הדרך שבה אני מציע להבין את הגמרא בבא מציעא בדף ג' היא שהגמרא הולך כמו סומכוס, אבל אפשר להבין גם כהולך לפי חכמים אבל בקושי. [הסבר הגמרא הזה כמו סומכוס הוא איך עניתי על השאלה ברמב''ם אותה משנה של פיקדון אבל בלי תשובת הגמרא.] הריב''א אומר השומר על חפץ אינו נחשב כאילו הם אוחזים בו. לפיכך, אנו יכולים להבין את המשנה בדף ג' ככוונתנו לומר ששני אנשים המחזיקים בבגד שמצאו הוא מקרה שאין דררא דממונא. עתה דררא דממונא משמע לפי תוספות והריב''א שלא מפסידים כסף. משמעות הדבר היא שמאחר ששניהם מצאו בגד אבוד, המקרה אינו דרא דמונא, שכן גם אם אדם לא יקבל דבר, הוא לא יפסיד דבר. הוא פשוט לא ירוויח דבר. מאחר שאין דרא דמונא, והגמרא בבבא בתרא קובעת היכן שאין דרא דממונא, סומכוס מסכים עם החכמים, ולכן הוא אינו אומר את דינו הרגיל של "מחלקים בלי שבועה". אבל אז הגמרא שואלת על משנתינו ממקרה של נפקד שמחזיק מאתיים לאדם אחד ומאה לאחר, והוא אינו זוכר למי מה, וזה נחשב כלא מחזיק במקומם. זה דווקא מקרה שבו הוא מחזיק את זה עבורם, אבל לא כאילו הם מחזיקים את זה. ואנחנו מבינים את הסיבה שהמאה השלישית נשארת במקומה, זה מקרה של דרא דמונא, שכן מי שנתן מתאיים לשמירה מפסיד חלק מהכסף שנתן לצד השלישי לשמירה. מאחר שהוא מפסיד מאה, זה מקרה של דרא דמונא. אז למה הם לא מחלקים? ומדוע יש שבועה? תשובה: אם הם יחלקו, זה יהיה מקרה שבו פסק הדין לא יתאים לעובדה האובייקטיבית שרק אחד מהם נתן מאתיים. [לכן, למרות שזו דרא דמונא, הם עדיין לא מחלקים

The way I suggest understanding the Gemara in Bava Metzia on page three is that the Gemara is going like Sumchos, but can also be understood as going according to the sages but with difficulty. [Explaining this gemara like Sumchos is how I answered the question on the Rambam who brings it but without the answer of the gemara.] The Riva says the one guarding an object is not counted as if they are holding it. Thus, we can understand our Mishna as intending to say that two people holding onto a garment that they found is a case where there is no derara demomona. Derara demomona means according to Tosphot and the Riva that they lose no money. That means since they both found a lost garment, the case is not derara demomona since even if one would not recieve anything he not be losing anything. He simply would not be gaining anything. Since it is no Derara Demomona and the gemara in Bava Batra holds where there is no derara demomona, Sumchos agrees with the sages, and so he does not say his usual law of ''they divide with no oath.'' But then the gemara asks on our Mishna from the case of a third party that is holding an 200 for one person and a hundred for another and he does not recall to whom is what, and that is considered as not as holding in their place. It is rather a case where he is holding it for them but not as if they are holding it. and we understand the reason the third hundred stays in its place this is a case of derara demomonaa since the one who gave 200 to guard is losing some of the money that he gave to the third party to guard and since he loses a hundred. It is a case of derara demomona. So then why do they not divide? and why is there an oath? Answer: If they would divide, that would be a case where the verdict would not correspond to the objective fact that only one of them gave two hundred. [Thus, even though it is derara demomona, they still do not divide.]------------------------------------The way I suggest understanding the גמרא in בבא מציעא on דף ג' is that the גמרא is going like סומכוס, but can also be understood as going according to the sages but with difficulty. [Explaining this גמרא like סומכוס is how I answered the question on the רמב''ם who brings it but without the answer of the גמרא.] The ריב''א says the one guarding an object is not counted as if they are holding it. Thus, we can understand our משנה as intending to say that two people holding onto a garment that they found is a case where there is no דררא דממונא. NOW דררא דממונא means according to תוספות and the ריב''א that they lose no money. That means since they both found a lost garment, the case is not דררא דממונא since even if one would not receive anything, he not be losing anything. He simply would not be gaining anything. Since it is no דררא דממונא and the גמרא in בבא בתרא holds where there is no דררא דממונא, סומכוס agrees with the חכמים, and so he does not say his usual law of ''מחלקים בלי שבועה.'' But then the גמרא asks on our משנה from the case of a נפקד that is holding 200 for one person and a hundred for another, and he does not recall to whom is what, and that is considered as not as holding in their place. It is rather a case where he is holding it for them, but not as if they are holding it. And we understand the reason the third hundred stays in its place this is a case of דררא דממונא since the one who gave 200 to guard is losing some of the money that he gave to the third party to guard . Since he loses a hundred, It is a case of דררא דממונא. So then why do they not divide? and why is there an oath? Answer: If they would divide, that would be a case where the verdict would not correspond to the objective fact that only one of them gave two hundred. [Thus, even though it is דררא דממונא, they still do not divide.]

