The major question which came up when I was in high school was "What is the good life?" This was not phrased in that way. The way people around me put it was in terms of the "search for the truth."

But it was this question that I felt was answered when I got to yeshiva in NY. That is a life of service towards God along with a vocation. Service towards God was largely understood to mean learning Torah along with a life of mitzvot.




This might seem like a trivial question. But that would be wrong. Many places that at least present themselves as promoting the good life in exactly this way--Torah and mitzvot - are highly destructive of the the exact goal they are claiming to advance. What they say and what they do are not in correspondence. The life they advocate is a life of cursing secular Jews (when they are not asking them for charity) and spending their days in  chatting and gossip.

The question of the good life is not an abstract question. It is question that concerns our very souls.
And what is happening before our eyes is a battle for our souls. The movements geared to suck people into them are as pernicious as the Gra foresaw long ago.





________________________________________________________________________________

השאלה המרכזית שעלתה כשהייתי בתיכון היתה "מהם החיים הטובים?" זה לא היה מנוסח ככה. האופן שבו אנשים סביבי שמו אותה היה במונחים של "החיפוש אחר האמת." אבל זה היתה השאלה שהרגשתי שנענתה כשהגעתי לישיבה בניו יורק. כי הם חיים של שירות כלפי אלוהים . שירות כלפי אלוהים במובן של ללמוד תורה יחד עם חיים של מצוות. זה אולי נראה כמו שאלה טריוויאלית. יש מקומות רבים  שמציגים את עצמם  כקידום בחיים הטובים בדרך זו בדיוק, תורה ומצוות  אבל מאוד הרסניים של המטרה הזאת.  מה הם אומרים ומה הם עושים הם לא בהתכתבות. החיים שלהם בם חיים לקלל חילונים בזמן שהם לא שואלים אותם לצדקה ולבלות ימיהם מפטפטים ורכילות

Can virtue be taught? This is the underlying assumption of the Lithuanian yeshiva
That is the idea of learning Torah for its own sake and not in order for it to be  source of money . The idea is that by learning Torah for its own sake one will be taught and influenced to be virtuous and also he will be living the good life.The life of men as men were meant to be.
The Boy Scouts was also founded on this idea that virtue could be taught. [Within the context of outdoor skills.] Nowadays the boy-scouts is not an option but still the basic idea is valid. Perhaps something similar could be done as part of  a yeshiva program. For example to set aside a few hours per week and to bring in some Eagle Scout to teach the students a few skills.]



But we know that it is not possible to teach virtue. There are children of righteous people that are not righteous. If virtue could be taught the righteous person would have tried and succeeded in teaching it to his own children. But it is not innate either. If it was it would be seen when children are young. But many times children turn out very differently than they seem to be when young.

On the other hand we see that  wickedness can be taught. We see people born into a belief system in which evil is condoned. And they follow that path.

From what we know from Howard Bloom [the Lucifer Principle] it is the society the super-organism that is the most determinate.  So if we go with the super-organism idea of Howard Bloom we can see the idea of  a Lithuanian yeshiva is a correct idea. Something that society and one's own family can't do often a good immediate environment can do.

But by the same idea we can see how yeshivas are in general damaging because of the same idea. Most are not authentic and are not good environments where people learn virtue. Most yeshivas are chatter boxs that contrive and scheme all day how to extract money form secular Jews during the short time periods that they're not cursing them.
Yeshivas are  factories of chatter. It is rare to find the real authentic place that learns Torah for its own sake.
 And I showed above one needs a real place of Torah. It is not enough to learn on one's own. But if there is no place around that is authentic what you need to do is to get your own Shas and go through it. [Actually I mean the whole Oral Law. That is the two Talmuds, Tosephta, Sifra Sifrei and the Midrash Raba. That should not need more than about 40 minutes per day to go through one "Amud" [half a "daf"] with Rashi and Tosphot. [The thing is when you have finished the Babylonian Talmud you go on to the Jerusalem Talmud.]

learning Talmud

My essay on how to learn Talmud deals with learning in depth.
I want to say that there also needs to be a session of fast learning Gemara. The way to do this is word for word with Rashi. That is you keep one finger on the Gemara and the other on the Rashi and read the words of the Gemara and then the words of Rashi that go on those exact same word. It is hard to explain but you probably can get the idea. Then you do Tosphot, Maharsha and Maharam on that 1/2 a page [i.e. an "Amud"] This whole process should take about 40 minutues if you do all teh Maharasha and Maharam.

