Trust in God without effort was the major idea of Navardok. I mentioned the Ramban from Leviticus 26:11 which holds this way. And there is the Gra also that says the same. It is known that the Duties of the Heart had the opinion that one should do some effort.
Navardok however went with the opinion of the Ramban. The person that started Navardok was Joseph Horvitz and he had been a businessman until one day he got into a conversation with Isaac Blazer a disciple of Israel Salanter. The conversation centered on doing business instead of learning Torah. Joseph asked "If I don't  work, the what will happen?" And Isaac Blazer repeated that phrase "What will happen?" meaning what will happen in the next world. And that lite a fuse. From then on Joseph devoted himself to Torah and to this idea that one can just learn Torah and does not have to worry about money.

This does not mean using Torah to ask people for money. That is not what trust in God means. There was a time in fact that accepting charity was considered despicable and asking for it even worse.
The idea of Navardok was different. It was that of trust.

Learning fast

Learning fast was suggested by the Musar book the אורחות צדיקים. And that was the first place I saw it. Later when I got to yeshiva in NY I saw this idea in a different book called בנין עולם.  It was a general method of learning recommended by Jewish sages from the time of the Talmud and onward. לעולם לגרוס אינש אף על גב ידע מאי קאמר. I am the first person (I think) to apply it to math and physics.
The first time I ever did that was when I was in Beverly Hills High School, and applied this idea to my chemistry book. I just read through the chapter saying the words in order and not doing any review. I recall doing well on the test on that chapter. I  got the idea from that Musar book, Paths of the Righteous
However for a long time after that I did not learn any math. I began looking at math again only very recently when it was too late to make much progress. Still based on "faith in the sages" that the Rambam knew what he was talking about when he considered physics and metaphysics as part of the Oral Law I began again. [With encouragement of the students and librarians at Hebrew University.] [The people there were very helpful in many ways.]
[So my basic advice to use this approach to get through the entire Oral Law, the Talmud at least once, even without any Rashi or Tosphot, the whole written Law (Tenach),  Physics up until String Theory and Math up to Abstract Algebra,  Algebraic Topology, and Calculus with the Lebesgue Integral which are important for Physics.]

Music for the glory of God

n96 n96 midi  n96 in nwc


b28 (14) b28 nwc


b33 b33 midi



b44 b44 midi b44 nwc


l94 l94 midi  l94 nwc
  
l86 l86 midi  l86 nwc


l82 l82 midi  l82 nwc

(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies.

I suggest learning fast.
Also from the Ari [Isaac Luria, the Ari].

From the Ari: to learn every day "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה". One session in the Old Testament, Mishna, Talmud and Midrash in order.



What this means for me is  have a certain amount of books on the table to my left. Pick up one, and go through a few pages in order. Just say the words and go on. The major thing is not to repeat. No repetition allowed.
Then put it down on your right, and then pick up the next book, and go through a few pages of that one.

But besides this you need and in depth session also. That is called עיון.  For that type of learning I don't have anything to say. I did find a learning partner. But in subjects where could not find a learning partner I just went through things in the old fashioned way. In Physics and Math I did lots of problems. And when I finished the problem exercises, then I went back and did them again. That is how I did Trig., Algebra and Calculus. Since then I have mainly concentrated on fast learning in the Natural Sciences.

_________________________________________________________________________

Appendix

(1)In Torah learning I am not suggesting that the only things to do are מקרא משנה גמרא מדרש. That is more like an introduction. I think Musar is important also. That is to go through the basic set of Musar. That is only about five books from the Middle Ages and the books from the direct disciples of Israel Salanter.

(2) If you do  Kabbalah, it is best just to plow through the writings of Isaac Luria and the Remak. The rest of it is pseudo Kabbalah and not worth the paper it is written on.


