Translate

Powered By Blogger

10.3.24

I mean to show here that the Ramban in Bava Metzia 93 [and Tosphot]  has a valid derivation for an unpaid guard in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident. But that seems obvious. But if his intention is to show with all guards if there was in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident, that they too are not liable, that does not seem possible to derive from the source from where the Ramban brings it.


If there is an dangerous ox that gets loose and kills someone, most types of guards have to pay the restitution [kofer] and the amount the ox was worth except an unpaid guard. The kofer for the man that was killed, and the amount of the ox to the owner of the ox. That has to be paid since the ox itself has to be killed. The reason the unpaid guard does not have to pay the price of the ox is because he had limited responsibility or liability. Bava Kama 45a. According to R. Elazar all types of guards are responsible because there is no protection from a dangerous ox  except a knife. So all the guards ought to be liable, but not the unpaid guard since he had limited responsibility even from the beginning. 

The Ramban [Bava Metzia 93] learns from this that an unpaid guard does not have to pay in a case where he lost an animal he was guarding  But this should be obvious. He never pays, but rather swears it was not his fault. But the point is that when the beginning was neglect and then the animal was lost all guards have to pay. That includes an unpaid guard. But the case of the unpaid guard that was guarding at first in a minimum type of way would not have to pay.

But the question is that he never pays if he does the minimum amount of guarding. So what is the new idea? Rather the Ramban is saying that all the other guards also do not pay in a case if they did the minimum amount of guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident like armed robbers.

But I can not see how that could be the case, since then the Ramban would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is that an unpaid guard that did a minimum amount of guarding would not be liable. [It is more than a derivation. It is open because all the guards of a dangerous ox are transgressing because the animal needs to be killed, not guarded. And the animal is lost because it is killed after it killed. But all the guards are liable except the unpaid guard.   

I would like to answer this question in this way. the Gemara establishes that the case in Bava Mezia is when all the guards did a minimum amount of guarding. If a minimum amount of guarding is considered transgression, then even the unpaid guard would have to be obligated. And yet we see he is not obligated. Therefore a minimum amount of guarding is not transgression. But then why would a paid guard be obligated in paying  to the owner of the ox? It has to be because the ox killed someone and  that therefore has to be killed. This case must be more severe than a normal case of loss, but the paid guard is not paying because of not because  of transgression.  iI might mention here that in any case the guards pay kofer because of the killing. here we are dealing only with what the guards owe to the owner of the ox that he loses since the ox is killed. 

 _______________________________________________________________________________


I mean to show here that the רמב''ן in בבא מציעא צ''ג [and תוספות]   have a valid derivation for an unpaid guard in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident. But that seem obvious. But if his intention is to show with all guards if there was in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident, that they too are not liable, that does not seem possible to derive from the source from where the רמב''ן brings it.

If there is an dangerous ox that gets loose and kills someone most types of guards have to pay the restitution כופר and the amount the ox was worth except an unpaid guard. The the כופר for the man that was killed, and the amount of the ox to the owner of the ox. That has to be paid since the ox itself has to be killed. . The reason the unpaid guard does not have to pay the price of the ox is because he had limited responsibility or liability. בבא קמא מ''ה ע''א. According to ר' אלעזר all types of guards are responsible because there is no protection from a dangerous ox  except a knife. So all the guards ought to be liable, but not the unpaid guard since he had limited responsibility even from the beginning. 

The רמב''ן  בבא צציעא צ''ג learns from this that an unpaid guard does not have to pay in a case where he lost an animal he was guarding  But this should be obvious. He never pays, but rather swears it was not his fault. But the point is that when the beginning was פשיעה and then בסוף אונס all guards have to pay. That includes an unpaid guard. But the case of the unpaid guard that was guarding at first in a minimum type of way would not have to pay. But the question is that he never pays if he does the minimum amount of guarding. Rather  the רמב''ן is saying that all the other guards also do not pay if they did the minimum amount of guarding and there was, and later there was an unavoidable accident like armed robbers. But I can not see how that could be the case. Since then the רמב''ן would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is

But I can not how that could be the case, since then the Ramban would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is that an unpaid guard that did a minimum amount of guarding would not be liable. [It is more than a derivation. It is open because all the guards of a dangerous ox are transgressing because the animal needs to be killed, not guarded. And the animal is lost because it is killed after it killed. But all the guards are liable except the unpaid guard.

