What if anyone could open a place with classes and a call it a "yeshiva"? Then you would never be able to tell it it had anything to offer. That is the situation today.
The fact that there are so many places that go by the name "yeshiva" means that people end up in evil cults and places where the so called teachers know nothing.


You could learn Torah at home. Get yourself the Talmud with the Soncino English Translation. Then go through the whole Talmud with Tosphot, Maharasha, and learn the R. Akiva Eiger and  Rishonim (First authorities ) and Achronim (later authorities).

 But I believe book studies lack the human interface with  other students offered through a legitimate yeshiva and student community as well as with the teaching staff.

  Going to straight, legitimate yeshiva is one of the phases of many young people's life learning processes by living through Torah. 

You can be self taught in Torah to some degree. But without an expert, it is hard to get very far. And nowadays the insane religious world  presents itself as an expert, when in fact they are usually members \of some Jewish cult, and know nothing about  Torah.
Outside of a very few legitimate yeshivas (Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir and schools based on that model) the entire the insane religious world  consists of frauds. 
Unless I know that they learned in a straight Litvak yeshiva I will not go anywhere near an the insane religious world  under any circumstances. Even to hear the Megilah. If the only place in town is a cult then you are not obligated.

Sanhedrin 62b.

The Gemara on this side of the page is interested in finding a case in which an accidental act of Shabat would be not liable and the same kind of accident  for idolatry would be liable.
That is how it tries to deal with the statement of Rabbi Zachei that shabat is less strict than idolatry in that an accident on shabat is not liable while for idolatry it is liable.
Then the Gemara goes off to try and find what is accidental idolatry. They come to the statement of Rava אומר מותר he says it is allowed.  That means he made a mistake in law, not in material facts of the case.
[For example of he bows to a statue he did not know was an idol he is not liable even a sin offering because the act is nothing. It is not even an accident].
So far this is just straight Gemara.

But then what happens next is very hard for me to understand. Because then the Gemara tries to say this is where an accident on Shabat is different from an accident in idolatry. But if we are talking about a mistake in law then in both cases he brings a sin offering. If it is a mistake in material facts then in both cases he is not liable. [My question is this: To say Shabat is less strict than idolatry in some specific kind of accident we have to be talking about the same kind of accident.]

To answer this: We already see in Tosphot three basic approaches to a different question--the fact that אומר מותר  he says it is allowed is a wide category which could be obligated just one sin offering, while the question of Rava to Rav Nachman about cases 2 and 3 in Klal Gadol [Shabat chapter 7] was narrow, and could be obligated a lot.
The third answer of Tosphot seems to be that it could have asked that but just was not interested in spending time on a side question.

This might help us also.

So what might the Talmud mean here is this: what is שגגת accidental idolatry? He says it is allowed. What is שגגת שבת an accident on Shabat? העלם שבת והעלם מלאכה. He forgot today is Shabat and or he forgot acts of work. This could conceivably means he forgot laws about Shabat. So what the Gemara is doing is simply comparing an accident in idolatry for which he is liable and an accident in Shabat in which he is not liable.--Though it might be aware that the laws of what constitutes an accident in each case might be different. And at that point he could ask in fact that there does not seem to be much of a comparison but at that point maybe it just did not want to get involved in a side issue.

There is a  lot (as "a lot" approaches infinity) to talk about here but I think in the above paragraph I covered the basic idea. At this point it seems all that I can do is either to go on or to go to the Gemara in Kritut from which Tosphot is quoting in his third answer.








