Tosphot. To review the same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

My whole blog post about  review yesterday I am sure must have seemed incomplete or just an introduction. The reason is that I was trying to get to what I think is  a major point about Tosphot.
It is not necessarily for everyone because this method might be only because of my own particular circumstances in which I am not learning Torah all day. In fact, in the short amount of time I have for any learning at all, I try to divide between math and physics, and then if I can manage to find a Gemara to learn that also.[Or any of the group Rav Chaim of Brisk, Rav Shimon Skopf , Rav Shach,  among the great Litvish sages/gedolim]  But the way I have discovered about learning gemara and Tosphot seems very important to me. It is to review that same Tosphot every day for forty days in a row.

In fact review I see as very important. That is at some point to stop in your learning in order and then to go back page by page. 

Learning fast and without much in depth thought is called bekiut [learning fast.] Going slow with lots of review is call Yiun and both are emphasized in Litvak yeshivot. The morning is for the in depth type and afternoon for fast learning.

Questions on the Talmud. Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.

Most of those subjects are in " "Nashim" that is the tractates of Ketuboth and Yevamot. And those tractates I learned a long time ago and forgot most of. 

The best I can say is that  what ever it is in the Talmud that is disturbing--it is usually the best thing to open up the Gemara itself and see inside exactly what is being said in the context of the subject. In fact, when I myself had questions of that sort with David Bronson, his usual reaction was to suggest opening up that sugia [subject] and to learn it in depth to find out what is actually being said.

Sometimes what is being said against the Talmud is simply based on misunderstanding. Sometimes there is a point.


To give one example: the value of "pi". This seemed to me to be  a big question until David Bronson and I opened up the actual Gemara and saw that the Talmud states openly that they are just making an approximation.

For another example, I noticed that the time scale of the Torah in Genesis is kind of short. That is to say that you can trace from Adam until the destruction of the first Temple, and you only get a few thousand years. While we can see that the universe is expanding and starting from a point that stated around 13.5 billion years ago. But even before I saw that question I noticed that the Ari understands the Torah in a completely different way. It is not that he says he is explaining the secrets of Torah, rather he says he is giving the simple explanation while the secrets he himself hides in hints that need to be deciphered.

Sometimes norms of society to me do not seem so moral anyway. But other times they do.

One place on the internet I found helpful to answer lots of questions is the Kant Fries School of Kelley Ross. Other places are Michael Huemer's ideas about how reason perceives universals including moral values. And that does seem to be similar to the general approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. and in fact all the other rishonim that I can think of.

-there is a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Review every chapter of Gemara (Talmud) ten times was a theme in Far Rockaway -Shar Yashuv yeshiva. But somehow this idea got over to Brooklyn to the Mir in NY. There was I recall a store owner around the corner of the Mir that was known to have reviewed the third chapter of tractate Shabat ten times. I think I never did that except for the fifth chapter of Ketuboth I vaguely recall that I did a few times but if it ever got to ten I do not know.
In any case I do remember that Moti Freifeld used to make a big deal about the importance of review.

But I had also the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous about the importance of covering a lot of ground. And that certainly was mentioned a lot in the Litvak yeshiva world-. The question always was "Did that guy finish Shas?" If not then who is he to have an opinion?

My own approach at that point was to do review on anything I was learning mainly twice and then to go on. I see now that that surely was not enough but at the time it seemed like  a good compromise. The only times I recall that I deviated from that was when I was learning the Pnei Yehoshua. There I needed to review each paragraph at least ten times before I would get what he was saying.

In the Gemara itself you do have this idea of review forty times. And in fact Rav Shick [of Breslov] did talk about learning things forty days in a row. He was talking about the book of Rav Nahman but I found this idea to be helpful for other things. For example--when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson, I always came to the learning session unprepared. But he always was well prepared. But when I needed to do learning on my own of Tosphot and I was not learning with him anymore--but I still wanted to get to some comparable depth I used to review each Tosphot or chapter in Rav Haim from Brisk or Rav Shach about forty days in a row.

