Torah study

Not that Cyclone has anything to offer, but I think it was very helpful for me personally to make sure to study the Mahrash separately in every subject you study, whether in the order of study or in the order of proficiency. First of all, the data and the calculation are in order, and then you can move on. In my opinion, which is hard for me to explain, Mahrash is one of the greatest teachers I have learned from (almost no one around me has ever opened Mahrash. And in my opinion, many of his difficulties are an excellent litmus test - if you don't feel like you're alone in them, it's a sign that you need to go back and thoroughly review the subject).

I grew up believing that the Mahrash is the beginning of the study (because it is the light of the plain text, before going into scholarly depth). As I have grown older, I am less sure of this.

Interesting. I grew up with the idea that hardly once in a generation do people start with the maharajah. But I read articles by Rabbi Meir Mazuz who extols the necessity of Toba, so I tasted it and saw that it was good (even in the “Bakiyot” books. It wasn’t always easy to find a friend who would agree to spend time on it). But it’s not just the brilliance of the simple, but the habit of putting things in their proper place. You can also use the maharajahs when studying the Sha’arii Yosher, because in the end, things need to fit into the whole, apart from understanding the pure explanation itself. Someone who is mentally organized enough may not need this practice.

Can you elaborate more on the updated thinking you had in your adulthood? It is clear that after the enlightenment of the Shkute, one needs to understand what the explanation is about and what the implications are, etc. By the way, in the Tunisian books like Mishmarot Kehuna (Vazre Yitzhak and Shalemi Toda and others) they treat the Maharsa the same way Maharsa treats the Tosafot and continue on his path. But it is as if a different developmental channel than the channel of the Peni Yehoshua and the Tsalach and onward to the scholars, and after trying for a year I came to the conclusion that it is already too much to bother with “tefâl’ (I couldn't find a more refined expression). Especially since many of the excuses there do not add insight but only remove a small quibble. It is difficult to discuss from above without a few issues with examples, and I do not have enough knowledge, but it is also interesting to hear conclusions from you without comprehensive substantiation.

By the way, another small thing. A friend and a very good friend of mine (who also studied with you later at the Bar Ilan Institute. And even once before that we came to you together from the yeshiva and you received us at the Bar Ilan office. But since then many waves have crashed onto the shore), a Jew who is endowed with a fairly quick grasp, used to spend an hour or two every evening in his freshman year on a Reid summary book like "Ohel Torah" - just reading and understanding what's there without digging for hours. I didn't do it (it's hard for me to swallow quickly and I also grasp more slowly), but he found it very useful. There are types for whom it probably suits them, and it seems to me that it's worth a chance.

It's hard for me to write something specific. This is a general feeling. There is no doubt that studying the Seder from the Rashi is very beneficial, but not always because of what he writes, but because of the habit of thinking about each stage of the issue or the Toss and getting a systematic look at the process. Somehow, in my adulthood, I got the feeling that sometimes it's too intrusive and that the excuses are less good than the difficulties. And beyond that, sometimes after finishing it, you don't get to think about the academic layer and are left deciphering the process and the negotiations. And if you do think about the academic majority, then sometimes his words are unnecessary because you came up with it alone.
This ethos accompanied my studies throughout in terms of what is worth doing. Because of the difficulty, very few people actually did it.
Through my own fault, I don't know the Tunisian reference books. A former student of mine (a Yemenite himself) dealt with them a lot and also recommended them to me. I probably didn't get to it in time.
Your recommendation for the fellowship was written by me above. (Although I am not familiar with “Ohel Torah”, except for Baranovich's journal, and I assume that it is not meant for him).

In the Torah Tent there is a concise summary of the Rishonim methods and the Achromin investigations on all the important points in the subject. It is like a collection of place guides that is not content with a reference but also summarizes what is written there and organizes the picture.

I can't say that I have dealt much with the Tunisian reference books, but not that little either, and I am ashamed not to recommend them. It seems to me that I felt exactly the same unease that you described about investing time in studying the Maharsha (but not about the Maharsha itself).

And are they all like that? Is this what is called "Tunisian scholarship"? Is there scholarship on a level similar to that of the Ashkenazim?