Appendix:
1) This question is not the question of the Gemara itself.
2) This does serve to remind me that the Torah is not in favor of idolatry. The Torah frowns on it. For this reason I sometimes wonder about Jewish cults that are obviously doing idolatry towards their leaders. In spite of their keeping ritual observances, perhaps they should be kicked out of the Pale?
3) In Hebrew this is the basic idea of the above essay:
 סנהדרין סב. המשנה בשבת פרק כלל גדול אומרת שלשה דינים לשלשה מצבים. 1)אם בן אדם שכח עיקר שבת הוא מביא קרבן אחד. 2) אם הוא יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת אז הוא מביא קרבן על כל שבת 3) אם הוא יודע שהיום שבת ושכח מלאכות הוא מביא קרבן על כל סוג מלאכה.רבא  שאל מה קורה אם אתה מצרף מצב 2) ומצב 3)? היינו העלם זה וזה בידו? בסנהדרין רוצה לתרץ את השאלה בזאת. הגמרא בסנבדרין מתחילה לפרש אחת מהנה שהיא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות. והיא שואלת מה היא שגגת ע''ז? והיא מתרצת: אומר מותר. ואז היא ממשיכה ואומרת אם כן העלם זה וזה בידו חייב קרבן אחד לבד
רש''י אומר אומר מותר הוא שהוא אומר אין ע''ז בתורה. וגם שהמשפט של רבא הוא כללי. היינו שבא לומר יותר דברים חוץ מן לתרץ מה היא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות
 הר''י שואל אם כן התירוץ אינו שווה לשאלה. והוא מתרץ שאומר מותר הוא יותר מצומצם ממה שרש''י פירש כדי שיהיה מתאים לשאלה של רבא. אבל רש''י יכול לשאול אם אומר מותר רק במצב פרטי של איזה ע''ז פרטית אם כן איך זה מתרץ את שאלת רבא? אומר מותר יכול להיות על איזה ע''ז פרטית וגם על עבודות
סנהדרין סב: הגמרא בצד זה של הדף רוצה למצוא מצב ששגגת שבת תהיה פטורה ושגגת ע''ז חייבת. ואז היא שואלת מהיא שגגת ע''ז? ומתרצת "אומר מותר." ואז היא רוצה להשוות בין שגגת ע''ז ושגגת שבת לומר ששגגת שבת פטור. וזו היא הפתעה גדולה. אומר מותר הוא טעות בדין שהוא חייב בשבת כמו בע''ז. אחר זה הגמרא שואלת מקושיית רבא על העלם זה וזה בידו. אבל זו אינה הקושיה שלי כאן. אופן אחד לתרץ את זאת הוא אולי לומר שכאן הגמרא לא רצתה להתעכב. וזה התירוץ השלישי של תוספות לגבי שאלה אחרת שאומר מותר הוא  יותר דומה לשכח עיקר שבת מן השאלה של רבא שהיתה נוגעת רק שמצב של יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת וגם מלאכות

I am thinking that Communism is really not gone. It seems to me that democracy is hanging on by a thread. I think the president of the USA despises the USA and is working as hard as possible to destroy it.


I am saying this now because by government regulation of the Internet soon I will not be able to say anything.


 To my way of thinking Karl Popper already said it all in his Open Society and its Enemies. Who are the enemies of the open society today? The President of the USA, Muslims,  Social Studies departments in Universities.

 If you are living in one of the few areas where you can still say your opinions in pubic without fear, and your property rights are respected  and you live free, then enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Better yet. Learn Torah. The Oral and written Law. Where there is Torah there is freedom. חירות על הלחות
"Freedom was written on the Two Tablets."


These enemies of freedom ought to step back and consider the damage they are doing. That is: they ought to repent, because their actions in stamping out freedom and Democracy if successful will have dire ramifications for all future generations.

Navardok= trust in God and learning Torah.
There are plenty of Breslov oriented yeshivas where the Rosh yeshiva himself will tell you he got his inspiration from Navardok.
Since you can't depend on others to do the right thing, I therefore recommend  to anyone who will listen to me to start you own Narvardok yeshiva in your own home.
That is: get a regular set of the Oral Law: (1)Talmud, Bavli, Yerushalmi, (2) Rambam, (3) Tur, (4) Shulchan Aruch and plow through them every spare minute.
And don't ask for support. I have no idea why as soon as people become religious, they start asking others for charity. Either just wait until God sends you his blessings, or work for a living. Trust in God is not the same thing as asking people for charity.