Music

n99   [n99 in midi]

Letter of law of rituals while doing as much violence as possible to the spirit of the Law.

Hanging around with ugly stupid and insane people must have an effect on one eventually. No one is immune to the group they hang around with.

There are promises of improvement in all kinds of areas. But you never see someone improve in character or in learning. The effect is always negative. The result of coming close and connected with any of the groups is to take  a person that was kind, generous, and smart and make him rude, cruel, and stupid.
The defense that  heard given is that it is like an emergency room. Who comes to an emergency room of a hospital? Only sick people. But I can object to this analogy. People come to an emergency room to get better. Here people come with intention to get better from what is possible to see the get worse.

This can only be known by experience. Their words and writings all seem impressive. The only way to know something is deeply wrong is by observation. So based on the Chafetz Chaim Vol I:4 I have to warn people of the dangers. This is the same reason the Gra put that entire movement into excommunication. The reason is sometimes you need to warn someone of a danger they are walking into unawares.

There are plenty of ugly stories. But I do not need to go into them because everyone has their own experiences. But they choose to ignore the negative aspects because of the entertainment  and emotional value of the movement. It is fun and deep and has luminosity. The only problem is the luminous aspect comes from worship of human beings. It is not Torah. But it is dressed in the garments of Torah in order to entice people.

1. How close one is to God according to the Torah is not dependent on how close they are to a tzadik.
2. "Everything is godliness," is not what the Torah says. That is pantheism. The view of the Torah is Monotheism.
3. The Torah holds everything was created, something from nothing. Not from God's substance. In the Torah, God has no substance.

But these issues are not as obvious as the problem that the books themselves are filled with errors and distortions and promises that they can't keep and promises that they don't keep. That is there is no objective reality behind the promises.

But the thing that bugs me the most is not whether any doctrines are true or not. What bothers me is lying about what the Torah says. If someone wants to disagree with the Torah that is not as bad as disagreeing with it and then claiming that that is what the Torah says. That takes a kind of immunity to truth. And as fascinating as their books are they still filled with errors.


The fault is a kind of lack of concern by people that could have thought about this problem by instead buried their heads in the sand. This shows I think a kind of judgement--as if these issues are irrelevant. It is almost as if the people that did not speak out had some overriding interest to be silent. It can't be there were unaware of the problems. What I think is at least some people are afraid. They don't want to say what they think because of a good reason. They think that some invisible hand might punish them. They are not thinking whether this invisible hand if from the realm of good or the realm of evil. They just don't want to deal with this.


People need to be extremely careful whenever they submit themselves to a religious service. Research has to be done beforehand, for after all, whatever the sect or religion is we are opening our spirits in such places, opening them to all kinds of influences.  The teachers are currently just as damaged and broken as the  people, and so just as we choose our friends carefully, we must also choose our religious guides carefully. (Too many, many false teachers).


In any case this should not be taken as critique on the Baal Shem Tov of Reb Nachman, Heaven forbid. But rather the movement which went into something that the Gra knew was idolatry.

I should mention that the purpose of this blog is to ask hard questions. It is not to win a popularity contest.



