I still have no computer but a friend is letting me write on his. Finally I have access to Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and I have been looking at it along with a drop of string theory and math. {I still learn these mainly by the method of גירסה just saying the words and going on as the Gemara brings.}
One thing I noticed in Rav Shach is that he says the argument between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish about קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי [''Possession of the fruit is like possession of the thing''] is not like it sounds. He says [in laws of renting] that the issue is if renting in itself is like possession of the thing.
That is how he answers the question that I brought up in my booklet on Bava Metzia that the Gemara seems to say that the person that is renting owns the fertilizer in the courtyard, while the Rambam [Maimonides] says not.
I would like to delve more deeply into this but in short Rav Shach says the cases that you find in Shas where the renter owes the stuff that is left in the courtyard is where the intention of the renting was for that specific purpose.--in the view of the Rambam. Clearly the Raavad disagrees. Also I might mention that Rav Shach at the end of that chapter leaves off with a question on Tosphot. To me that is a clear invitation to try and answer for Tosphot.
I am still hoping to get a hold of the books of Rav Avraham Abulafia [the mediaeval mystic that I have mentioned a few times] to get a better idea of his approach. But so far things are going with difficulty in Israel. In any case, it is clear to me that Rav Abulafia is much more interested in unifications than the Ari. I lost interest in unifications for a while but recent events have rekindled my interest. That is to find the right unifications that are applicable to my recent problems.
Also since Professor Moshe Idel has done a lot of research into Rav Abulafia I would like to get his books also.[It was in fact looking at Moshe Ideal's Ph.D thesis that gave me a degree of clarity about Rav Abulafia's opinions about Christianity.
[I have also been looking at Heidegger who I find to have a some important points. While philosophers tend to look at what is common to all people, Heidegger brings the idea that that is not as interesting as what makes people different.
One thing I noticed in Rav Shach is that he says the argument between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish about קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי [''Possession of the fruit is like possession of the thing''] is not like it sounds. He says [in laws of renting] that the issue is if renting in itself is like possession of the thing.
That is how he answers the question that I brought up in my booklet on Bava Metzia that the Gemara seems to say that the person that is renting owns the fertilizer in the courtyard, while the Rambam [Maimonides] says not.
I would like to delve more deeply into this but in short Rav Shach says the cases that you find in Shas where the renter owes the stuff that is left in the courtyard is where the intention of the renting was for that specific purpose.--in the view of the Rambam. Clearly the Raavad disagrees. Also I might mention that Rav Shach at the end of that chapter leaves off with a question on Tosphot. To me that is a clear invitation to try and answer for Tosphot.
I am still hoping to get a hold of the books of Rav Avraham Abulafia [the mediaeval mystic that I have mentioned a few times] to get a better idea of his approach. But so far things are going with difficulty in Israel. In any case, it is clear to me that Rav Abulafia is much more interested in unifications than the Ari. I lost interest in unifications for a while but recent events have rekindled my interest. That is to find the right unifications that are applicable to my recent problems.
Also since Professor Moshe Idel has done a lot of research into Rav Abulafia I would like to get his books also.[It was in fact looking at Moshe Ideal's Ph.D thesis that gave me a degree of clarity about Rav Abulafia's opinions about Christianity.
[I have also been looking at Heidegger who I find to have a some important points. While philosophers tend to look at what is common to all people, Heidegger brings the idea that that is not as interesting as what makes people different.
