Translate

1.10.16

Bava Metzia page 100a and b

Ideas in Bava Metzia


There are still problems. Problem 1: In my notes I mention that the gemara here is depending on the gemara on page 97. This brings to mind the fact that even the gemara there is problematic. The Gemara there suggests perhaps the reason for the mishna is because certainty and doubt certainty is better.  But the amazing question is that certainty and doubt certainty wins the case with no oath and the mishna says on 97 and also page 100 certainty wins with an oath! That is not the same thing!
Another stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees? maybe I meant like Reb Chaim Soloveitchik that is a רשות של שניהם even the sages agree with sumchus?



I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.
________________________________________________________________________________

בבא מציעא
 גמרא on page צ''ח. The גמרא there suggests perhaps the reason for the משנה is because ברי ושמא ברי עדיף.  But the  question is that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף with no oath and the משנה says on צ''ח and also page ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! That is not the same thing! Perhaps the גמרא is thinking the משנה means שבועת היסת.


בבא מציעא א' ע''ב  problem is תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות asks, "But it is not דררא דממונא?" The fact is that תוספות is asking on רב. That seems to mean that on the משנה itself תוספות would not have asked their question. That means תוספות accepts if the question had been a עבד גדול or עבד קטן.That apparently תוספות would have accepted that it is דררא דממונא. Only because רב said the דמי עבד is the question did תוספות then ask, "But it is not דררא דממונא?"

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that תוספות and this page of גמרא and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by חולקים there is no difference between סומכוס and the חכמים?" Was I referring to the idea of the רשב''ם that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about שמואל? תוספות answers the question where is the דררא דממונא by רב, but never even raises the question by שמואל. I answered this cryptic phrase "Maybe תוספות would answer like they answered for רב." But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever תוספות answered for רב, was because רב was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that שמואל is also talking about an exchange of currency because that is not the answer of שמואל. It might be that תוספות is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is דררא דממונא. Only the fact that רב says the משנה refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the דררא דממונא? In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this תוספות and this page of גמרא.
______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא
 גמרא בעמוד צ''ח. גמרא שם מרמזת אולי הסיבה של  המשנה היא משום ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. אבל השאלה היא כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף ללא שבועה והמשנה אומרת על צ''ח וגם דף ק' ברי עדיף עם שבוע! זה לא אותו דבר! אולי הגמרא היא חושבת שהמשנה מכוונת שבועת היסת..


בבא מציעא ק' ע''ב תוספות ד''ה דמי עבד .תוספות שואל, "אבל זה לא דררא דממונא?" העובדה היא כי תוספות שואל על רב.  נראה  כי על המשנה עצמה תוספות לא היו שואלים. כלומר תוספות היו מקבלים אם השאלה היתה עבד גדול או עבד קטן. כנראה תוספות היו מקבלים שזה דררא דממונא. רק בגלל רב שאמר דמי עבד יש השאלה של תוספות  "אבל שה לא דררא דממונא?"
מלבד כל זה הסתכלתי על רשימותי על כי תוספות ודף זה של גמרא וכתבתי דברים שהיום אני לא מבין . למה אני מתכוון "על ידי חולקים אין הבדל בין סומכוס ואת החכמים?" אולי התייחסתי לרעיון של רשב''ם שכאשר הוא ברשית של אדם אחד

גם כתבתי על השאלה מה עם שמואל? תוספות עונה על השאלה איפה דררא דממונא במצב של רב, אבל אף פעם הם לא מעלים את השאלה על  שמואל. עניתי ביטוי נסתר זה "אולי תוספות יענו כמו שענו על רב." אבל זה נראה בלתי אפשרי. מה בכלל תוספות ענו על רב? שרב מדבר בחילופי מזומן. אתה לא יכול לענות  זה לשמואל שגם הוא מדבר על חילופי מזומן, כי זאת לא התשובה של שמואל.

עוד יש להעיר  שיכול להיות כי תוספות חושבים שכל עוד השאלה היא לגבי אובייקטים פיזיים כמו בגד של העבד או עבד גדול או קטן כי זה דררא דממונא. רק העובדה שרב אומר המשנה מתייחסת בחילופים של כסף אז עולה השאלה היכן הוא דררא דממונא?


















30.9.16

On Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur we say the long confession. There we confess not listening to our parents and teachers. I can imagine this does not apply to all parents and teachers since some do not deserve respect. In my case however both sets deserve respect. My parents mainly concentrated on Derech Eretz comes before Torah. And my roshei yeshiva, Reb Freifeld  and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum mainly concentrated on Torah.
Thus I am in this kind of grey area where I am required to walk on this thin fine line between Torah and Derech Eretz.[Derech Eretz means human decency, and also a vocation.]