___________________________________
_____________________________________________


הדבר העיקרי שהוא  לא בסדר עם חסידות הוא העבודה זרה. אבל יש דברים נסתרים שנראים רצינים יותר. זה חייב להיות משהו יותר פנימי. להסתובב עם אנשי טיפשים ומטורפים מכוערים חייב להיות השפעה על אחד בסופו של דבר. אף אחד לא חסין לקבוצה הוא להסתובב בה. ישנם הבטחות של שיפור בכל מיני התחומים. אבל אתה אף פעם לא רואה מישהו משתפר במידות או בלמידה. התוצאה היא תמיד שלילית. התוצאה של מתקרבים ומחוברים עם כל אחת מן הקבוצות היא לקחת אותו אדם שהיה נדיב  ולגרום לו גסות, וטיפשות. ההגנה  הנתונה היא שזה כמו חדר מיון. מי מגיע לחדר מיון של בית החולים? רק אנשים חולים. אבל  האנלוגיה הזו לא מדוייקת. אנשים באים לחדר מיון כדי להשתפר. כאן אנשים באים עם כוונה להשתפר והמצב מחמיר. זה יכול להיות ידוע רק על ידי ניסיון. המילות שלהם וכתביהם  נראים מרשימים. הדרך היחידה לדעת משהו הוא  לא בסדר היא על ידי נסיון. לדברי חפץ החיים מחוייבים להזהיר אנשים מפני הסכנות. זהו מאותה סיבה שהגר''א שם התנועה כולה לתוך נידוי וכרם. הסיבה היא  אתה צריך להזהיר מישהו של סכנה שהם הולכים לתוכה במפתיע.

 כמה קרוב אחד הוא לאלוהים על פי התורה אינו תלוי  בכמה הוא קרוב לצדיק. "הכל אלוקות," הוא לא מה שהתורה אומרת. כלומר הפנתאיזם. ההשקפה של התורה היא המונותאיזם. התורה מחזיקה הכל נברא, יש מאין. לא מן החומר של אלוהים. בתורה, אלוהים אין בו חומר. אפילו חומר רוחני

The 10,000 hour rule.

The 10,000 hour rule. That is to gain expertise in any subject one needs 10,00 hours.

{This rule I saw on some blog.}

When I think about it I can see this is right. You have the normal four year program in a Lithuanian yeshiva. That means 10 hours per day at minimum of learning Torah. 10* 365*4 minus Friday and Shabat.

But I wanted to add the idea of critical mass. That is the hours can't be spread apart too far. That is it is not the same thing doing 10 hours per day four years in yeshiva as doing a few hours per day over a longer period of time. [Critical mass is the idea that not just you need a certain amount of mass but that the mass needs to be close together.]

Mirrer Yeshiva in NY

I never knew Avraham Kalmanovitch. I was aware the last time I was in Israel that someone had started a yeshiva on his name. The grandchildren of David Abuchatzaira [the older bother of Bava Sali] go there.

I think it takes something very special to create a real authentic yeshiva.

There was some really amazing energy in both the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY that he founded and also the first yeshiva I went to in Far Rockaway.

I don't know what it takes to do that but I guess that it is not visible or obvious. I have seen an incredible amount of yeshivas that just don't have that spirit. The Hasidic yeshivas I have seen are cults based on the worship of their leader. Other places are a little better  because they are not idol worshipers. But the places were built in order to get the piece of paper that would say they don't need to serve in the Army. Other places are more into money. The Rosh Yeshiva was a grocery store owner that went out of businesses and so decided to open a kollel. In Israel that was simple to do with just three names and ID numbers and you would get an automatic government stipend.


I should mention the reason to put the above paragraphs here come from the Chafetz Chaim, Volume I chapter 4. It is the same reason that you warn you children not to play with a bad kid. You need to watch out to protect him from bad influences.

Gravitational waves exist.

Gravitational waves exist. One hundred years after Einstein's General Relativity paper they were discovered.

Music for the glory of God [i added these in midi for anyone who wants to print the notes]

a song for Godr1  [r1in midi format] [r1 nwc]   n98 [n98 in midi format]  n98 nwc n97 [n97 in midi]  n96 [n96 in midi] n96 nwc n95 [n95 in midi] n94 [n94 in midi]  n92 [n97 in midi] [n97 I see was not finished.]

n75  [n75 in midi]

What causes the generation gap.

What causes the generation gap. From what I can see it is the saying of grotesque falsehoods. This is usually done to advance some cause of the adults or protect their self image. Or to advance some cause.
This is sometimes on a large scale. A whole generation teaches lies to the young.  The results will be that the young will rebel once they find out they have been lied to. 

There are two aspects to this:
(1) If you are telling and teaching a certain religious tradition then to do so accurately. Do your homework.