I would like to suggest that the גמראholds that the first Mishna in Bava Metzia is like Sumchos. This assumption of the Gemara would be based on the fact that most Stam Mishnas [Mishnas without name] in Bava Kama, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra all are like Sumchos. Yet the Gemara also tries to find a way in each case to show that the Sages (Rabanan) could also hold with the law (din) of that Mishna. The reason the Gemara would want to do this is because Shmuel said: "The law is like the Rabanan (opposed to Sumchos)" and the law is like Shmuel in dinim (monetary laws). The significance of this idea is that it answers a question on the Rambam. The Rambam wrote the law of the first mishna in Bava Metzia where they are holding the garment they divide it, and also the law about the third hundred where if they disagree, the third hundred stays with the person it was guarded by. The Gemara brings this second case as a question on the first case. Why in the first case they divide and as opposed to this in the second case they leave the garment where it was. Yet the Rambam brings both laws, and does not give the answer of the Gemara that in the case of our Mishna, "The division might be true". I would like to suggest that the Rambam [and Rabbainu Chnanel and the Ri Migash] understood that Gemara is going like Sumchos, and since that law of Sumchos is not the halacha, he therefore held that a different answer must be the right answer, that is "holding is different". And how can Rambam know that same answer would not work for Sumchos? Answer it is going like the Gemara page one hundred side A, where the Gemara asks, “Let us go and see in whose domain the animal is in,"and the Gemara answersm, “Rather, It is like Sumchos." That means to say that to Sumchos, the fact that the object is held by two people does not raise or diminish the claim each one has the object. Thus the answer to the question, ""Let's go and see" the gemara retracks from its original answer and now claims that even seeing in whose domain the animal is in would not help any side since we are going like sumchos who holds money in doubt is divided.----------------------------------I would like to suggest that the גמראholds that the first משנה in בבא מציעא is like סומכוס. This assumption of the גמרא would be based on the fact that most סתם משניות [משניות without name] in בבא קמא, בבא מציעא, and בבא בתרא all are like סומכוס. Yet the גמרא also tries to find a way in each case to show that the חכמים (רבנן) could also hold with the law (דין) of that משנה. The reason the גמרא would want to do this is because שמואל said: "The law is like the רבנן (opposed to סומכוס)" and the law is like שמואל in דינים monetary laws). The significance of this idea is that it answers a question on the רמב’’ם. The רמב’’ם wrote the law of the first משנה in בבא מציעא where they are holding the garment they divide it, and also the law about the third hundred where if they disagree, the third hundred stays with the person it was guarded by. The גמרא brings this second case as a question on the first case. Why in the first case they divide and as opposed to this in the second case they leave the garment where it was. Yet the רמב’’ם brings both laws, and does not give the answer of the גמרא that in the case of our משנה, "The division might be true". I would like to suggest that the רמב’’ם [and ר' חננאל and the ר''י מיגאש] understood that גמרא is going like סומכוס, and since that law of סומכוס is not the הלכה, he therefore held that a different answer must be the right answer, that is "אוחזים שונה". And how can רמב’’ם know that same answer would not work for סומכוס? Answer it is going like theק' ע''א גמרא, where the גמרא asks, “Let us go and see in whose domain the animal is in," and the גמרא answers, “Rather, It is like סומכוס." That means to say that, to סומכוס, the fact that the object is held by two people does not raise nor diminish the claim each one has in the object. Thus, the answer to the question, ""Let's go and see" the גמרא retracks from its original answer, and now claims that even seeing in whose domain the animal is in would not help any side since we are going like סומכוס who holds money in doubt is divided.

