם כן מרש''י או תוספות. לרש''י שגמרא בעמוד צ''ה יהיה כמו החכמים שהאיסור והפקודה החיובית מגיעים בו זמנית ורק לר' יהודה מצווה התשביתו (לבטל את החמץ באמצעות שריפה) מחויב לקרות לפני הזמן של האיסור. לתוספות שניהם מגיעים בו זמנית. מה אני תוהה לגבי זה: יכול להיות הבדל בין להחזיק חמץ לרכוש חמץ? אם היה הבדל כזה, אולי הרמב''ם יכול לומר שגמרא בדף צ''ה יכול להיות גם לחכמים. הדרך בה זה יכול לעבוד תהיה שמקרה  של איסור שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית (לאו הניתק לעשה) הוא כאשר שניהם פעולות. לפיכך, הגמרא בדף צ''ה פירושה שהמצב הפסיבי של בעלות על חמץ הוא איסור לאו הניתק לעשה שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית מכיוון שביטול  של חמץ אינו מעשה. זה יכול להיות על ידי הפיכתו לרכוש נטוש "הפקר". אך לא ניתן לבטל פעולה חיובית של קניית חמץ על ידי מצב פסיבי של אמירתו שהיא הפקר בלבד. רב חיים מבריסק מסביר את הרמב''ם הזה אחרת. לדבריו, חובתו של חמץ היא גם פקודה שלילית וגם חיובית, אבל אז זה לא יהיה כמו הגמרא בדף צ''ה ולכן הוא גם יצטרך לומר כי הגמרא הולכת כמו ר' יהודה ולגמרא שהבעלות על חמץ תהיה רק איסור

Here is a link to the small booklet I wrote on different areas in Shas where I included this idea 

חידושי הש''ס

Also I should mention that I should run this idea by David Bronson  to get some feedback or criticism.  But since that does not seem possible right now, I will have to think about this a little more. I am mean, after all what is the category of "spread to the winds" of the sages? Probably not the same as bitul as the Ran [in the beginning of Pesachim goes into]. Still it seems worthwhile at least writing this idea down for future reference and to see if this is perhaps what the Rambam was getting at. [That is besides the obvious question that there ought to be some proof of this hiluk. ]

Gemara on page 95 [Pesachim] Rambam [laws of hametz 3:11]

Rav Shach explains that the Rambam [laws of hametz 3:11] holds like the sages against R. Yehuda [tractate Pesachim 23] in that he holds getting rid of hametz [leavened bread] is by any means, not just by burning.  And he holds that one who buys hametz on Passover gets lashes. So he must hold that the Gemara on page 95 [Pesachim]is not going according to the way the law was decided as the sages but rather to R Yehuda. That Gemara says owning hametz on Pesach is a לאו הניתק לעשה prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command.

 That must mean that he must be thinking that to R. Yehuda the prohibition and the positive command come simultaneously.[If the positive command would come before the negative command it could not be a לאו הניתק לעשה].

So the reason one would get lashes for buying hametz would be because to the sages, the positive command to get rid of hametz comes before the prohibition of owning it.

[This Rambam is thus different than Rashi or Tosphot. To Rashi that Gemara on pg 95 would be like the sages that the prohibition and positive command come simultaneously  and only to R. Yehuda does the command תשביתו [to make the hametz rest by means of burning happen before the time of the prohibition..

To Tosphot both come simultaneously.

What I am wondering about i this: could there be a difference between owning hametz and buying hametz? If there was such a difference, perhaps the Rambam could say that Gemara on page 95 could be to the sages also.

The way this could work would be  that a regular case of a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command is when both are actions. Thus the gemara on pg 95 would mean the passive state of owning hametz is a לאו הניתק לעשה prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command  because the "bitul" nullification of the hametz is not any act. It could be just by making it "hefker" abandoned property. But a positive act of buying hametz could not be nullified by a passive state of just saying that it is hefker. [But if I was in Uman, I would have to run this by my learning partner David Bronson to see if there are counter examples. ]

[Rav Haim of Brisk explains this Rambam differently. He says owing hametz is both a negative and positive command but then that would not be like the gemara on page 95 so he also would have to say that that gemara is going like R. Yehuda. and to that gemara owning hametz would only be a prohibition.]