(2) Don't lie to protect that tradition. If there are problems with it then don't hide them or make excuses.

panenthism

  This doctrine, "God is everything" did not originate with the Besht. It is true that the verse of the Torah ["You were shown to know that The Lord is God, there are no gods besides Him."] is explained to support this belief. But the practice and goal of union with the God that created all and permeates all and is All appears in the Upanishads [the final sections of the four Vedas written 1000-500 B.C.E.]
  The first one to make Yoga into a coherent unified system was Patanjali [circa 200 B.C.E. during the time of the Second Temple].
  "Yoga" means "union", i.e. union of the finite transitory self with the infinite "Atman" or "Brahman" [eternal infinite self].
In Yoga-Vedanta philosophy there is one true God that is invisible, imminent, transcendent that created everything. The name the Hindus give to this God is Brahman.
All creation is composed of the substance of Brahman.

  This is not traditional Torah. In the theology of the First authorities (Rishonim - Medieval sages), God is everywhere but separate. The world and God are not one. The world is not made of Divine Substance. It is made from nothing. In Torah thought God has no substance at all. So things are not made from his substance.
Creation ex-nihlo is the view and philosophy and emphasis of the Torah as explained by the Rambam and other Rishonim [authorities of Torah of the Middle Ages]. This is very, very different than the views of Breslov Hasidut or any other Hasidut one that I am aware of.
Modern day Breslov is an attempt to beat Hindu Yoga-Vedanta at their own game. It is not Torah.


Changing the essence and meaning of Torah as defined by the Rambam and the Geonim bothers me.

The "contraction" is described in detail by the Ari. At first, the light of God was everywhere. So there was no place for creation. So he contracted his light and made an empty space like a sphere. [There was also a point of light left in the center of the space.] He then sent His light down through one opening and the light went down a bit and then started curving around and became the first sub sphere (called Keter) in the larger sphere. This happened ten times. This does not imply things are Godliness. 
 The question is not the tzimtzum but the light. And the light is "created light" as stated by the Sefer Yetzira and brought down by the  Ari.



) In panenthism God also transcends the World, and so is not equal to the world. Rather he contains it.
See for example: Lekutim Yekarim from Pinchas of Koretz Parshat Veetchanan: "There is nothing in the world but the Holy One Blessed be He." (This is a later book. It is not from the original books of R. Pinchas.)
Ben Porat [page 126] from R. Yaakov Yoseph brings one story from the Besht that he said "There is no place empty of God." Later the same story in Heichal Bracha (from  of Kamarna) got expanded into him saying, "There is no existence besides him."


) The Ari said [from the Zohar] that the sepherot of Azilut (Emanation) are Godliness. After that i.e. the sepherot of creation, formation, and the physical universe are not Godliness. (Eitz Chayim Heichal 1, Shar 3, chapter 3). [The Zohar says in Emanation alone, the vessels and light are Godliness. After Emanation just the light is Godliness not the vessels.]
This is independent of the "Contraction" question. But concerning the contraction the Arizal wrote, "He contracted Himself." (Eitz Chayim 1:2:2; 1:2:3; 1:2:4) [Not "his light".]

Books of the cult under the excommunication of the Gra  defend the doctrine of panentheism, by going to the zimzum. But in fact it does not help much. Even if it was not complete, things still don't have to be Godliness.]

The appeal of cult under the excommunication of the Gra is entertainment,  emotional value, not truth value. 

The Nefesh Hachaim does say that realizing there are no powers in the world besides God is important. That is not the same as pantheism. That means the world is under the control of God alone.

Nature certainly becomes the stage of God's expression of his will. He expresses his will and purpose through forces of nature in the Torah. But nature isn't God himself. He's not identified with it. He's wholly other. He isn't kin to humans in any way either. So there is no blurring, no soft boundary between humans and the divine, Thus worship of  a tzadik is contrary to Torah.

Ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9 I corrected some grammar and did general editing.

