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.

j40   Music link