My learning partner suggested Rav Shach as a proper introduction to how to learn Talmud. And to some degree this makes a lot of sense to me. What makes his book, the Avi Ezri, so remarkable is hard to say.  Rav Shach have the ability to make the complicated simple. And he is complete. There is no major subject of interest in Talmud Babylonian of Jerusalem Talmud that he does not bring light on. I used to think that the Litvaks were just talking about him because they had no one else to replace the Stipleler Rav. But now I realize that Rav Shach was light years beyond anyone.

But since the Hebrew might be hard for some people I suggest making an annotated edition of just a few of the essays.  

His focus is on settling hard problems in the Rambam but by doing so he sheds amazing light on almost every hard problem in the Talmud. It is like no other book I have ever seen.

\



Take human רצון "will". Nowadays you have popular writers that proclaim anything you want is good, and claim to be able to help you get what you want, and manipulate others into helping you. Or you have some approaches that invalidate anything that you want. You have to shape up to that particular system or leave.
An idea originating with Isaac Luria is all desires stem from רצון העליון the higher "Will." But people's will while coming from a place of holiness and good can fall away from that. People's will need to be raised up to its source in the Higher "Will".

The fact that there were great tzadikim like Gra does provide an excuse for copycats. It is sadly all too easy to play on peoples naivety and credulity. And it is impossible to warn anyone about the frauds charismatic fakers because  of the prohibition of Lashon Hara (slander). Besides that, it is hard to tell the difference between miracles from the realm of holiness, and the exact same kinds of miracles from the realm of darkness. It is not worth the time to warn people. If someone of the stature of the Gra was ignored by his own disciples, then what good would my warnings do? 

Ideas in Talmud

Ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9

It is hard to judge the yeshiva world. The truth is it is very confusing. For example the tendency of Lithuanian yeshivas is to carefully protect what they are and what they are doing and to throw off and throw out anyone that does not seem to be a part of the program. I think this is  a good thing except when they throw out people that are in fact learning Torah for its own sake.
The general rule is they present themselves are elite geniuses when that is not usually the case.

On the other hand there are places in the Lithuanian yeshiva world that are of the highest quality like Ponovitch in Bnei Brak.

But the advantage of all Lithuanian yeshivas is there tends to be a minimum amount of pseudo Kabalah and lunatics which are so prevalent today in the world of the religious.

One thing about the pseudo Kabalah that is taught nowadays  is that it warps people's world view.
Pseudo Kabalah of course claims its lineage from Isaac Luria (the Ari), but in fact it teaches the Kabalah of the Shatz {Shabatai Tzvi} in disguise.


One fellow was telling me today his experience in some yeshivas when he was fourteen years old and was horrified how teaching young kids all kinds of pseudo Kabalah  would warp and mess up their minds permanently.

This came up with another fellow who was telling me about the Shuvu Banim Breslov crowd and some of the Shabatai Tzvi kinds of Kabalah that got to be central to their teachings.

In Reb Chaim from Voloshin  the main service of God is to sit and learn Torah--all day. I tried this for some time and it is an amazing thing.


Normally since I found learning Torah is such an amazing thing I would have to recommend it to others. But one difficulty is that if one tries to learn Torah for its own sake there are lots of obstacles.



There is a lot to discuss here because I did not find all yeshivas to be equal. Many are cults. They have the aura of respectability but are covering a rotten core. So when I say a legitimate yeshiva I mean to distinguish it from non legitimate.

[I should mention  that learning Torah the whole day is a noble goal, but I think at minimum at least an hour a day of in depth learning is important.--especially at the ages from 18 until about 24. There is something about learning Torah in depth that really needs to be absorbed at an early age. People that don't get it then in general don't ever get it.] 

Bava Metzia 14 Bava Batra 157

(1) We have a lender, borrower, one buyer of a field from the borrower after the loan; and then a second buyer. If there is default the lender gets the field and the first buyer gets the second field for the price of the field and for his improvement to the field he gets free property of the borrower.. גובה את הקרן ממשועבדים ואת השבח ממחוררין Tosphot asks in Bava Batra 157 why is there free property?  In Bava Metzia he asks why is there a second field?
I want to claim the question of Tosphot why is there a second field can be divided into two meanings.
One is the order of collection. That is we know his שיעבוד came first so he can get either field. So why specifically does he go after the first field? The other way is the second field was bought after the first field was collected and so Tosphot is asking what stops the lender from getting the second field.

(2) I tried to write a few paragraphs on what the Rambam would hold here. I tied this law to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה [borrowed and borrowed and bought] based on an idea of Chaim Soloveitchik. But this ideas needs to be explored based on an idea of Rav Eleazar Menachem Shach.

First of all there are two scenarios in Tosphot. One is where the second field was bought after the collection. If this is our case then there is a clear parallel to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה. In our case there is a lender and a buyer and the lender obviously has first rights. But if the second field was bought after the collection then the rights of both come at the same time. It is almost  the same case But we know what the Rambam says in לווה ולווה וקנה. That they split the field. If this is the same principle at work then why would the law here not be the same?

But there is another scenario in Tosphot. That is when the second field was owned at the time of the collection  by either the borrower or the second buyer. Here it is possible the Rambam holds like either opinion of Tosphot that the lender must go after the first field or the second. We don't really know from the language of the Rambam. All we know is the Rambam does not hold it is a case of an אפותיקי guarantee for the loan.
______________________________________________________________________________

 We have a מלווה, לווה, one לוקח of a field from the לווה after the הלוואה and then a second buyer. If there is default the lender gets the שדה and the first buyer gets the second field for the price of the field and for his improvement to the שדה he gets free property מחוררים of the borrower.. גובה את הקרן ממשועבדים ואת השבח ממחוררין. תוספות asks in בבא בתרא 157 why is there free property?  In בבא מציעא he asks why is there a second שדה?
I want to claim the question of תוספות why is there a second שדה can be divided into two meanings.
One is the order of collection. That is we know his שיעבוד came first so he can get either field. So why specifically does he go after the first שדה? The other way is the second שדה was bought after the גבייה and so תוספות is asking what stops the מלווה from getting the second שדה.

 I tried to write a few paragraphs on what the רמב''ם would hold here. I tied this law to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה based on an idea of רב חיים הלוי. But this idea needs to be explored based on an idea of רב שך.

First of all there are two scenarios in תוספות. One is where the second שדה was bought after the גבייה. If this is our case then there is a clear parallel to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה. In our case there is a lender and a buyer and the מלווה obviously has first שיעבוד. But if the second field was bought after the collection then the שיעבוד of both come at the same time. It is almost  the same case. But we know what the רמב''ם says in לווה ולווה וקנה. That they split the field. If this is the same principle at work then why would the law here not be the same?

But there is another scenario in תוספות. That is when the second field was owned at the time of the collection  by either the לווה or the לוקח שני. Here it is possible the רמב''ם holds like either opinion of תוספות that the מלווה must go after the first field or the second. We don't really know from the language of the רמב''ם. All we know is the רמב''ם does not hold it is a case of an אפותיקי guarantee משכון for the loan.