I also took out one paragraph on BM page 98 that today looks to me that it was simply wrong. I am not in a yeshiva and I have no Gemara with me. But from what I recall the Riva and Rashi hold the same about נאנסה and it is specifically on כפירה that they disagree. So whatever I was saying in that note could not have been right. However the original book was just my notes that I was taking as I was learning with David. It probably was not written properly and then I did not have  a chance to correct it until now.



I made the essay on BM pg 98 a little shorter in the questions.

Ideas in Shas

I should say a lot of credit for this booklet goes to my learning partner David, but he did not want to be mentioned by last name. So I just mentioned the places where I learned to some degree how to learn. But none of this would have been written without the influence of my learning partner.

I should mention that they way he learns is closer to what they were doing in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway more than at the Mir. That is; his method is more looking closely at what he is learning more than trying to see how what he is learning fits in with other areas. That is he is not a system builder. In the Mir in Brooklyn, on the other hand, the emphasis was seeing how the sugia in front  of you fits in to other areas. But you can see in this booklet I chose to go with the first approach.

Charismatic singers, actors, religious teachers. When someone mentions our favorite religious teacher our ears pick up.  There are people if you just mention the name of some actor or singer of religious leader will get all excited immediately. If you mention some other name they will right away fall asleep. What makes people like that? And not just that we follow religious leaders that know no more why they became famous more than actors or singers. We long to be like them. And their fame as a rule fades. What is the meaning of this? This charisma is so intoxicating people that have it never stop to ask why they have it, and those of us that follow these leaders never stop to ask what is it that make us so certain that these people are divinely inspired.

What I think is this is all a kind of collective mild insanity. The problem gets aggravated when the leader himself has some aspect that is mad. Then the effect on others that get close to him is madness.

Is there an antidote for this madness? Not until one is aware of the problem and recognizes that he himself is under some kind of powerful influence.  But even then I don't think one can escape without some kind of dramatic wake up call.

It makes a huge difference who the leader is. But sometimes it does not seem worth the effort to see if the alpha tzadik really is a tzadik or not. enough idol worship of the alpha tzadik should be enough for anyone to head for the hills.

The problem with celebrity culture, worship of the tzadik, charisma, is that when they fade out as they must, we are left with the ruins to pick up. The tzadik worship is really no different than falling in love with a doll. Further the problem is the power to persuade should not be confused with being a tzadik. The power to persuade is a means to get others to think of oneself as tzadik but it often is found in the wicked, people that get joy from wrong actions.

They can write in a way that their words are sweet. They can talk in a way that is magnetic.  They can persuade people and that is power, power mixed with ignorance of right and wrong. Often their books contain with grotesque falsehoods. But it is all excused because of the power of their words.

idolatry, worship of tzadikim

The problem with the focus on the tzadik is that it is idolatry. There are certainly good arguments why one needs some example of human perfection to strive after. Be that as it may Hasidut is idolatry. The basic approach of the Torah is to focus on the Law of Moses, not on any tzadik.

It \is true that most religions do focus on some central person. And they consider that person to be the best example of human and divine perfection. So when hasidim focus  on some unique individual you can understand the power and force that must have on people. The only problem is that it is idolatry. And it is idolatry that covered by by lots of neat rituals that are in fact based on Torah and Halachah. But the center of focus is the tzadik. And the more they hide it the worse it is.

 The societies of Hasidim are legacy societies, weighed down by the  traditions, superstitions and animosities, unleavened by the core concept of individual rights. Until Hasidim renounce their past, there will be no room in which to build a new future.
     But Hasidim will not renounce their past. They haven't  outgrown their belief in magic. So Hasidim look to rich secular Jews and cry, "Help us! Feed us! We are poor and terrified, you are rich and strong! Bring your breadbasket  and deliver us from the darkness!"  Every Hasidic community is totally dependent on charity for it very survival. And they are communities based on connections and dealings--not on Torah. Judging solely from history, no Hasidic community  has achieved the preconditions for a just, peaceful, and prosperous social order.  False messiahs are the least of their problems. More like there is not one single functional group.

What I was hoping to point out here was the problem of the focus on the tzadik. They idea of needing a mentor and an example is a true idea. But what happens is that every tzadik has some negative side. And that side may be hidden from view. But when people intentionally attack themselves to the tzadik they usually get attached to some kind of Sitra Achra energy as you can see on their faces. And anyone sticking around them long enough can not escape that energy. They get absorbed into it and lose their human soul. 