משנה הראשונה בבבא מציעא. רב שך מתרץ שאלה על הרמב''ם

אם שני אנשים מחזיקים בגד שכל אחד מהם טוען שהוא שלו, הוא מתחלק. זוהי המשנה הראשונה בבבא מציעא. הגמרא שואלת על כך מהמקרה שאדם אחד נותן למישהו לשמור מאתיים מטבעות ואחר נותן לו לשמור מאה למשמרת. האדם שכח למי הולכות המאתיים, ולמי הולכות המאה. המאה השלישית לא מוחזרת לאף אחד מהאנשים. הגמרא שואלת מה ההבדל, ועונה שהסיבה לחלוקה במשנה שלנו היא שהחלוקה יכולה להיות נכונה. הרמב"ם מביא את שתי המשנות ללא הסבר. הדרך שבה רב שך מסביר את הרמב"ם היא שהרמב"ם הוא כמו ר' חננאל והר''י מיגש שההבדל בין שתי המשניות הוא במשנה שלנו הן מחזיקים את החפץ. אז מדוע הגמרא לא ענתה כך? רב שך מביא מבבא מציעא דף ו' שכאשר יש ספק, בית המשפט לא עושה דבר. {{[התשובה לשאלה מדוע הגמרא לא עונה על ההחלטה השונה היא שהיא הולכת לפי הדעה בבבא בתרא לגבי סירה ששני אנשים מתווכחים עליה שאם בית המשפט תופס את החפץ, הוא יכול לשחרר אותו גם אם אין הוכחה. אבל אנחנו הולכים לפי הדעה שאם בית המשפט תופס חפץ, הוא לא יכול לשחרר אותו עד שתהיה הוכחה. אי תפסינן לא מפקינן.]}} לכן, במשנה שלנו אין ספק, ולכן הם מחלקים. במשנה על המאה השלישית יש ספק, ולכן המאה השלישית נשארת אצל האדם ששומר עליה, עד שניתן להביא הוכחה. אי תפסינן לא מפקינן.[אני חושב שרב שך אומר שכדי לחלק צריך שני תנאים: האחד הוא ודאות שמה שכל אחד מחזיק שייך לו, והתנאי השני הוא ששניהם מחזיקים.] רב שך שואל שאלה על תשובתו שלו, ואינו מוצא תשובה. השאלה היא מאדם שמוכר חפץ ומקבל את הכסף כדי לשלם עבורו משני אנשים ואינו יודע ממי קיבל את הכסף מרצונו וממי קיבל בניגוד לרצונו. מכיוון שהחפץ אינו מוחזק על ידי שני האנשים שקנו אותו, לכן מדובר במקרה שבו החפץ אינו נשאר במקומו, אלא מחולק. נראה שזה סותר את כל מה שאמר רב שך קודם לכן. התשובה במקרה של השומר היא כמו זו של אדם שמוצא חפץ שאבד. יש לו אחריות לא לתת אותו עד שהוא בטוח שהוא מחזיר אותו לאדם הנכון. זה שונה לחלוטין ממוכר שאינו שומר ואין לו אחריות כזו. ראיתי שרב נחום של ישיבת מיר מביא רעיון זה כדי לתמוך בתשובתו שלו באותה שאלה