(3) The excommunication of the Gra still applies.  Also see the Mishna LaMelech about the general status of ban as akin to what we call איסור נדר. So you can't just ignore it. That is the Mishna LaMelech  in laws of oaths. When the Rambam begins laws of נדרים  that is where you find this discussion. What he says is that we know a person can forbid his object to himself and to others. All he needs to do is to say חפץ זה קרבן עלי or to others to say חפצי זה קרבן לך or any other language like that. And even if he does not mention anything else but just this object is forbidden to me or to you that object becomes forbidden. He does however have to own the object if he is forbidding it to others. The Rashbatz and the Mishna LaMelch says the same applies to a שמתא and excommunication even of the most minor type. All the more so the an actual חרם. So the חרם  of the Gra is nothing to fool around with. This means that one that transgress this חרם is transgressing a prohibition of the Torah.


אני מציע   שיטה של למידה במהירות, ועוד דבר של האריז''ל
: ללמוד כל יום "מקרא, משנה, גמרא, קבלה".. מה זה אומר עבורי היא יש כמות מסוימת של ספרים על השולחן לשמאלי. להרים את אחד, ולעבור כמה עמודים. רק לומר את המילים וללכת הלאה. הדבר העיקרי הוא לא לחזור.  חזרה אינה מותרת.. ואז לשים אותו בצד ימין, ואז להרים את הספר הבא, ולעבור כמה עמודים.

Music link for the glory of God

l77


l83

עיוני בבא מציעא 

I am putting this link here because of some spelling corrections I made to this little booklet on the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.

Also here is a link to the little book on Shas

Trust in God according to Nachmanides. No effort needed. The sourse of the Ramban

I think the place that Israel סלנטר saw in the Ramban [Nachmanides] that showed to him that the opinion of the Ramban that one does not need השתדלות [effort] is the ויקרא Leviticus ch 26 verse 11.

It is a known fact that Rav Israel did see this in the Ramban. He is quoted in the מדרגת האדם  as saying such. But in the actual Musar magazine that he published in Vilnius the תבונה in the musar Drasha he wrote there this same statement appears. The question has been floating around for a long time where is the Rambanרמב''ן is this statement?
People noticed that Ramban but did not think deep enough into what he is saying.
So let me say over the exact statement so you will see.
"Permission is given to the doctor to heal but not to the patient to be healed. " That is  after the patient comes to the doctor, the doctor can assume that he has done this before so he is not among those who trust in God and then he can heal him. But the patient has no such permission. He is supposed to trust in God." There is no way to explain this Ramban except the way Israel Salanter did, that one does not need השתדלות effort.

It is known that the Obligations of the Heart disagrees with the Ramban. But it is hard to know exactly what he means.

King Asa he wrote trusted in God and the doctors. So it seems if he had trusted in God alone but still gone to doctors  that would have been OK.

I think the  Musar approach of Israel Salanter is very important. That is to learn the traditional books of Medieval Ethics. Yet I find it difficult to find any argument to make for it. But if I could I would. It is more like an intuitive thing.



This refers  to Christians also. There is nothing quite like the books of personal ethics from the Middle Ages.  Christians could take for example the books of the mystics from Spain and make their own version of the Musar movement. That is not the same as learning theology. It means having something like a בית מוסר "a House of Musar." Or a "House of Ethics." The idea would be to have  room in which there are only books of ethics and fear of God. I am not familiar with what books are available to Christians in this fashion. The only ones I know about are of Saint John of the Cross. And the idea is not to have a reading room. It is to learn these books out loud and with emotion so that the message gets absorbed into the subconscious.

There is no way for Judeo -Christian civilization to survive and flourish without this. Because it is the ethics and the fear of God which makes Judeo-Christian civilization what it is.

Now I admit that just learning books of ethics does not automatically make one ethical. But you know when you encounter a person whose learning consists of the Duties of the Heart  or some book of the disciples of Israel Salanter that you are going to be treated on a whole different level of decency than when you met someone who learning consists of other kinds of religious learning. There is in fact nothing like Musar to imprint morality into people. And unless you think of yourself or others as being automatically moral then clearly this is a desirable goal.