How to educate one's children? Where to send them to school? What is the best school?How to find it? Let's put together a few adults that had famous fathers but never accomplished anything great themselves along with two generals of the army that have trained thousands of young men. What type of conclusions will result? The question that comes up at first is not the question of how to be  a soldier but how to train youth in virtue. But how to train a soldier is also part of the question.
 How to go about finding a good school? Or do you even want to find a good school. After all there are advantages of a youth being home and learning from his parents. Any of these questions seems familiar? [These questions I got from Plato from his book Laches.]

Some schools and groups are factories of delusion. You can definitely ruin people by bad education. But can you improve people by good education? What about yeshivas? I have seen lots of groups and yeshivas which turn out monsters consistently.  And I have seen places which predictably  turn out good and responsible people. But what I want to point out is these questions are important. They should not be left to chance.

Clearly the Boy Scouts is no longer an option. What seems to me is that I have largely ignored these questions. I have myself written about good things like Torah and natural sciences and also learning an honest vocation. But I never really dealt with the problem of education in itself.

My basic approach has been to try  to be an example. If I think  Torah, and Physics and survival skills are important, then that is what I try to do myself. As for what and where are the best schools--There is no secret about them. And from what I can see they live up to their reputation. The Mirrer in NY, Ponovitch, Brisk, Torah VeDaath all turn out fine young men. As for schools as long as we are talking about STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] then American and Israeli schools are great.

Mainly what I have seen is that stereotypes are always true. If some group has the reputation of being a fringe cult, then time shows again and again that it is.  And when a cult tries to polish its image--it still is  a cult. What I recommend is not to be fooled by the nail polish they slap on themselves to show they are respectable.
There is a serious problem when delusions gain religious power. Delusions by themselves are just delusions --but add to that numinosity and religious significance, it's a whole new ball game and much more poisonous and pernicious. And youth can and do get attached to these types.

[The general in the dialog was the one that failed to pursue the Spartan navy because of an omen and thus he lost the critical battle  that caused the fall of Athens in 404 B.C.  and was the effective end of the Greek Golden Age and Greek supremacy. That war devastated all of Greece. That general was executed. You can imagine the Athenians were upset. Five years after the war they executed Socrates.]

What is going on is a war for the soul of young people. It is not about education. It is about cults trying to get their dirty hands on your kids- and using very sophisticated time tried methods in doing so.

I used to pray the Shemona Esre {a fixed prayer in the Jewish Prayer-book} every day three times with a lot of fervor. The fact that it was fixed did not stop me from deep intentions. Private chatting with G-d was something I started later I but I did not think my intentions in these private chats were any more deep or sincere. They can be. But the fact that they were spontaneous did nothing to add to sincerity.

The most deep aspect of prayer was when I was in Shar Yashuv [that is Reb Freifeld's yeshiva] in Far Rockaway and the Mir Yeshiva in NY.

Private chat I think is a good thing but it should not be confused with sincerity or depth.

Later the prayer-book prayers kind of became dry to me and I added the intentions of the יסוד ושורש העבודה and Yaakov Emden in his great Sidur. [Reb Freifeld gave me that Sidur]. Sometime in Israel Elise Meir's brother sent to me the Sidur of the Reshash. [The red one]. And I started using that. {I had already been learning the Ari's books for some years.] But I always longed to get the large Sidur HaReshash by the grandson of the Reshash for a few reasons. Mordechi Sharabi said there were errors in the small sidur. Eventually I found the large sidur in the end of Mea Shearim near Rechov Salant. [Anyway, I have no idea what Mordechai Sharabi was talking about. The two sidurim are different systems. That is about it.That is they are two different interpretation of the Nahar Shalom of Shalom Sharabi. But mistakes? If he said so fine, but I did not see any.

When I pray today I try to stick with the basic, straight, Ashkenazic Prayer-book. The reason I stopped the Sidur with the intentions of the Ari is simple. The intentions are vessels for the light. Light changes so do the intentions. 

