In the way of learning of Rav Nachman of Uman there is an emphasis on finishing that book that you are doing. That is this way of learning involves two things. One is to say the words and go on [believing] that eventually you will understand even if you think than now you do not understand. The other is to finish that book that you are learning.  You see this in particular with Natan his disciple. When Rav Nathan first became close to Rav Nahman, Rav Nahman told him to go through the entire Shulchan Aruch in one year. 

[The Shulchan is the length of a medium sized encyclopedia. It was written by Rav Josef Karo, and the standard version includes commentaries, the Shach, Taz, Magan Avraham, and the Gra.]  

[I see this idea of how to learn as being something that if people would now about they would be helped in many ways. First of all, knowing Shas. Clearly the slow methodical way of learning in Litvak yeshivot is great for getting to deep understanding of a particular (sugia)/ subject. However it does leave one with a lack of general knowledge. So I think at least some amount of time in learning ought to be דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on Also, this method of learning applies to Physics and Mathematics. And learning Physics is Math is important as we see in the Rambam in the Guide abd also in the Yad HaChazaaka in a amore hidden way.

 https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/ has a whole piece on faith and reason. To me it seems modern philosophy lost an opportunity to gain some ground in this this regard with Leonard Nelson and his Second Friesian School. It is not just that Kelley Ross has made a formidable defense of this position in his web site. but that it is almost a necessary step in Kant himself. For the Transcendental Deduction was the main thesis of the Critique. And yet Kant himself revised it in the 1787 B version. Why? Because Schultz had found the argument unsatisfactory.   And how else is it possible to deal with the main question, "How do the categories provide unity of experience?
 And how do we know them?" To me it seems the only possible answer is immediate non intuitive knowledge.

[However, almost any school  of Kant tends to be highly negative in regards to Hegel, but even Jacob Fries himself had some nice things to say about Hegel's system. [These comments of Fries were in a later book,-- I think it was in his History of Philosophy. And in truth it is hard to be unimpressed with the mature HEGEL, the system of the longer and short logic. but for some reason when they teach Hegel they always go to his first book the Phenomenology.--There the mature Hegel has not yet appeared-but is trying to defend ''"the state".] 

Rav Shach asks how could the Rambam derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the value of money. See Tosphot at the very beginning of tractate Kidushin

 Rav Shach asks how could the Rambam derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the value of money. Tosphot derives this from a Hebrew slave. [כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a Hebrew slave is acquired by money or the value of money. But the Rambam holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that Tosphot agrees with this because it is an open verse]  At any rate, Rav Shach says the sort of acquisition by which a Hebrew slave is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by monetary acquisition we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring, and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by trade or barter.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slaves is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as a in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain  rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition but not the same type as if there was a sale. 

____________________________________________________________________

 רב שך asks how could the רמב''ם derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the שווה כסף. While תוספות derives this from a עבד עברי. The verse says  כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a  עבד עברי is acquired by money or the value of money. But the רמב''ם holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that תוספות agrees with this because it is an open verse].  At any rate, רב שך says the sort of acquisition by which a עבד עברי is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by קניין כסף we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by קניין חליפים.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slave is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money, then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as  in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain  rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition, but not the same type as if there was a sale. 

רב שך שואל כיצד יכול היה הרמב''ם ללמוד את העובדה שאישה נרכשת על ידי שווה כסף. בעוד שתוספות לומדים א זאת מעבד עברי. הפסוק אומר כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. שכן עבד עברי נרכש בכסף או בערך כסף. אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק שאם הבעלים הוא עובד אלילים הוא יכול לקבל רק כסף. [כסף ממכרו. והייתי אומר שתוספות מסכימים עם זה כי זה פסוק פתוח]. מכל מקום, רב שך אומר שסוג הרכישה שבאמצעותו עבד עברי נקנה בחזרה מבעליו שהוא עובד אלילים היא כספית. זה שונה מסוג הרכישה שהוא נרכש ישראלי. זו רכישה שחלה על העבודה שלו, כי אנחנו יודעים שעל ידי קניין כסף אנחנו צריכים שמשהו יהיה המטבע שעושה את הרכישה ומשהו אחר שיהיה הדבר הנרכש. [עכשיו ערך הכסף יכול לגרום גם לרכישה כספית, אבל זה על ידי קניין חליפים.] בכל מקרה, תהיתי למה זה משנה? הרי אם עבד עברי נרכש על ידי אדון ישראלי בערך כסף ומאדון עובד אלילים רק בכסף, אז ממילא זה חצי גזירה. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים. אבל עלה בדעתי שאנחנו לומדים אישהמעסד עברי שנרכש מאדון ישראלי כי היא יותר כזו. כלומר גם העבד העברי וגם האישה אינם רכוש כמו בעסקה כספית. אלא הרכישה חלה על חובות מסוימות שהם נדרשים לעשות וזכויות מסוימות שהם מקבלים בדרך של מעמדם כעבד או כאישה. אז אם יש לנו ברירה ללמוד מאיזה מצב אז מאיזה מצב אנחנו לומדים? ברור המצב היותר קרוב. דיוויד ברונסון היה הראשון שציין בפניי שיש סוגים שונים של רכישות. הדוגמא הברורה ביותר היא זו של שכירות. יש רכישה, אבל לא אותו סוג כאילו הייתה מכירה.

new music file

 z55 music file

 z80 music file

 Rav Nahman of Breslov wrote in Sefer HaMidot לא להיכנס עם היצר הרע בטוען ונטען not to enter into arguments with the evil  inclination. And so on one hand I see Maverick Philosopher has a  piece on the male female insanity that has overtaken the USA, still I feel it is best not to enter into arguments about this or other issues. In the Mir the idea was, ''We should all learn Torah and recommend to others to do the same, and then all confusions will be automatically eliminated.'' 

[Learning Torah means Gemara and Tosphot. However to get to see the depths of Gemara, the best thing  is the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]  

[i do not agree in toto with everything  Rav Nahman says. Rather I try to use the sense of balance and common sense that my parents granted to me to discern.  One thing seems  important to mention --thati see learning Torah in a more important light than is generally thought in Breslov. Also I think Torah is more interested in the Creator than in tzadikim [saints].  On one hand I can see the importance of tzadikim,-- but only as a reminder to direct my hopes and trust onto God,  In fact, the whole tzadikim business has gotten way out of hand and become pure idolatry 

 z82 midi  z82 nwc