 

I would like to answer this question in this way. The גמרא establishes that the case in בבא מציעא is when all the guards did a minimum amount of guarding. If a minimum amount of guarding is considered פשיעה, then even the שומר חינם would have to be obligated. And yet we see he is not obligated. Therefore a שמירה פחותה is not transgression. But then why would a שומר שכר be obligated in paying  to the owner of the ox? It has to be because the ox killed someone, and  that therefore has to be killed. This case must be more severe than a normal case of אבידה , but the paid guard is not paying because of  פשיעה. I might mention here that in any case the guards pay כופר because of the killing. Here we are dealing only with what the guards owe to the owner of the ox that he loses since the ox is killed. 


..

_____________________________________________________


כוונתי להראות כאן שלרמב''ן בבבא מציעא צ''ג (ותוספות ) יש הוכחה תקפה לשומר חינם  (ללא שכר) במקרה של שמירה מינימלית, ואחר כך הייתה תאונה בלתי נמנעת. אבל זה נראה מובן מאליו. אבל אם כוונתו להראות עם כל השומרים אם היה במקרה של שמירה מינימלית, ואחר כך אירעה תאונה בלתי נמנעת, שגם הם אינם אחראים, נראה שזה אי אפשר לנבוע מהמקור שממנו הרמב''ן מביא את זה.

ם יש שור מסוכן שמשתחרר והורג מישהו רוב סוגי השומרים צריכים לשלם את הפיצויים כופר ואת הסכום ששווה השור מלבד שומר חינם (שומר ללא תשלום). הכופר בגלל אדם שנהרג ותשלום השור לבעל השור. יש לשלם את זה מכיוון שצריך להרוג את השור עצמו. הסיבה שהשומר ללא תשלום לא צריך לשלם את מחיר השור היא בגלל שהייתה לו אחריות מוגבלת. בבא קמא מ''ה ע''א. לפי ר' אלעזר כל סוגי השומרים אחראים כי אין הגנה מפני שור מסוכן מלבד סכין. אז כל השומרים צריכים להיות אחראים, אבל לא השומר ללא שכר שכן הייתה לו אחריות מוגבלת אפילו מההתחלה. הרמב''ן בבא מציעא צ''ג לומד מכאן ששומר ללא שכר אינו חייב לשלם במקרה שבו איבד בהמה ששמרה, אבל זה צריך להיות ברור. הוא אף פעם לא משלם, אלא נשבע שזו לא הייתה אשמתו. אבל הנקודה היא שכשההתחלה הייתה פשיעה ואז בסוף אונס כל השומרים צריכים לשלם. זה כולל שומר ללא תשלום. אבל המקרה של השומר ללא שכר ששומר בהתחלה בצורה מינימלית לא יצטרך לשלם. אבל השאלה היא שהוא אף פעם לא משלם אם הוא עושה את כמות השמירה המינימלית. אז מה הרעיון החדש? הרמב''ן מכווין שגם כל שאר השומרים לא משלמים אם עשו את כמות השמירה המינימלית,

 ובהמשך הייתה תאונה בלתי נמנעת כמו שודדים חמושים. אבל אני לא יכול לראות איך זה יכול להיות המקרה. מאז לא יוכל הרמב''ן להפיק זאת ממקרה השור המסוכן שהרג. הדבר היחיד שאנו יכולים ללמוד משם הוא ששומר ללא שכר שעשה שמירה מינימלית לא יהיה אחראי


וזה יותר מהוכחה.  כי כל שומרי שור מסוכן עוברים עבירה כי צריך להרוג את השור, לא לשמור. והשור אבד כי הוא נהרג לאחר שהרג. אבל כל השומרים אחראים מלבד השומר ללא תשלום. 