Still if you can get either the large or small sidur of the Reshash both are great books--if you read them along with the book of the Reshash the Nahar Shalom

[I am not so much into this anymore, But I do think the Ari and the intentions have great value when done right.]
What I think today is that there is nothing like straight prayer in a regular Litvak Yeshiva. 

in reference to my previous note it occurs to me that this is the very issue of contention between R, Josph Halevi  and the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim Ben Reuven] and Tosphot. Why did not Rava in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו? [look in the ran in Shavuot I think the page number is 45b].

In short Rav Joseph says, we don't say a migo to פוטר  from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this migo is different from other migos. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for Rabbainu Tam. That is, BM and Shavuot  an Bava Kama Tosphot asks on rabbanu tam his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted  understanding why their question is  a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did rava not ask from any migos that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of Rav Joseph Halevi or the Ran.  [This Rav Joseph I should mention was a drop later than the baali hatosphot and he is brought down often in the Tur. Every time I see anything he has to say I am always impressed.

Why the last question of Tosphot is specifically directed towards Rabbinu Tam. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is Rashi does not fit with that Sugia in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.



Ideas in BM
______________________________________________________________________________

In Hebrew.

This is the very issue of contention between רבי יוסף הלוי  and the ר''ן and תוספות. Why did not רבא in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו?

In short רבי יוסף הלוי says, we don't say a מיגו to פוטר  from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this מיגו is different from other מיגו. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for רבינו תם. That is, ב''מ and שבועות  an בבא קמא תוספות asks on רבינו תם his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted from above understanding why their question is  a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did רבא not ask from any מיגו that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of רבי יוסף הלוי or the ר''ן. We don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath.

Why the last question of תוספות is specifically directed towards רבינו תם. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is רש''י does not fit with that סוגיא in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.

I had written in the little booklet that God granted to me to write about Bava Metzia a question on a question on Rabbainu Tam on page 98a of Bava Metzia. I don't have any Gemara with me to be able to look anything up. But it did occur to me as I was looking over my notes what Tosphot must be getting at. If memory serves correctly Rabi Chiya bar Aba holds we need כפירה for all four שומרים. I forget the language but I think that is the language he uses. This is very delicate in my mind right now so I am not sure how to put this.  I think from what I remember in Shavuot page 45b Tosphot first word מתוך that rabi chiya bar aba only says we need כפירה  with אונס  and הודאה--and that is all. And that means only that אונס and הודאה alone are not enough. But Rabi Chiya bar Aba would agree that כפירה  and הודאה  are enough. And that is the crucial fact that makes Tosphot comes out OK.

I hope I can put this down in words properly. But what this means in when Tosphot in Bava Kama pg 107a asks on רבינו תם אהייא קאי he means this: We have three animals [That is the case that the Gemara is dealing with with Rami bar Chama in  and Bava Metzia אונס כפירה הודאה] So now the question on Tosphot on Rabbainu Tam comes out perfectly. On which animal is he saying לא היו דברים מעולם. That is which animal does he deny? If the הודאה Then there is no oath as Rava says in Shavuot but if that is the case then even in the case of אונס if he says לא היו דברים מעולם on the הודאה There also there is no oath. If rather he said לא היו דברים מעולם on the אונס then all we have is two כפירה's and one הודאה and there is an oath on that contrary to Rava. And that is the main point I wanted to bring forth to show what Tosphot means with their question on Rabbainu Tam.
Then from what I dimly recall Tosphot I think does ask maybe Rava means he said לא היו דברים מעולם on all three animals. And then answers the Rava could have asked from any case of מודה במקצת
I would like to put here a link to the book to anyone can look up what I am saying.


[Just for the public I want to say that in order for a paid guard to take an oath there is an argument about what the pleas are. To R. Chiya Bar Joseph we only need admission in part and a plea of "it was stolen by armed robbers" of some kind of situation which he could not have been on guard against. If the animal was lost then by his own admission he has to pay. R. Chiya Bar Aba says you need a plea of "it never happened" along with the above two pleas. Only then is there an oath. Look up the verses in the Torah in Exodus and you will see what the source of the difficulty is. ]



_____________________________________________________

Here is the same essay as above with a little bit more Hebrew.

