Study with the Rabbi

Unfortunately I don’t have time for that. Not to leave the sheet blank and for the love of the Holy, only Imaam Milli Demeitav. I am not sure that I have an approach or method that should and can be studied. Perhaps scholars of my Mishnah will be able to find such a method in my words. I do not work with a particular method, but each time according to what seems reasonable and logical to me. I study quite close to the method accepted in yeshivahs, and certainly on its basis. But with additions and subtractions: additions of examining the root of the explanation and its philosophical and meta-halakhic meanings, and removing things that do not make sense (even though they are part of the yeshivah raid) and also neutralizing overlaps (when two explanations are actually two ways of saying the same thing in the Mishnah). And finally, in quite a few cases I also allow myself to formulate a position, that is, to decide who is right or which side in the investigation is more reasonable (which yeshivahs are careful not to do). This discussion reminds me of a conversation I once had with my class Maggid at Netivot Olam. I came to him and told him that the Chazo”a and the Sama”a are difficult for me. Their words seem to me like those of the Baalbatim (as opposed to the Ketzvah, R. Chaim, R. Shmuel, etc., who were “learned”). He told me then that it was all a matter of the presentation of things and the form of analysis. Indeed, I later realized that if one analyzes the Sama”a and Chazo”a in a yeshivah way, they too can “turn” a yeshivah into a yeshivah. I remembered this, because it seems to me that what distinguishes these two (the Sama and the Chazo) is that they did not have a system. They said each time what seemed reasonable to them for that particular place and did not try to fit the things into a system. When someone else who has a “system” analyzes them, he of course discovers a system in them. Now you may wonder whether this system is theirs or his. It is like the well-known debate between the Remnants of Fire and Rabbi Yehoshua Hutner (one of the editors of the Talmudic Encyclopedia) regarding Rabbi Chaim, whether he understood the Rambam (exposed the Rambam’s “system”) or invented his own Torah (this was his “system”). Incidentally, I personally think that in many cases he understood well, but formulated things in the language and form of his analysis. And sometimes we can say about him what Rabbi Kook wrote in his eulogy for the sochshover he sent to his great-grandson: The Gemara says that the Rebbe did not say anything that he did not hear from his rabbi, and in another place we find that he said things that you have never heard with your ear. And the conclusion is that he heard from his rabbi things that you have never heard with your ear (and I add: including his rabbi’s ear). In my opinion, this is not a slur but the absolute truth. I myself heard from my Maggid Shiur things that he himself did not agree with, and I still think that I am right and not him, that is, that I understood him better than he himself. And of course, the wording I gave to the things was also my own and not in his language. All the best and much success,