I had just two small ideas to talk about today. So I will put them here on the main blog. One refers to the way Reb Chaim Soloveitchik answers for a difficult Rambam. The Rambam says concerning a field that is made an apotiki אפותיקי [a thing that the lender must get paid back from if the borrower defaults]. In short the Rambam says the law of "his hand is on the bottom"(ידו על התחתונה) applies to half the improvement (חצי שבח) and concerning the expenses he says if they are less than the half improvement then the lender pays all. The thing that Reb Chaim says that I could not figure out before was that as far as the expenses are concerned the field is considered as the property of the lender and so the lender pays all. The reason is this neat חילוק-- distinction--that Reb Chaim makes. As far as an apotiki is considered it is considered as the field is considered as owned by the lender--but this does not stop the law from Bava Batra of half improvements also coming into play because as far as improvements goes we say the obligation comes from the fact that the seller writes "I will repay the improvements if a lender collects from the field." [I already wrote about this stuff enough on my other blog wine women and transcendence, so I will make this short here.]
the Rambam is in the laws of loans chapter 21 law one and law 6
This is already taking more time than I expected so I will try to make this next idea as short as possible.
It concerns the idea that on Shabat one can't do a work that is done for its own sake. (מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה) But if done not for its own sake this is subject to disagreement between R. Shimon and R. Yehuda
I have not written about this before here so I will at least be obligated to bring a little bit of the Gemara. R. Abahu says all types of work that do damage are not obligated in a sacrifice except for causing a wound and lighting a fire. (כל המקלקים פטורים חוץ מחובל ומבעיר)This is because the Torah allows one to do Brit Milah on Shabat. So obviously if the Torah had not allowed it it would have been forbidden [since both are among the 39 types of work that are not allowed on shabat] But why should Milah have been forbidden? It is causing a wound and doing damage! So we see causing a wound even in the case of doing damage is obligated in a sacrifice.That is all just the simple Gemara. The question is is it not also a work done not for its own sake? In fact Rashi says it is! So we see also that work done not for its own sake in the case of wounding is obligated.
What I am trying to bring out here is to nullify the other possibility that it is work done for its own sake. [צריכה לגופה] I can't prove this but I am at least showing how Rashi might answer this problem. For all I know Tosphot might say to R. Abahu that it is work done for its own sake and that is why the Torah has to allow it.
I did not write the above in Hebrew so it was not included in the two blooklets on Bava Metzia and Shas. However if I was in the actual subjects I might be able to rewrite these ideas. But this minute [8 yeas later], I forgot the subjects discussed here.
the Rambam is in the laws of loans chapter 21 law one and law 6
This is already taking more time than I expected so I will try to make this next idea as short as possible.
It concerns the idea that on Shabat one can't do a work that is done for its own sake. (מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה) But if done not for its own sake this is subject to disagreement between R. Shimon and R. Yehuda
I have not written about this before here so I will at least be obligated to bring a little bit of the Gemara. R. Abahu says all types of work that do damage are not obligated in a sacrifice except for causing a wound and lighting a fire. (כל המקלקים פטורים חוץ מחובל ומבעיר)This is because the Torah allows one to do Brit Milah on Shabat. So obviously if the Torah had not allowed it it would have been forbidden [since both are among the 39 types of work that are not allowed on shabat] But why should Milah have been forbidden? It is causing a wound and doing damage! So we see causing a wound even in the case of doing damage is obligated in a sacrifice.That is all just the simple Gemara. The question is is it not also a work done not for its own sake? In fact Rashi says it is! So we see also that work done not for its own sake in the case of wounding is obligated.
What I am trying to bring out here is to nullify the other possibility that it is work done for its own sake. [צריכה לגופה] I can't prove this but I am at least showing how Rashi might answer this problem. For all I know Tosphot might say to R. Abahu that it is work done for its own sake and that is why the Torah has to allow it.
I did not write the above in Hebrew so it was not included in the two blooklets on Bava Metzia and Shas. However if I was in the actual subjects I might be able to rewrite these ideas. But this minute [8 yeas later], I forgot the subjects discussed here.