From what I know, they are all like that. It is quite presumptuous of me to make declarations, but it is not even like the Mishnah of the King and the other Turks (Mahane Ephraim Shaar HaMelech and others) nor the Face of Joshua (although they sometimes deal with it), and certainly not close to advanced Ashkenazi scholarship. They discuss local Pesht and for every important comment they make, one can wonder why it did not appear in the Maharashtrian.

What does “even” mean? The Turks are truly a fine scholar (of course, the Ashkenazi scholarship that was built on them advanced further to conceptual levels and finer distinctions). But I have been very impressed for years by what happened in Turkey in the middle of the modern era.

That's exactly what I meant. The Turks started with the mitzvah and the Ashkenazim finished, and the Tunisians don't even reach the level of the Turks – whom they knew –, and instead of continuing to dig further, they decided to dig in instead. I have dreamed for years of analyzing teaching methods in the specularity of issues in a close and detailed manner and examining types of questions and answers and topics and making an effort to define them, but that is beyond my height and beyond my knowledge and my time. There are many doctorates missing on the subject.

And if it bothered me that I (Lend, etc.) placed the Phani as a more advanced stage than the Turks, it was perhaps just my lack of knowledge. I studied a chapter that places the "expert" position with Maharsha and Phani Yehoshua on the Seder and I felt that my eyes were really enlightened by it. Since then, I have had a certain weakness for him without knowing what it is based on. All that remains are the feelings without what he brought to them, so perhaps I am just exaggerating. It is a shame that analyzing stages in scholarship from issues is so demanding and complex, so all that remains is to pile on the roof.

To be honest, he's really not more advanced than the Turks. There was a conference on him at Bar Ilan, and there I dealt with the risqué buds in his mishnah. The Turks have more than buds.

Fascinating! Is there this (in writing or video)? Here I only found a short title in column 230.

I don't know. I tried looking for a recording and couldn't find it. But maybe I didn't look well.

Is there a way in Mota to release chapter titles, even if only very briefly?

Now I see that it was in 2006. Quite a long time ago. I will copy chapter headings here, although I do not know how understandable it is.

On the dichotomous analysis of the Brisk text and what is beyond it, in the teaching of the author of the Peni Yehoshua. We will see sparks from such an analysis through a discussion of two examples: the essence of the prohibition of a man's wife. Property without fruits in a slave. And finally we will see a synthesis through locating the factor that obligates for financial damages (negligence or ownership) in the teaching of the Peni Yehoshua.

1. Failure to perceive kiddushin in a slave girl (the dispute with the father in the rabbi in the rabbinic text): two laws.
2. The concept of property in a delayed get of release (Gittin 2:2): abstraction and generalization.
3. In the investigation of what obligates for financial damages: a dialectical synthesis.

About five minutes will be devoted to an introduction on the problematic in the history of ideas (who owns the copyright to an idea or way of thinking). I will then define modern Briskian scholarship, and its legal-analytical nature, in contrast to earlier forms of scholarship.
About five minutes will be devoted to topic 1, another five to topic 2, and as time permits I will deal with topic 3 (where his approach is incredibly complex, and he seems to go beyond modern scholarship, towards the postmodern. He unites the two extremes of the dichotomous Yeshivah inquiry). Total 25 minutes.

Source page: Sparks of Briskian scholarship in the Torah of the Phani Yehoshua

A. A delayed divorce decree: property without rights

Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin, page 24, page 2
Ibaia Lehu: A delayed divorce decree, is there a fine or is there no fine? +Exodus 21:30+ Thirty shekels of silver he shall give to his master, said the Merciful, and is he not a master, or is he a slave because he lacks a divorce decree – a master of a house?…
5:11: He has cut off his leg and blinded his eye – he goes out in his leg and gives the blood of his eye; and why did you say that he has a fine and a penalty for his master, he will bear the burdens of his house after I have given him to his master, the burden of his house after I have given him to his master, the burden of his house after I have given him to his master – a”3 the work of his hands for himself because he has given to his master a wound, a wound to his master, it is like a whole slaughter to me, and what is a slaughter to me a whole slaughter.