אני רוצה לענות על שאלה זו בצורה זו. הגמרא קובעת שהמקרה בבבא מציעא הוא כאשר כל השומרים עשו כמות מינימלית של שמירה. אם כמות מינימלית של שמירה נחשבת כפשיעה, אז אפילו השומר חינם צריך להיות מחויב. ובכל זאת אנו רואים שהוא לא חייב. לכן שמירה פחותה אינה פשיעה. אבל אז למה ששומר שכר יהיה חייב בתשלום לבעל השור? זה חייב להיות בגלל שהשור הרג מישהו, ולכן צריכים להרוג אותו. מקרה זה חמור יותר ממקרה רגיל של אבדה, אבל השומר בתשלום לא משלם בגלל פשיעה אלא בגלל חומר העניין. אולי אציין כאן שבכל מקרה השומרים משלמים כופר בגלל ההרג. כאן אנו עוסקים רק במה שחייבים השומרים לבעל השור שהוא מפסיד מאחר שהשור נהרג

5.3.24

learning Torah is important.

 I would like to recommend learning the book Nefesh haChaim by Reb Chaim of Voloshin [a disciple of the Gra] in in particular the fourth volume.    This is a part of book that explains why learning Torah is important. A large part of my own approach to the world is to a large extent based on this idea, even though I got the idea originally by being in two great Litvak yeshivot, Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. The actually reading of the Nefesh HaChaim came after I had already been in the Mir for a few years. It just confirmed what I already felt intuitively.  Nowadays I think that it is hard for most people to get the idea of the importance of learning Torah without that book. [I might mention here that the best way to learn Torah is to hear classes from an authentic Litvak rosh yeshiva. Happily I had the opportunity to hear such classes myself from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum. However the important thing is that they should be in fact expert. That can be found mainly in people that have learned in Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir or the other great Litvak yeshivot.]

I would also like to mention I define "learning Torah" in a rather limited way. That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds. the Midrashei Halacha  and Midrashei Agada. So anything written after the finishing of the Talmud does not count except as commentary. [I do think that here it is important to mention the opinion of some early authorities like ibn Pakuda and the Rambam who held learning Physics and Metaphysics is in the category of learning Talmud as you can see in Mishna Torah laws of Learning Torah in the law about dividing ones time into thirds: one third for Talmud, and in that category comes the subjects dealt with in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah. And if that is not clear enough, the Rambam makes sure that you get the point in the Guide.] Metaphysics in the early authorities means Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus.  Physics in the Rambam  includes Chemistry.

Torah is the Law of Moses.  The point of the Gemara is to understand how to apply it. Not to change it or to add or subtract. Thus I see that what the world needs is the Law of Moses.  


The problem in dealing with the Law of Moses is not to add and not to subtract and not to change it or change its meaning. And to accomplish this is very much an individual endeavor.   It is impossible to keep the Law of Moses except as an individual and ignore all groups.


Why Do Progressives Like Islam? MICHAEL HUEMER

 



1. Pro-Muslim Progressivism

Leftists have been trying to promote the cause of the oppressed for as long as I can remember. When I was in college, they mainly thought of the oppressed groups as women, blacks, and the poor. In the last 20 years, the ranks of oppressed groups have grown. Of particular interest, Muslims are now thought of as an important oppressed group, on whose side good progressives must fight. After warning about racism and patriarchy, the left is also eager to warn against “Islamophobia”. Left-wing protestors now seek to silence speakers who criticize Islam, as happened to Richard Dawkins when he was scheduled to speak in Berkeley. (Dawkins rejects all religion, but only his anti-Islam comments anger people on the left.)

It was also woke activists who got the film Jihad Rehab cancelled. This was a documentary containing interviews with ex-terrorists who were being rehabilitated at a Saudi detention center. It was initially critically acclaimed, before Muslim/woke filmmakers embarked on a campaign to label it “Islamophobic” (with no rational basis) and keep it from being publicly shown.

After the Hamas attack on October 7, left-wing students on American university campuses began passionate anti-Israel protests, among which you could find such slogans as “queers for Palestine” displayed unironically. Immediately after the attack, a group of 33 Harvard student organizations released a statement blaming Israel entirely for the attack.

2. The Strangeness of Pro-Islamic Progressivism

Let’s review what is odd about this.

a. Women

Progressives usually speak against what they view as the oppression of women in Western nations, e.g., the fact that women earn 20% less money than men on average (which is due to their choosing different kinds of work). Women in Muslim countries, however, are actually oppressed.