Divine Right of Kings

Divine Right of Kings

The story of Joan of Arc seems to support this idea. To me at least it seems that Joan of Arc was a legitimate saint and her mission was to crown Charles VII over all France. That seems clear to indicate that there is such a thing as Divine appointment to rule.

France at the time had a king--the King of England but from what we can tell is that he had no right from heaven to rule France.

This seems to have support from the תנ''ך (Old Testament) also. But in the Old Testament the right to rule needs to be confirmed by either a prophet or (when there is no prophet) the Sanhedrin. In any case in the Old Testament there is no concept of the right of the people to choose their leader. [As was pointed out to be by Yehoshua (an acquaintance and one time room-mate at the Mir yeshiva).]

This does not mean Democracy is invalid. We know from דינא דמלכותא דינא (the law of the country is valid) that once any kind of government is established whose coin is accepted- that  is a legitimate government; and its rules are binding according to Jewish Law [except in cases which contradict the Torah directly].

This fact was made clear in the Gemara itself. See חזקת הבתים in Bava Batra.

An modern example is the State of Israel for that Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Aaron Kotler both said דינא דמלכותא דינא (The law of the State is the law). [How far this extends is a debate between Rishonim as far as I remember. Certainly the Rambam takes this very far beyond דיני ממונות law about money. 

29.9.16

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God.

What Western Civilization lacks is Fear of God. It was on Rosh Hashanah at the Mir Yeshiva in NY that I read the אור ישראל by the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter [during Musaf] that made this point in such a powerful way that it has stuck with me even years later.  What that means for Jewish-Christian society is simple. To get the books on Fear of God and to read them every day. There is a known set of primary works of Musar and then a secondary level. And after that  a few more levels. The primary level is חובות לבבות, אורחות צדיקים, מסילת ישרים, שערי תשובה, מעלות המידות ספר הישר המיוחס לרבינו תם and a few other mediaeval books.

[I have no idea what Christians could read. I do not even know if they have an equivalent but I assume they must have.The closest thing I can think of is Aquinas.]

[Physics I should mention is also part of the mitzvah of Fear of God according to the Rambam.]

So at least on Rosh Hashanah I recommend learning as much Musar as possible.

Revolution is not a good thing

To try and answer  the Alt Right especially,  Brett Stevens.


Once there is a Constitution in place  which works  and establishes peace and order to some degree, it seems to me to be a mistake to try to overthrow it.

Thucydides made this point in the events surrounding Corcyra in the war between Sparta an Athens.

Revolution is not a good thing. Only in the most extreme circumstance is it justified.

Thucydides outlined the basic problems with revolution and also of alliance with either side in the war between Sparta of and Athens. He did not know it at the time, but his words ring even more profoundly as the ages has gone by-- because now we know that that war is what devastated both Sparta and Athens   --forever. Neither ever again would regain what had been lost. It made no difference that Sparta won or that Sparta treated Athens well and kindly after the war. The effect was the same. both lost everything.

This is relevant to today's issues not just the Alt Right but also to the many movements that are committed to overturning the established order as they claim to insure equality or some kind of justice, but it is always just a power grab.  [Especially the Ultra Religious definitely try to undermine the established order so as to gain power. Religious teachers have found and that their lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.][


"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961]

Religious groups are like the Fabian Society or the Freemasons. Though anyone can join, but there are many levels of initiation. That means,- the majority of people involved have no idea of the true agenda and carry out their roles in creating respectable front for the fraud that is at the heart of the organization.


From a Torah standpoint also we know דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the state is the law. The Rambam says this goes even so far as to say that if the king declares one ho transgress any particular law must be sold as a slave that declaration is valid.

I would like to address this issue also from the standpoint of Hegel. Though the left has hijacked Hegel, in fact he provides a good justification for traditional family values. To him, reason can perceive moral principles that are common sense principles. This is somewhat like the intuitionists like Prichard and G.E. Moore, but unlike them Hegel is not a quietist.["We know it because we know it". Instead, Hegel does not ignore Kant but attempts to answer him by means of the triads.]
[Revolution sometimes can be justified. Sometimes an established order is just a cabal a small group that has seized power. When there is an absence of justice, then revolution is in order. ] To some degree then the Russian revolution was justified simply because there was no point to sending Russian soldiers (in WWI) to the front just to get pulverized. If it took a revolution to stop that-well so be it.











28.9.16

My Dad worked at TRW designing a kind of laser communication system for satellites that the Soviets could not detect [because it used lasers which go straight unlike radio waves which spread out.] That was right around the time that the KGB had a mole there. This was made into a motion picture, The Falcon and The Snowman.