Music links for the glory of God

n39 


n41


h28

n94

 תוספות in בבא בתרא
In בבא בתרא קנז you have the normal case of a מלווה  לווה  ולוקח.
תוספות asks how can it be that the לוקח can collect for his שבחfrom נני חורין? How is it that the לווה has בני חורין? He answers he does not have בני חורין. He only has משועבדים.
The מהרש''ל sees from this that even though the לווה has משועבדים the מלווה goes after the field of the לוקח ראשון. The מהרש''א found an older version of תוספות that says the לווה did not have either בני חורין nor משועבדים. That means if he had had משועבדים the מלווה would have had to go after the לוקח השני
What you see from this is that my idea if basing the argument between the מהרש''א and the maharshal on the argument about לווה וללוה וקנה is completely ridiculous. While the מהרש''א certainly has some kind of support from there, but he does not need it. He makes sense anyway. It is the מהרש''ל that I was trying to say had support from the idea there that there first מלווה gets the field. And that is plain wrong.  In the case of לווה ולווה וקנה there is plenty good reason to say the first שיעבוד falls on the field. But in our case in בבא בתרא קנז all you have is two sold fields. And one was sold before the other. There is no reason to say he should go after the first field that was sold. And even if there could be some reason, it would not have anything to do with לווה ולווה וקנה.

What I have to mention is that in תוספות inדף יד בבא מציעא there is no question that the מלווה has to get from the לוקח השני. Even the מהרש''ל agrees with that. It is just in בבא בתרא the מהרש''ל has to say that the תוספות there has a different שיטה than the תוספות in בבא מציעא.

You see this from the question of תוספות in בבא מציעא. There תוספות you see there are משועבדים  that the לוקח is גובה from and not the מלווה. So from that we could learn מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד the only way this makes sense is if the second field was bought after the loan.  The מהר''ם שיף and the מהרש''ל both say there that this shows the thing we always say the לוקח can say to the מלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was נמכר. The fact that the מלווה goes after the לוקח ראשון shows the second field was bought after the loan.


 תוספות בבא בתרא
בבא בתרא קנז יש לך במקרה הרגיל של מלווה לווה ולוקח.
תוספות שואלים איך זה יכול להיות שהלוקח יכול לגבות את שבחו מבני חורין? איך זה שלווה יש בני חורין? הוא עונה שאין לו בני חורין. רק שיש לו משועבדים.
מהרש''ל רואה מזה שלמרות שללווה יש משועבדים המלווה הולך אחרי שדה של לוקח ראשון. מהרש''א מצא גרסה ישנה יותר של תוספות שאומרת שללווה גם לא  בני החורין ולא משועבדים. זה אומר שאם הוא היה משועבד מלווה היה צריך ללכת אחרי לוקח שני.
מה שאתה רואה מזה שהרעיון שלי אם לבסס את הטענות בין המהרש''א והמהרש"ל בוויכוח על לווה וללוה וקנה הוא מגוחך לחלוטין  בעוד מהרש''א בהחלט יש תמיכה משם, אבל הוא לא צריך את זה. הוא הגיוני בכל מקרה. אבל להמהרש''ל אני נסיתי להביא תמיכה מהרעיון לווה וללוה וקנה  שמלווה הראשון מקבל את השדה. וזה טעות. במקרה של לווה ולווות וקנה יש סיבה טובה מספיק כדי לומר שיעבודו הראשון נופל על השדה. אבל במקרה שלנו בבא בתרא קנז כל מה שיש לך  הוא שני שדות שנמכרו. ואחד נמכר לפני האחר. אין שום סיבה לומר שהוא צריך ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון שנמכר. וגם אם יכול להיות שיש סיבה כלשהי, זה לא היה שייך ללווה ולווה וקנה.
מה שאני צריך להזכיר את זה בתוספות בדף י''ד בבא מציעא אין ספק שמלווה  גובה מלוקח השני. אפילו מהרש''ל מסכים עם זה. זה רק בבא בתרא  המהרש''ל אומר שתוספות שם יש שיטה שונה מהתוספות בבבא מציעא. אתה רואה את זה מהשאלה של תוספות בבא מציעא.  תוספות אומרים שזה שאתה רואה שיש משועבדים שהלוקח הוא גובה ולא המלווה. אז אנחנו יכולים ללמוד מזה "מה שאקנה" קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד. הדרך היחידה שזה הגיוני היא אם השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה. המהר''ם שיף והמהרש''ל שניהם אומרים  שזה מראה את מה שאנחנו אומרים תמיד לוקח יכול לומר למלווה "מקום הנחיתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו גם לאחר השדה השני היה נמכר. העובדה שמלווה הולך אחרי לוקח ראשון מראה את השדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה
here is a link to this subject in my little booklet on Shas.
חידושי הש''ס

 I should mention that the Gemara in Bava Batra does its derivation from the fact that the מלווה collects שבח that shows דאקני קנה ומכר משתעבד. The ברייתא itself does not tell us when the second field was bought.