In Saudi Arabia, women have male guardians (typically their fathers or husbands). Until very recently, they needed the permission of their male guardian to get a passport, get married, get official documents, or get a job. Only in 2017 did the Saudi patriarchs decide that women could be allowed to drive.

In Islamic tradition, women are expected to cover their heads. In Iran and Afghanistan, women are legally required to wear the hijab. The most committed Muslims want women to cover their faces as well.

Some forms of Islam consider female genital mutilation mandatory, to prevent women from ever experiencing sexual pleasure.

b. Gays

For context, recall that gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in 2015. Before that, this was a major issue for progressives, who viewed the lack of recognition for gay marriage as a form of intolerable oppression of gays. Even now, many still regard America as oppressive towards gays.

In many Muslim nations, however, the idea of gay marriage is completely beyond the pale; just being gay is illegal. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Brunei (all majority Muslim countries), homosexuality is a death penalty offense.

Given how much progressives criticize America for its alleged mistreatment of women and gays, one would expect that they would be apoplectic about the horrific oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations. Yet among those who are most vocal about the oppression of minorities in other contexts, it’s hard to find a critical word spoken about Islam.

3. Progressive Explanations

How could progressives explain this?

a. It’s only a few extremists

Perhaps progressives would say that these forms of oppression are only supported by the more extreme, fundamentalist Muslims and that we should avoid allowing our general view of Islam to be colored by a few extremists.

But we’re not just talking about a small, fringe element in the Islamic world. Again, multiple Muslim nations literally, legally prescribe death to homosexuals. After the October 7 attack, 72% of Palestinians surveyed supported the attack — an attack that massacred teenagers at a music festival, raped and mutilated women, and burned babies.

Progressives don’t seem particularly concerned about portraying Americans, white people, or men as oppressive. Yet the forces of intolerance within each of those groups are a minute fraction of what they are within the Islamic world.

b. US/Israel is worse

Perhaps progressives would say that Israel and the U.S. have caused more harm to Muslims than Muslims have caused to Israel and the U.S.; therefore, it’s more important to protest Israel and the U.S. Perhaps progressives just don’t want to dilute this most important message by adding criticisms of Islam.

Bear in mind, however, that hundreds of millions of people in the world live in Islamic theocracies. So this really doesn’t seem like a kind of oppression that someone whose political worldview revolved around oppression could afford to overlook.

Progressives are also not usually very sympathetic to the “someone else is worse” defense. For instance, during the Cold War, they didn’t see as a good reason suppress their criticisms of the United States that the Soviet Union was worse. They don’t hold off from attacking America’s history with slavery when informed that Arab slavery was worse; they regard that as quite irrelevant.

c. The obligation to fix one’s own society

Perhaps progressives would say that they tend to focus on problems with the West, America, Christianity, etc., because we have an obligation to fix the problems in our own society.

I’m not sure, though, why it wouldn’t also be important to address huge problems in other societies — at least important enough that you would frequently hear progressives talking about the oppression of women and gays in the Islamic world.

Progressives living in America also don’t seem to have any reticence about criticizing Israel, so it doesn’t seem as if the relevant distinction is between one’s own and other societies. It seems that the distinction is Muslims versus (Jews & Christians).

4. Hate

I have a suspicion about the answer. It is not a nice explanation, but it seems to me to fit the evidence.

When did Muslims gain favor with the American left? As far as I recall, it started after 9/11/2001. Before that, I can’t remember the left caring about the plight of Muslims or including them in their “diversity” goals. Before that, Islam wasn’t really on the radar screen of American politics.

Right after 9/11, most Americans were horrified and enraged. But not everyone. Some people on the far left gleefully seized the chance to blame America, just as those Harvard students took the chance to blame Israel for the October 7 attack. An Ethnic Studies professor at the University of Colorado posted an essay on “the justice of roosting chickens”, seemingly explaining the attack as the natural and just consequence of American evil. He compared America to the Nazis and justified killing people in the World Trade Center thus:

“As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire … If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”

Needless to say, the idea that Islamic terrorists are crusaders for socialism and progressive causes as Western leftists understand them is a narcissistic delusion. Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other Islamic extremist groups don’t give two craps about American leftist causes. They are crusaders for Islam. Osama bin Laden attacked America because he wanted to end U.S. support for the Saudi government, so that he could depose them and establish a different, more extreme fundamentalist theocracy in Saudi Arabia. Many people fail to understand this because they can’t imagine a society having completely different issues and different belief systems from ours.

