Torah study

Thanks for the detailed response. And what about the answer that Logit is incorrect (and not in a balanced way)? So, apart from the fact that it is an examination, it has no value in the mitzvah of studying Torah?

According to the rabbi's words, it appears that studying Spinoza's Theology of Divinity, for example, is considered Torah study (not in the sense of a rabbi), because I am considering the issue?
Did I conclude correctly?

There was a disruption in the order of things here (this response is displayed above the two references it refers to):

Shi, absolutely. Although in my opinion this is nonsense. But if you are considering it then in your opinion you should look into it.

Shiko, if you are dealing with a logical contradiction then not only is it not studying Torah but you have done nothing. At most you have moved your lips.

On the entire site, comments are currently displayed from latest to earliest (in replies. In posts, it's like that only in comments to a post, but comments to comments are arranged correctly)

Shalom Rabbi.

I imagined that in logical fallacies this would be the Rabbi's answer. And yet I have some vague intuition that I find it difficult to accept. We will picture in our minds a person who has spent fifty years trying and laboring to write a halakhic answer. What can we do and there are logical fallacies there (that he did not notice). Is there no value in this as a commandment to study Torah? And perhaps we should distinguish between a commandment to study Torah that does not exist, because there is no study here at all (?), and a reward for his religious effort?

Indeed, this is exactly the division. The heart says that it has value, and indeed it is true. He will receive a reward as a reader of the Torah. But the definition of Torah study is study.
Indeed, in the rebuke of the secret of the true to the father of the son Ish Chai (the part that deals with the secret at the end of the rebuke) and in another rebuke within his rebuke, he discusses a similar situation. He tells of an incident that happened to his grandfather, who was the rabbi of Baghdad. An Ashkenazi emissary from the Land of Israel arrived there and stayed with them for several weeks. Within a few days, he noticed that the tefillin of the entire community were not square enough and were actually invalid. It should be noted that this is how they have been making tefillin for generations. The rabbi (the grandfather of the presenter) sat with the emissary on the meducha and became convinced that indeed all the tefillin of the people of the city (Baghdad, a city and even in Israel) were invalid. Unbelievable. The Rabbi asks/wonders whether people have a law of non-resting headscarves, and explains that not only are they not in this category (it seems simple to me, after all, this is not a halakhic category but a fundamental reference of the Blessed One), but that they kept the commandment of tefillin even though he agrees that the tefillin were invalid. Quite amazing in my opinion. According to him, you may be right, but I find it difficult to accept this. If it were said that on the day they discovered the mistake, kosher tefillin (for example, from the sender) fell into their hands, would the Rabbi instruct them that they were exempt from resting because they had already left the Yad? I wonder.

This answer is quite amazing and surprising. Can the rabbi please provide a placeholder, so that I can see his reasoning.

(And if this were a halakhic boundary, would it be different in your opinion? Does a concept like ‘rape’ belong here?)

Many verbs are the secret of the righteous, and the action is in the passive voice, there is the second.

Thank you very much, for now and in general.

I have now read the answer from the inside (in the body of the book).

And it is interesting that in the body of the words he brings from the book of life that he brought from the riddle that he wrote for the Hadiya that the reward of tefillin is here, and it means that the commandment of tefillin is here. And this is the above division.

And he himself, the son of a living man, brings a contradiction to this from what is said about the sukkah, "There is no commandment of a sukkah from you" and also from the words of the Torah, and he went a long way. And it seems that he did not distinguish at all between reward and mitzvah (then everything is fine with me). And this is a bit of a surprise to me.

In my opinion, it is high time that the rabbi published a real halakhic work. Maybe some kind of responsa or even novellas in the Gemara.

Besides the fact that the rabbi is certainly a great scholar and the matter is certainly important to the rabbi and the magnification of the Torah, etc., it would help to accept the rest of the rabbi's words in the Haredi world, for example

I've already written quite a bit. Rest assured, this will not be accepted by the Haredi public one way or another.