______________________________________________________________________________

רב שך explains that the רמב''ם  holds like the חכמים against ר' יהודה  in that he holds getting rid of חמץ  is by any means, not just by burning.  And he holds that one who buys חמץ on פסח gets מלקות. So he must hold that the גמרא פסחים דף צ''ה is not going according to the way the law was decided as the sages but rather to ר' יהודה. That גמרא says owning חמץ on פסח is a לאו הניתק לעשה prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command. That must mean that he must be thinking that to ר' יהודה the prohibition and the positive command come simultaneously. If the positive command would come before the ne  gative command it could not be a לאו הניתק לעשה. So the reason one would get מלקות for buying חמץ would be because to the חכמים, the positive command to get rid of חמץ comes before the prohibition of owning it. This רמב''ם is thus different than רש''י or תוספות. To  רש''י that גמרא on דף צ''ה would be like the sages that the prohibition and positive command come simultaneously  and only to ר' יהודה does the command תשביתו to make the חמץ rest by means of burning happen before the time of the prohibition. To תוספות both come simultaneously. What I am wondering about this: could there be a difference between owning חמץ and buying חמץ? If there was such a difference, perhaps the רמב''ם could say that גמרא on דף צ''ה could be to the חכמים also. The way this could work would be  that a regular case of a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command לאו הניתק לעשה is when both are actions. Thus the גמרא on דף צ''ה would mean the passive state of owning חמץ is a לאו הניתק לעשה prohibition that can be corrected by a positive command because the ביטול nullification of the חמץ is not an act. It could be just by making it "הפקר" abandoned property. But a positive act of buying חמץ could not be nullified by a passive state of just saying that it is הפקר.  רב חיים מבריסק explains this  רמב''ם differently. He says owing חמץ is both a negative and positive command but then that would not be like the גמרא בדף צ''ה so he also would have to say that that גמרא is going like ר' יהודה and to that גמרא owning חמץ would only be a prohibition.]

רב שך מסביר שהרמב''ם מחזיק כמו החכמים נגד ר' יהודה בכך שהוא מחזיק שאפשר להיפטר מחמץ  בכל אופן, לא רק על ידי שריפה. והוא מחזיק שמי שקונה חמץ בפסח מקבל מלקות. אז הוא חייב לקבוע שגמרא פסחים דף צ''ה לא מתנהל לפי הדרך בה החוק הוחלט כחכמים אלא לר' יהודה. שגמרא שם אומרת שהבעלות על חמץ בפסח היא איסור לאו הניתק לעשה שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית. זה אומר שהוא חייב לחשוב שלר' יהודה האיסור והפקודה החיובית מגיעים בו זמנית. אם הפקודה החיובית תבוא לפני הפקודה הנגדית, זה לא יכול להיות לאו הניתק לעשה. כך שהסיבה שמישהו יקבל מלקות על קניית חמץ תהיה משום שלפי החכמים, הפקודה החיובית להיפטר מהחמץ באה לפני האיסור להחזיק בה. רמב''ם זה שונה אם כן מרש''י או תוספות. לרש''י שגמרא בעמוד צ''ה יהיה כמו החכמים שהאיסור והפקודה החיובית מגיעים בו זמנית ורק לר 'יהודה מצווה התשביתו להניח את החמץ באמצעות שריפה מחויב לקרות לפני הזמן של האיסור. לתוספות שניהם מגיעים בו זמנית. מה אני תוהה לגבי זה: יכול להיות הבדל בין להחזיק חמץ לרכוש חמץ? אם היה הבדל כזה, אולי הרמב''ם יכול לומר שגמרא בדף צ''ה יכול להיות גם לחכמים. הדרך בה זה יכול לעבוד תהיה שמקרה  של איסור שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית לאו הניתק לעשה הוא כאשר שניהם פעולות. לפיכך, הגמרא בדף צ''ה פירושה שהמצב הפסיבי של בעלות על חמץ הוא איסור לאו הניתק לעשה שניתן לתקן באמצעות פקודה חיובית מכיוון שביטול  של חמץ אינו מעשה. זה יכול להיות על ידי הפיכתו לרכוש נטוש "הפקר". אך לא ניתן לבטל פעולה חיובית של קניית חמץ על ידי מצב פסיבי של אמירתו שהיא הפקר בלבד. רב חיים מבריסק מסביר את הרמב''ם הזה אחרת. לדבריו, חובתו של חמץ היא גם פקודה שלילית וגם חיובית, אבל אז זה לא יהיה כמו הגמרא בדף צ''ה ולכן הוא גם יצטרך לומר כי הגמרא הולכת כמו ר' יהודה ולגמרא שהבעלות על חמץ תהיה רק איסור

Here is a link to the small booklet I wrote on different areas in Shas where I included this idea 

חידושי הש''ס

I should add that I do not think I am worthy in any sense to write ideas in Torah. Rather what happened was I was in Uman and a fellow I had met in Israel showed up one day and we started learning Torah at his suggestion. Then I began to see he would casually say over amazing insights in the Gemara without even trying-- just obvious points to him. But I realized that these were points on the level of the greatest e.g. like Rav Shmuel Berenbaum the rosh yeshiva of the Mir who I had leaned under. So I started writing down  ideas that came up in our learning sessions.