Returning to the point: What do far leftists like about Islam? They like that Islamic extremists hate America. That’s what really matters to them. It’s more important to hate America than to recognize democracy, or free speech, or to treat women or gays like human beings.

The far left’s hatred of America is not explained by America’s mistreatment of this or that group, else they would hate the countries that treat those groups far worse. Rather, hatred of America is a fundamental ideological axiom. Their complaints about America’s alleged oppression of minorities are not driven by concern for those minorities; they are just a tool for attacking America. That is why woke activism doesn’t focus on practical steps to improve the lives of minorities (e.g., programs to reduce out-of-wedlock births, increase graduation rates, or reduce gang violence); it focuses almost entirely on convincing everyone that America is evil.

Granted, most people on the left side of the political spectrum are moderate leftists who don’t really hate America (just as most rightists are moderate rightists, not white supremacists). But people on the left stick together: they’re afraid to criticize anyone on the left side of the spectrum, however extreme. They’re afraid even to undermine the messaging that anyone on their side has undertaken. Hence, even moderate leftists won’t criticize Islam, since that would show disloyalty to their side, since the extremists have decided that the Islamic world is a leftist ally.

Why do the extreme leftists hate America? I still don’t know. This is very strange because most people throughout history, regardless of the society they lived in, had a very strong bias in favor of their own society. What trauma have left-wing extremists suffered that left them with such a deep-seated resentment toward their own society?


LIKE
COMMENT
RESTACK
 

© 2024 Michael Huemer

4.3.24

My approach to war is like General Sherman

 My approach to war is like General Sherman who burnt every town he walked into on his way through Georgia.  Not from cruelty, but from the sense that war is hell, and the most compassionate way about it is to end it as soon as possible. That is by making people not want to fight. He made no differences between soldiers or civilian. All the more so in Gaza where there is in fact no difference. 

 In the approach of Torah there have been three compromises. Faith with reason was the compromise of the Middle Ages. It is the approach of Saadia Gaon, the Chovot Levavot (Josef ibn Pakuda), and Rambam. [This I think is not that of the Ramban.] The separation of faith from reason, i think is a mistake. 


  There is another approach of Torah with pleasure. In this approach people follow Torah because it is the best way to "get laid" i.e., to get one's desires fulfilled. 

  There is a modern approach where the compromise is Torah with community. That is that Torah is a way to have a place in the religious community.

In these last two of these choices, boredom is the main motivation. People follow them because they are bored.


3.3.24

monastery of Mount Cassino

 The Allies bombed the monastery of Mount Cassino which they thought was being used by the Germans as an observation post or perhaps even more. The Allies were mistaken,(the Germans were on the slopes below the monastery), but in any case the monastery was bombed out of existence. So I do not understand why Moshe Dayan thought Muslim holy places were off limits- while in fact they were being used for military purposes during the pervious decade by Jordan and during the six day war.[

29.2.24

For Schopenhauer there is only one thing in itself.

For Schopenhauer there is only one thing in itself, not many. by this he intends to belay the problems on Kant raised by Schulze, Fichte and others. That is the WILL, but this will is not automatically good.  There is a non-rational aspect to God, as the verse we say in the morning states  יוצר אור ובורא רע ''forms light and creates evil.'' However that blessing changed to actual words of the verse to be ''...creates darkness.'' This you can see in Job where the suffering  in fact did not come from sin, but from a bet God had with the devil. The non rational aspect of God can be seen through-out the Torah. God gave Avraham a son and later told him to kill him to show how religious he is. He brings Moses to the edge of the Land of Israel but does not let him enter because Moses hit the rock similarly to what he was told 40 years prior to that right after they left Egypt. The events with David and Bat Sheva also shows this aspect  where he was never supposed to be married with her and yet that is the union from which all kings of the House of David come. in the Torah there is a command to appoint a king but when Israel wanted to fulfill that command the prophet Shmuel showed to them a miracle to show that they had sinned.

This irrational aspect is because reason is a creation of God. It does not control Him.