One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.

  One needs time alone with God in order to get one's head straightened out. It is not simple to rise above one's evil inclination.


Ecclesiastes 3.  ויתרון האדם מן הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל "the superiority of man over the animal is nothing."
 Even if you think all your motivations come from the side of holiness there is little surety  that such is the case. Even if you are sitting and learning Torah all day, your actual motivations might be hidden from you.
For this reason I suggest going into a forest or someplace alone where no one else can see you or even know you are there, and talk with God like one talks with friend--in order to re establish your connection with God.

This does not have to be all day long--but the more the better. One needs time alone with God in order to get ones head straightened out.


[The type of moral actions I am interested in are ones that have a moral motivation. Motivation does not in general effect if an action is right. But it does effect if the action is good. And good actions are what seem interesting to me. I.e. to me both action and motivation determine if an action is good. So to get into one's own head to straighten out one's own motivations is important.]

Appendix:


(1) When it comes to getting straight with God I don't think Yoga works. I think Yoga is mainly a device of the Sitra Achra and has nothing to do with getting right with God.
(2) Also, I think one should be careful with whom one talks about his or her problems. The very fact of opening up one heart to another person that does not have your best interest in mind is a trick of the Dark Side to pull you into its orbit.

Music link for the glory of God

n64 n64 in midi format


h57  h57 in midi



n94 mp3 [n94 in midi]


n39 [n39 in midi]

בבא מציעא יד:

 You have a ברייתא thus:
You have a מלווה and a לווה with שדה and the לוקח who bought from the לווה. The לווה defaults and the מלווה gets the field. Then the לוקח goes and gets paid back for his loose from the property of the לווה--even from property the לווה has sold.
תוספות asks why not prove from this that מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד what I will buy is not a lean for a loan from this that the לווה could not collect from the field that the לוקח could collect from.
The מהר''ם שיף says you learn from תוספות question that everywhere where it says הלוקח יכול לומר למלווה מקום הנחתי  לי לגבות ממנו means even after the second field was sold.

This is also the opinion of מהרש''ל. The idea here is that the second field was bought after the loan and that is the only way that the question of תוספות makes sense. Then when he writes "מה שאקנה קנה ומכר buy" and still the מלווה can't collect then תוספות has a proof. So we see from תוספות that the second field was not owned at the time of the loan. Why not? Because according to the Maharam Shif if it had been then the מלווה would have had to collect from the second field.



בבא מציעא יד:
 יש לך ברייתא כך:
יש לך מלווה ולווה  ולוקח שקנה שדה מן הלווה. יש מחדל בתשלום ההלוואה. והמלווה מקבל את השדה. אז הלוקח הולך ומקבל תשלום  להפסדו מרכושו של לווה-- אפילו מרכוש שהלווה מכר
תוספות שואלים מדוע לא להוכיח מזה שמה שאקנה  קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד?  מזה שהמלווה לא יכול לגבות מהשטח שהלוקח גובה ממנו?
המהר''ם שיף כתב שיש ללמוד משאלת תוספות כי בכל מקום שבו הוא אומר "הלוקח אומר למלווה מקום הנחתי לך לגבות ממנו פירושו יכול גם לאחר שדה השני נמכר. זו גם דעתו של מהרש''ל. הרעיון כאן הוא שהשדה השני נקנה לאחר ההלוואה, כי הוא הדרך היחידה שהשאלה של תוספות הגיונית.  היינו כאשר הוא כותב "מה שאקנה"  וקנה ומכר ועדיין לא יכול  המלווה לגבות אז יש תוספות הוכחה. כך אנו רואים מתוספות שהשדה השני לא היה בבעלות בזמן של ההלוואה. למה לא? כי לפי שיף מהר"ם אם זה היה אז מלווה היה צריך לגבות מהשדה השני


I wrote this to show how in the Tosphot in Bava Metzia there is no doubts. It is when you get to Bava Batar 157 that there is an argument between the Maharsha and Maharsha what Tosphot holds.

