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]