Pnei Yehoshua Tractate Gittin Page 24 Page 2
Additions to the Book of the Heblei of the House of the Lord, the last of them to the Lord. But the work of his hands for himself, as it seemed to me, is a slaughter for all, what is a slaughter for me, a plague? And I have a problem with my blood, in the case of a slave who has committed a crime, a fine of thirty pounds, even if it is not worth more than a shekel, which gives thirty stones, and does not require anything except the decree of the scripture. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Torah has entitled the master to this fine, even though he no longer has any financial right in this matter. Since the slave is called a master in terms of the body, he is already entitled to a fine by the decree of the scripture. But in a case of a large crime, such as a prisoner or a blind eye, the obligation is five things, and all of them are complete financial. For all the jurists except the Maimonides, who believes that damage and sorrow are a fine, as I will explain shortly. Therefore, from this point on, the rabbi will be entitled to it, since he no longer has any financial right.
And it seems that in truth the Shas here does not make it difficult from Shabbat and healing and shame and sorrow, but from harm to one, since the body still seems to the Rabbi to be the Shas of Dakhyon Degli Kara in the thirds of a slave who is to the Rabbi all of Dankra, the Lord of the Lord, for harm seemed to me to be a total destruction, all of it.
And according to what I wrote, two of the Rambam's eloquent sayings that contradict each other have been settled for me.
And what I wrote seems to me to be correct in the eyes of the Lord, and I have many such things in this in settling the eloquent sayings of the Rambam, and it is not necessary to extend and thoroughly examine:

B. Marriage without prohibition forever

Peni Yehoshua Tractate Gittin, page 34, page 1
There Rav Chisda said, half a slave girl and half a free girl who was consecrated to Reuben and was set free, 2017; and I do not call her the wife of two dead men, 2017;. And it seems to me that I forgot the wife of two dead men, who was not released and returned and consecrated to Shimon, and the deed of the sanctification of Reuven is not taken from her, since there are no obligations for these sanctifications, but only guilt, as is clear from the Parshit of the Prophet, and as the Prophet says [Sign 37], so it seems that the deed of the sanctification of Shimon, who is not taken from her, is not taken from her, because the sanctification of the deceased is not taken from her, and here, even here, not from her, but only guilt. (From the Tosafot of the author, p. 11. All of this belongs to the language of the Tosafot in the Bible, and I do not read that hearing it is not to forget it at all, because it is a two-fold connection between the two. They believe it from the Torah, and they were forced to interpret that it was forgotten by her in the first place, and she was a good judge of the law, because she forgot it in the second place, because she heard it when she was not released, and she was a good judge of the law, etc.). And it seems to me that it is right to settle this matter that if a child is taken away from his life, we would be obliged to take it away, but not by means of a child, and without a child, she does not forget a child after a child, because they took away Reuven's child, then it is in his possession, and she has no right to receive a child from another. So it seems to me:

3. The party that obligates the owner of the property causing the damage to pay: An unspecified example

1. In doubt of the negligence of the tortfeasor:
Chazo”a B”k 7, 7: The burden of proof is on the tortfeasor.
P”i B”k no ע”b d”h ‘b Gemara Lima Tihui’: The burden of proof is on the damage.

2. In the case of a dog owner who bit his own dog:
P”i B”k 24 ע”b and Chazo”a B”k 5, 7: On the side that the one who bites his friend's dog is exempt, both the owner of the dog and the one who bites him - so even when the one who bites him is the owner himself, he is exempt from the damage.

Oh, I really can't understand. Even though the issues are somewhat familiar, I couldn't understand what you found special about it. I'll put myself aside here until one day this topic comes up. [I understood the idea that a lord's illness causes damages even if they are financial. And the idea that in Kiddushin after Kiddushin one is prevented not because of the prohibition but because of the concept that there is no room for two. It's nice, although I don't recognize the special sting. The obligation to prove the damage I need to look into to understand what's special about it].
By the way, is it possible to raise a question in which I argue in detail about the peni Yehoshua in Messha Kalbu [which I think leads to the conclusion that Messha Kalbu is liable] or is this a later tractate for now.

From a contemporary perspective, there is no particular sting here. But these are very similar divisions to the Briscian distinctions.
If you wish, it is better in a separate thread.