This is music written for the glory of God. Also a link to the little booklet I wrote on ch 8 and 9 in the Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia.

i6 mp3 [i6  in midi format]  i6 nwc

n62 mp3 [n62 in midi] n62 nwc

n63 mp3 [n63 in midi format]  n63nwc

עיוני בבא מציעא

I had to made an important correction. On page 97 there is a question on Tosafot that I deal with at length. But in the middle of the discussion I put the answer to the question. I just realized now that that is not the the right place for the answer, but rather after all other possibilities have been eliminated then should come the proper answer.

[The piece I am referring to here starts with: בבא מציעא דף צז: קודם כל בתור הקדמה, אני רוצה להציע  משפט מהמשנה ]


And here is another link to an even smaller booklet on isolated subjects in the Talmud and I must mention that this later booklet has not been edited as thoroughly as the first one.חידושי הש''ס

Not everyone is meant to be sitting and learning Torah all day. After all who can sit and learn Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot all day long? And because not everyone can, you get the general case in yeshivas where students that can't  learn waste their time and learn pseudo Torah. and that is what makes them into fanatics.

And this I think was the reason for the movement against Musar.
After the age of eighteen only about 5% of people should even open a book. Those that should not but have to because of their social environment get the weirdest ideas. This is what cause  the insane religious world  insanities that sprout up like mushrooms after a rain.

In the secular world this  kids at eighteen have to go to college. They have to get a college degree for many reasons. But this is a travesty.   They should not even open a book. They should be out there flipping hamburgers or getting apprenticed into some profession (a kosher one).
They simply can't be sitting all day and learning some real subject like STEM ( science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). This is where all the worship of  homsexualism and other mental illnesses comes from.


And kollels have the  most terrible effects on people. You pay people to be learning that ought not to be learning and can't learn and should be out working you get what you see. --They certainly are not doing Gemara Rashi and Tosafot. No amount of money in the world will make them look at Tosafot. So you are creating a race of mental retards that can't learn and won't work. And they think they are superior to everyone else.

 A normal conversation with one of the the insane religious world  goes like this.
Me: "Most people are not interested in sitting and learning. You get armies of teenagers that can't sit and learn, but they don't work either."

The charedi: "The State of Israel is to  blame for this. It is because of the  State of Israel that people can't work. This is because if they work then they have to  serve in  the army."

Me:  "So let them serve in the army."
The charedi: "They won't do that. That is heresy to them."

[The the insane religious world  are against the State, and they are committing treason. And in Torah that is a capital offence.
Besides that I must point out that if the the insane religious world   would be in charge, the result would be as disastrous on a global  scale as much as it is on the small communities they control. It does not take much imagination to extrapolate from the small scale to large scale.]


So what to conclude is you have 100,000 people in kollels in Israel being supported for learning Torah, that don't want to learn Torah. It is not that they don't want to keep Torah, but they are incapable of learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot.
If you try to engage in a conversation about Torah, their eyes glaze over because they could not care less about what it says in the Torah. They are in kollel for one purpose alone--not to have to go to  IDF.

They would rather work. But they can't work because then they would have to enlist in the army. And that is heresy because it means being in the service of the State that they want to destroy.

Then comes the suggestion to take the case to the Hague. The fact that the State would force people to serve in the Army that are conscientious objector. This it is claimed is a war crime.

And though I don't say so, but I think about Frederick the Great, the Emperor the Mozart wrote under.  Under his regime there was a large amount of freedom. But not freedom to overthrow the regime. Treason was considered by Frederick as a serious crime. Any group that would have openly advocated treason and the overthrow of the State would have been summarily executed.
Now you can say well that is just Frederick. What about the Torah? But in the Torah also we find treason to be a serious crime. In Hilchot Melachim of the Rambam we also find any person conspiring to take down the king is liable the death penalty.