So after that whole introduction I want just to say that as is well known in the Litvak world --there is  a need for intense review but also to have a session of learning fast.

Some saints are thought to be more than average saints. For example in Rav Isaac Luria, we find different people that are thought to be souls that stem from Emanation. Examples would be the patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David.
[The entire Shar Hagilgulim is devoted to this theme.]


 However I only use the Emanation idea because it makes sense to me. But I do not want to put too much emphasis on it because of Kant and Leonard Nelson that there is a limit to reason. [So even if you go with Hegel that a kind of dialectical process helps to go beyond those limits--I still feel that in areas of faith, reason has limits.


Emanation has its roots in Plato and Plotinus and so in and of itself--it makes a lot of sense to me- That is it is not just because that Rabbainu the Ari said so. Rather Reason itself indicates that this is  a right track. And you certainly see this in Hegel also.--Though with Hegel it is more hidden how he gets the dialectical process. But to me it seems clear he is going with the Ari and Plotinus.

The Ari held the soul of Rav Haim Vital his disciple was from Emanation.

The thing about Emanation is that it is considered "Divine" [That is there is no dividing curtain between Emanation and the Source.--even though Emanation itself is a lot lower than Adam Kadmon]--while the lower worlds of Creation and Formation and the Physical Universe are not.

Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]

Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]. But I wanted to add that an idea of taking some paragraph or two about what I need to correct in myself and say it right away in the morning when I get up.
I think this has a long term effect. For example one can take that beginning paragraph about trust in God from the Madragat HaAdam. Also the one about accepting the yoke of Torah from the Nefesh haHaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin.

[The thing is you have to know what it is you ought to correct. So there is a need to go through the basic set of Musar books. That is the basic set of Medieval books starting from the Chovot Levavot. But also the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter like Rav Isaac Blazer.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.  I encountered I kind of analogy in a comment I saw on some site about a problem in the Mormon world. That is to say there was a girl that was coverted; but then encountered the cold shoulder. So this comment said the problem was this: People  try to covert others in order to get "points" but then the treatment they give to those they convert is like  "Old Money". [Either you are born into it or no.] I thought this helps to explain this phenomenon in the religious world that I encountered.

[There are plenty of other explanations, but I was looking for something a little more down to earth. For example we find in Rav Nahman the idea that where holiness is, there the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) specifically spends most of its energy to entrap and catch its prey. סביב רשעים יתהלכון is a verse from pslams that express this idea round about go the wicked. That is the wicked surround the holiness trying to get in.]

The explanation that I find more satisfying is that people try to convert secular people to their way of belief in order to get brownie points,- but then treat them like trash, the way "old money" treats others. That is as second rate citizens or sub humans. [That is if you are not born into the club, then you will be treated politely but as soon as you are no longer thought of as an asset or source of money, then you will find the very same people you thought were your best friends will turn against you. This is especially in the religious world which has no source of income except by means of secular Jews. So this is more pronounced there.



Just to be fair I ought to add that Moshe Israel mentioned an opposite problem in the Reform world--that of "the new rich"  nouveau riche. So in fact it is hard to find a proper kind of balance and a decent place to sit and learn Torah.

The actual Constitution of the USA I think is mainly based on the political structure of England in the 1700's. However I agree that natural Law played a large part in the basis of the USA.. But natural Law I think had a basis in Saadia Gaon and Maimonides and then later developed by Aquinas.

The Rambam has an approach that is like this. At first mankind needed natural law as was revealed to Abraham the Patriarch. Only then could the revelation at Mount Sinai take place.

Aquinas develops this idea further to combine it with Aristotle's teleology.[That the are natural goals].

[This is just my basic impression. i really have not had time to study these sources. However I am pretty sure that if you look at England and specifically Daniel Defoe's essays you will see that the USA Constitution is almost an exact blueprint of the political structure of England except in the significant areas where it departs from the English model because of issues that cause the revolution in the first place.