And I say this with my mind on the problems between the Ukraine and Russia. I think that Torah would bring peace. Therefore I am specifically recommending Navardok types of yeshivas in Russia and Ukraine. Save the few Billion Euros and send in a few Lithuanian yeshiva type people --and I believe you would see wonders.

But for this to work you have to get rid  the dark side. You can't just add white paint together with black because then all you get is mud and mess. Get rid of the Jewish cults and then this advice can work.


In any case, I don't think sanctions are going to bother Putin the slightest bit. It will just make him more determined to take the Ukraine back. And all the more so sending weapons. I highly recommend everyone to take  a few steps back from Apocalypse. Calm down, And tomorrow is Sunday so go to synagogue or the church and pray for peace.

A Bangladeshi-American blogger was killed by nuns...Opps Muslims, for saying something not nice about the religion of Satan, Islam.

A Bangladeshi-American blogger who wrote often opposing religious extremism was hacked to death on the streets of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, as he returned home from a book fair with his wife. Avijit Roy, whose blog Free Mind spoke out against extremism in all religions, was killed by Muslim extremists who carefully planned and executed the attack professionally.

"This is the handiwork of a professional. They knew where to hit to kill a man,” the autopsy doctor said adding it was impossible to carry out such an attack without "planning, skill and brutality."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/american_blogger_hacked_to_death_in_bangladesh.html


 Lets get together and blame the Mosad or the evil Zionists for this.

You want to start a yeshiva.?

 It’s imperative that you have the best and brightest for your yeshiva. A yeshiva student is an investment. A yeshiva needs to be properly managed in order to grow and succeed.

Once that yeshiva student reaches his pinnacle of growth and success, you and he have reached the most optimal production output. 

However, not all yeshiva students are created equal. Only the best can ensure you reach that end game of mutual success.

The  adage, “Never judge a book by its cover” is completely false. It’s the single quickest way for an interviewer to take a chance on a complete idiot, drug user, social justice warrior (never let them in your organization), slacker and piss poor student.

So, let me make this crystal clear, judge. Life is about making judgments, but you need to be cautious and judicious with making decisions on potential yeshiva students. Typically, what you see is what you get when interviewing.

Candidates you should definitely pass on: members of religious cults.

 At best, you have to spend additional hours you don’t have correcting them and, eventually you’ll be forced to ask them to leave.  It only goes significantly downhill from that point on – i.e., lawsuits.

Appendix:

Most yeshivas and kollels today are cults.  What I suggest is to start a yeshiva that is not a cult. Also to terminate the cults.

People in the Middle Ages were interesting in seeing in the Torah a self consistent system.
The basic premise was if it is not self consistent it is garbage. This was the reason for Maimonides to write the Guide and the Yad HaChazaka--to show that the Torah is one self consistent system.

But we know from Godel that for this to be true we need axioms from the outside.

But these axioms (although not provable ) in order to be meaningful need to be falsifiable.
How is something not based on physical evidence falsifiable? When from the same axiom you can prove two opposite conclusions --that shows the axiom itself is false.

This is the basic idea I was telling my learning partner yesterday about why Tosphot assumes that the Talmud is self consistent.

Appendix: This need  to show that your system is not full of contradictions was also the reason for Aquinas to write his magnum opus.

In the case of Aquinas- there was a need to resolve the Old Testament, the NT and Aristotle, and the Church Fathers.
In the case of the Rambam there was a need to resolve the Old Testament, the Talmud and Aristotle..
But the work of the Rambam had been started by Saadia Geon.

In no case did anyone think the Torah is up for grabs for any individual to interpret it as he likes.

Now once you have gotten a system without contradictions then you need anyway faith in the axioms. That is where the Rambam and Aquinas are on different grounds.