שיחה רגילה עם אחד מהחרדים הולכת ככה. אתה מציין כי רוב האנשים אינם מעוניינים להיות יושבים ולומדים. אתה מקבל צבאות של בני נוער שלא יכולים לשבת ללמוד אבל הם גם לא עובדים.החרדי אז מציין שמדינת ישראל  אשמה בזה. זה, הוא אומר, בגלל המדינה המרושעת של ישראל שאנשים לא יכולים לעבוד. זאת, משום שאם הם עובדים אז הם צריכים לשרת בצבא. ואז אתה מעיר על כך לתת להם לשרת בצבא. ואז הוא אומר שהם לא יעשו את זה. זה כפירה אצלם. אז מה שאתה מקבל הוא  שיש לך מאה אלף אנשים בכוללים בישראל נתמכים ללימוד תורה שלא רוצים ללמוד תורה. זה לא שהם לא רוצים לשמור על תורה, אבל הם לא מסוגלים ללמוד גמרא רש"י ותוספות. הם מעדיפים לעבוד. אבל הם לא יכולים לעבוד כי אז הם יצטרכו להתגייס לצבא. וזה כפירה, כי זה אומר להיות בשירות המדינה שהם רוצים להרוס. ואז החרדי  מגיש את ההצעה לקחת את התיק להאג. העובדה שהמדינה תכריח את אנשים לשרת בצבא, כי הם  סרבנים. זה הוא טען הוא פשע מלחמה. ולמרות שאני לא אומר את זה, אבל אני חושב שעל  פרדריק  הגדול,  הקיסר שמוצרט כתב תחתיו. תחת  משטרו  הייתה כמות גדולה של חופש. אבל לא חופש להפיל את המשטר.  בגידה הייתה  נחשבת  על ידי פרידריך כפשע חמור. כל קבוצה שהייתה בגלוי  מדגלת  בגידה והדחתה של המדינה  הייתה  כבר  על הסף להורג. עכשיו אתה יכול להגיד שזה רק  פרדריק. מה לגבי התורה? אבל בתורה גם אנו מוצאים בגידה להיות פשע חמור. בהלכות מלכים של הרמב"ם אנו מוצאים גם כל אדם  בקשירת קשר  להפיל את המלך עלול עונש המוות

What we have from this in a practical sense is that if you are thinking of going to Israel you should avoid the insane religious world  neighborhoods because according to the Torah one is obligated to stay away from the wicked. Furthermore one can ask if it is even worthwhile to move there as long as there are groups whose open purpose is to destroy the State. If the State can't remove this pernicious influence from its midst then how can it protect ordinary citizens? 

Music links

l73   [l73 in midi]

l78 [l78 in midi]

בבא מציעא יד: תוספות ד''ה תריץ

Introduction. You have the case of a מלווה lender and a לווה borrower with two fields. Then there is a loan. After the הלוואה loan, a person הלוקח buys one field. Then a second buyer buys the other. Then the לווה defaults on the loan. Then the מלווה lender goes after the second field. Shelomo Luria מהרש''ל says he has to go after the שדה השני second field because it was free משוחרר at a time when the first one had been sold. The מהרש''א disagrees. I claim this is like the case לווה ולווה וקנה a person borrows and then borrows again and then buys a field and defaults. Who gets the field? I say it is the same argument.
Well not exactly. If we say the first lender gets the field, it must be because once the שיעבוד obligation devolves on it it stays there.


According to the מהרש''ל
We see  in תוספות that the general idea you see in the תלמוד that the לוקח can tell the מלווה "מקום "הנחתי לך לגבות means even if the second field was sold! The מהרש''א disagrees with this and I don't remember how. Maybe he thinks the מלווה can collect from which שדה he wants. I don't know. Look in Bava Batra 157.

But all I was doing in some little note was to say the argument between the מהרש''א and מהרש''ל
depends on the argument also in בבא בתרא קנז about לווה ולווה וקנה.

All I was saying was that  the cases are not exactly similar, but in in our case on page 14 we are dealing with the order סדר של גביה . Not is there is שיעבוד at all but what the order that the מלווה has to take to collect. And that is exactly the argument about לווה ולווה וקנה.