If two people are holding a garment that each one claims is his, it is divided. That is the first Mishna in Bava Mezia. The gemara asks on this from the case of one person gives to someone to guard two hundred coins and another gives him to guard a hundred for safekeeping. The person forgot to which person goes the two hundred, and to which the one hundred. The third hundred is not returned to either person. The gemara asks what is the difference?, and answers the reason for dividing in our mishna is the dividing could be correct. The Rambam brings both Mishnas with no explanation. The way Rav Shach explains the Rambam (טוען ונטען פרק ט' הלכה ז) is that the Rambam is like R. Chananel and the Ri Migash that the difference between the two Mishnas is in our Mishna, they are holding the object. So then why did the Gemara not answers this? Rav Shach brings from Bava Metzia page 6 that where there is a doubt the court does nothing. [[The answer to the question why the gemara does not answer holding is different is that it is going according to the opinion in Bava Batra about a boat that two people are arguing about that if the court seizes the object, they can release it even if there is no proof. But we go by the opinion that if the court seizes an object, they cannot release it until there is proof.] So, in our Mishna there is no doubt, so they divide. In the Mishna about the third hundred, there is doubt, so the third hundred stays with the person guarding it, until proof can be brought. [I think Rav Shach means that to divide you need two conditions: one is certainty that what each one holds belongs to him, and the second condition is that they are both holding.] Rav Shach asks a question on his own answer. The question is from a person sells an object, and receives the money to pay for it from two people and does not know from whom he received the money willingly and from whom he received against his will. Since the object is not being held by the two people that bought it, therefore it should be a case of the object is left in place, but instead it is divided. This seems to contradict everything Rav Shach said beforehand. The answer the case of the guard is like that of a person who finds a lost object. He has a responsibility not to give it until he is sure he is returning it to the right person. That is totally different from the seller who is not a guard and has no such responsibility. I saw that Rav Nachum Partzovitz brings this idea to support his own answer on this same question. --------------------------------------If two people are holding a garment that each one claims is his, it is divided. That is the first משנה in בבא מציעא. The גמרא asks on this from the case of one person gives to someone to guard two hundred coins and another gives him to guard a hundred for safekeeping. The person forgot to which person goes the two hundred, and to which the one hundred. The third hundred is not returned to either person. The גמרא asks what is the difference, and answers the reason for dividing in our משנה is the dividing could be correct. The רמב’’ם brings both משנהs with no explanation. The way רב שך טוען ונטען פרק ט' הלכה ז explains the רמב’’ם is that the רמב’’ם is like ר' חננאל and the ר''י מיגש that the difference between the two משניות is in our משנה they are holding the object. So then why did the גמרא not answers this? רב שך brings from בבא מציעא page 6 that where there is a doubt the court does nothing.[[the answer to the question why the גמרא does not answer holding is different is that it is going according to the opinion in בבא בתרא about a boat that two people are arguing about that if the court seizes the object, they can release it even if there is no proof. But we go by the opinion that if the court seizes an object, they cannot release it until there is proof.] So, in our משנה there is no doubt so they divide. In the משנה about the third hundred there is doubt, so the third hundred stays with the person guarding it, until proof can be brought. [I think רב שך means that to divide you need two conditions: one is certainty that what each one holds belongs to him, and the second condition is that thEy are both holding.] רב שך asks a question on his own answer, and does not find an answer. The question is from a person sells an object and receives the money tרבo pay for it from two people aNd does not know from whom received the money willingly' and from whom he received against his will. Since the object is not being held by the two people that bought it, therefore it should be a case of the object is left in place, but instead it is divided. This seems to contradict everything רב שך said beforehand. The answer the case of the guard is like that of a person who finds a lost object. He has a responsibility not to give it until he is sure he is returning it to the right person. That is totally different from the seller who is not a guard and has no such responsibility. I saw that רב נחום של ישיבת מיר brings this idea to support his own answer on this same question.

za10 midi C minor za10 nwc

מוסר the importance of learning musar. ''Musar'' refers to books on world view, fear of God, and good character from the Middle Ages written by Rishonim, but on a secondary level refers to books from the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter.

Without musar, people put in their own value structures that they pick up from psychology or other garbage they pick up from the street, and impose it on the Torah structure. Thus they appear frum (religious), but they have with values opposite from the Torah. And they do this without knowing that they are doing it.------Without מוסר, people put in their own value structures that they pick up from the street, and impose it on the תורה structure. Thus, they appear דתי, but they have with values opposite from the תורה. And they do this without knowing that they are doing it.בלי מוסר, אנשים שמים את מבני הערכים שלהם שהם לוקחים מהרחוב, וכופים אותם על מבנה התורה. כך, הם נראים דתיים, אבל יש להם ערכים הפוכים מהתורה. והם עושים זאת מבלי לדעת שהם עושים זאת ''Musar'' refers to books on world view, fear of God, and good character from the Middle Ages written by Rishonim, but on a secondary level refers to books from the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter.חשיבות של לימוד מוסר-היינו חובות לבבות, מסילת ישרים, אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, ותלמידי ישראל ותלמידי ר' ישראל סלנטר.The fact of the matter is that it is hard to figure out from the written Torah and Talmud directly what is the world view of Torah. The importance of the Rishonim is that they are able to define the approach of the Torah based on the Written Law and Talmud and midrashim. the importance of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter is they try to convey to us that approach in understandable terms and try very hard not to add nor subtract.