Jesus is a sore topic

 The subject of Jesus is a sore topic. Especially when combined with the history of the church.  The opinions vary. On one hand, you have the Rambam who thought that Christianity is idolatry. And Rav Abulafia does not seem to disagree with that at all. But the opinion of Rav Avraham Abulafia is that Jesus was the messiah son of Joseph,  --even though his opinion about the church was highly negative.

[The issue of  Christianity however is approached differently in Tosphot in tractate Avoda Zara. By sitting and trying to learn that Tosphot with my learning partner, helped me see that Tosphot seems to have several different approaches.] My own opinion is that I go with Rav Abulafia.

Messiah son of Joseph is brought in the end of tractate Suka and in the Zohar and the Kol HaTor of the Gra and the Tikunim Hadashim of the Ramchal. What it means is simple. It refers to a preliminary stage before messiah son of David. [Rav Nahman also refers to this . Just today I was in the Na Nach place and opened up the LeM of Rav Nahman and saw that sometimes the same tzadik can contain both aspects in himself.]

I should add that there are souls of the world of Emanation in the Ari [The Arizal, Rav Isaac Luria]. These are souls that are Divine, in that they receive the light of God without any division in between God and them. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron Joseph, David. So when it comes to the subject of the messiah son of Joseph or son of David, we are talking about a spark of the soul of David or Joseph.

[I might add here that I think the idea of Emanation is the approach that Hegel took to this same issue--that is how I tend to read Hegel. [See the debates about Hegel between McTaggart and Cunningham (Logos is everything or penetrates everything?). At any rate, this idea of over flowing or Emanation seems to me to be what Hegel was saying concerning Logos and Jesus. And we know that Hegel was aware of the Ari and borrows from him concerning Adam Kadmon. So it is not to far to imagine that Hegel was thinking along these lines concerning more central issues in his system. So I am not claiming that this answers all the issues in Hegel. Certainly McTaggart and Cunningham would argue that the idea of overflow along with condensation might not answer the issues they were raising. Still this seems to me to be what Hegel was saying.]

[So what would McTaggart say? He would answer that my arguing that condensation of the light or flow of Logos does not answer the issues --because of the same problem--it is the same or it is not.[The law of the excluded middle.] So I am not saying I could answer this question. But rather that I think that this is what Hegel was saying.

So the question would be can incremental change cause a complete change in essence or some other variable.\This is answered in Chaos Theory and in fact is a suggestion of Kelley Ross on how evolution happens.

[Just to make myself clear I want to mention that I can see important points in Kant, Leonard Nelson Kelley Ross, Huemer and Hegel.  ]

it is better to sit in one's room and twiddle your thumbs that go around looking for "mizvot"

 Rav Nahman wrote in the LeM that when one needs compassion from Heaven the way thing to do is to have compassion on others. the difficulty of course is that it is not always so clear how to have compassion on others. But it is clear that when someone asks for help, it ought to be offered as the law is on Purim, "One must give to whom so ever asks."

My approach to having compassion is to try to give to whom so ever asks, but not to seek things to do. The disciple of the Gra, Rav Chaim of Voloshin said it is better to sit in one's room and twiddle your thumbs that go around looking for "mizvot". As Rav Nahman said "the evil inclination is dressed in mizvot."

A certain amount of the extra added restrictions that often one finds people doing for Passover seem to me to be not all that necessary. After all what is matza? Just flour and water. Heat it up and eat it within 18 minutes and it can not be leavened, bread. The only way something an be leavened bread is by sitting. In any case, the restrictions I think are a power grab by religious authorities to make people think that we need their great wisdom.

Personally, I think the whole religious world has an aspect of being a cult. I would not go anywhere near them --with two exceptions. One would be  straight Litvak yeshiva. There the Torah is learned for its own sake. Another exception would be a Na Nach group of Breslov. Though these are very different kinds of groups, still they both seem fine to me. 

The best way to keep Passover is to do the seder at home.to make ones' own maza by making a thick batter of dough and to either put it into an oven or in a frying pan [or empty can of fish. if one does not have a frying pan.] with just enough oil so as to not stick. [a thin batter would be mezonot--cake and not considered as bread. even though one can eat it, it still is not maza.]

See the LeM of Rav Nahman volume II, chapter 44   not to add extra restrictions to the commandments of the Torah. Just to keep it plain and simple.

[I got the idea of not adding extra restrictions from the LeM of Rav Nahman. Since then I have tried to stick to what the Torah says: "Do not add nor subtract from the mizvot that I have commanded." However the religious thrive on adding restrictions. So I recommend staying away from them.]

 I think human affairs often go as a pendulum. You see the situation in Russia under the czars and it was quite natural that people would be upset and see the monarchy as a problem. [Especially you can imagine that when the monarch got a little too out of touch with the people, that would have exasperated the situation. Like going into WWI.] So then you get the Bolsheviks going in the opposite direction. And that that turns out to be not all that better.