This was the entire idea, and it is so simple I would be very surprised if I was the only one to think of it. And why I would have erased it I certainly don't know.


I think what caused my confusion was the fact that I had forgotten that תוספות says openly in בבא בתרא that the שדה השני was owned קמוי at the time of the הלוואה. It was not bought later. You also my reader must keep this in mind because it is essential in order to understand this תוספות בבא מציעא
________________________________________________________________________


I found the original essay. Here it is:
I wanted to mention something  in Talmud Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157. The case is the well known case of  המלווה (A) לווה  (B)  לוקח ראשון(C) . In Bava Batra we find that if לווה defaults on the loan that a collects the field from לוקח ראשון.

 לוקח then goes to  a later buyer לוקח השני to collect the price of the field [if לווה has no free field left.] Tosphot asks from where does לווה have free property and how could there be a person לוקח השני? The מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל have an argument from how could there be a לוקח השני here. The מהרש''א says he comes after the lender has collected from לוקח ראשון. --But he has not collected all the money owed to him yet. The לווה buys a new property and then sell it to לוקח השני. then לוקח ראשון collects from לוקח השני but not מלווה because he has already collected once. No double jeopardy. The מהרש''ל disagrees with this and say even if לוקח השני has property the the time the loan is being collected A still must go to the לוקח ראשון.

My suggestion here is that this argument come from a separate argument in the Talmud itself about one person that borrowed and borrowed from someone else and then bought and then sold a field.לווה ולווה וקנה The Gemara has one suggestion that the first one collects and another suggestion that the last one collects.

 I think I can show how the מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל must have looked at this.
The first way is that the שיעבוד goes on לווה and does not get removed because of a later loan. This is the מהרש''ל just applying the same reasoning to a field that has a שיעבוד on it. The מהרש''א also is saying from the second way in the גמרא that just like the  שיעבוד השני on the לווה nullifies the first שיעבוד  so with a field.

That is my idea and now I would like to defend it by means of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik.

In short Reb Chaim has  an idea like this. In the first case I mentioned here about  המלווה לווה and לוקח ראשון the Rambam says לוקח  loses only half his improvements but all improvements that grow by themselves.Why is that? Because he says the שיעבוד of  המלווה and לווה are equal in so far as they go both through לווה. But the שיעבוד of מלווה is on the property directly while לוקח ראשון only bought the property which is less strong than the שיעבוד of  המלווה. So we see that we can make a distinction between the שיעבוד on property  and on a person but we do not do so unless there is a something stronger around .

Final note:

What makes this confusing is the fact that the מהרש''ל in Bava Metzia says the same thing as the מהרש''א in Bava Batra. This is because he is explaining a different answer in Tosafot. The argument between them is only in Bava Batra because it is there you have the statement of the maharshal that the מהרש''א is disagreeing with.

[1] The centrality of the tzadik [saint].
Now there are pitfalls to this approach. One can for example take someone who is not a tzadik as a teacher thinking that they are a tzadik. This happens frequently. And people justify their following some very evil person thinking that they are  a tzadik. This happens, in fact, most of the time. I know no person today that is called a "tzadik" that is in fact such. Most of the time they are clever actors that are highly wicked.

 And it is this phenomenon of people following some wicked person thinking that they are a tzadik that causes what we see that many people give up on the whole idea and come to the grave of



Clarification: the tzadik is not divine. He is not someone to pray to. [Though you do see baalei teshuva doing this.] But  a connection with the tzadik is an indirect way of being connected with the Torah. Because the tzadik is connected with the Torah and by means of that he is connected with God.

Note: I put this here again though it is an essay from a few days ago because it is important.

Without a tzadik people tend to create all kinds of modern idols,  Psychology, Yoga, Meditation,worship of homosexuals, worship of  Negroes, and worship of a tzadik also. It takes a lot of conviction to remain loyal to Torah and to in fact believe that Torah has all the answers for human life. To obstacles to Torah are infinite. But the Sitra Achra creates Trojan Horses--people that it plants into the world of Torah that are in fact agents of the Sitra Achra.