I had written in the little booklet that God granted to me to write about בבא מציעא a question on a question on רבינו תם on page 98  of בבא מציעא. I don't have any גמרא with me to be able to look anything up. But it did occur to me as I was looking over my notes what תוספות must be getting at. If memory serves correctly רבי חייא בר אבא holds we need כפירה for all four שומרים. I forget the language but I think that is the language he uses. This is very delicate in my mind right now so I am not sure how to put this. Mainly I think תוספות is trying to draw a distinction between רמי בר חמא and רבי חייא בר אבא. I think from what I remember in שבועות מה: תוספות ד''ה מתןך  that רבי חייא בר אבא only says we need כפירה  with אונס  and הודאה, and that is all. And that means only that אונס and הודאה alone are not enough. But רבי חייא בר אבא would agree that כפירה  and הודאה  are enough. And that is the crucial fact that makes תוספות comes out OK.

I hope I can put this down in words properly. But what this means in when תוספות in בבא קמא  דף ק''ז ע''א  asks on רבינו תם אהייא קאי he means this: We have three animals. That is the case that the גמרא is dealing with with רמי בר חמא in  בבא מציעא אונס כפירה הודאה. So now the question on תוספות on רבינו תם comes out perfectly. On which animal is he saying לא היו דברים מעולם? That is which animal does he deny? If the הודאה then there is no oath as רבא says in שבועות, but if that is the case, then even in the case of אונס, if he says לא היו דברים מעולם on the הודאה there also there is no oath. If rather he said לא היו דברים מעולם on the אונס, then all we have is two כפירה's and one הודאה and there is an oath on that contrary to רבא. And that is the main point I wanted to bring forth to show what תוספות means with their question on רבינו תם.
Then from what I dimly recall תוספות I think does ask maybe רבא means he said לא היו דברים מעולם on all three animals. And then answers the rava could have asked from any case of מודה במקצת<

  : רבי חייא בר אבא מחזיק שצריכים כפירה לכל ארבעת השומרים. בעיקר אני חושב תוספות מנסה לעשות הבחנה בין רמי בר חמא ואת רבי חייא בר אבא. אני חושב ממה שאני זוכר ב שבועות מה: תוספות ד''ה מתוך כי רבי חייא בר אבא רק אומר שאנחנו צריכים כפירה עם אונס והודאה, וזה הכל. וזה אומר רק כי אונס והודאה בלבד אינו מספיק. אבל רבי חייא בר אבא יסכים שכפירה ואת ההודאה מספיק. (הפסוק אומר כי הוא זה.) וזה עובדה המכריע שעושה תוספות  בסדר. אבל מה שזה אומר שכאשר תוספות בבבא קמא דף ק''ז ע''א שואלים על רבינו תם "אהייא קאי" הוא מתכוון זה: יש לנו שלוש חיות. זה המקרה כי גמרא מתמודדת בו עם רמי בר חמא בבבא מציעא, אונס כפירה הודאה. אז עכשיו שאלה על תוספות על רבינו תם יוצאת מושלמת. על איזו חיה הוא אומר "לא היו דברים מעולם"? כלומר איזו חיה הוא מכחיש? אם ההודאה, אז אין שבועה כמו שרבא אומר בשבועות, אבל אם זה המקרה, אז גם במקרה של אונס, אם הוא אומר לא היו דברים מעולם על הודאה גם אין שבועה. אם דווקא הוא אומר "לא היו דברים מעולם" על אונס, אז כל מה שיש לנו הוא שתי בהמות של כפירה ואחד הודאה ויש שבועה בניגוד רבא. וזה הדבר העיקרי שאני רוצה לומר להראות מה שתוספות אומר עם השאלה שלהם על רבינו תם ישר. אז תוספות שואלים אולי רבא אומר שהוא אמר לא היו דברים מעולם על כל שלושה בעלי חיים. ואז הם עונים שאם כן רבא היה יכול לשאול מכל מקרה של מודה במקצת.