12.9.15
The way I have done the Shofar is _________ the length of three beats then ___ ___ ___ for exactly three beats. Then ... ... ... ... ... ... for six beats. Then the original three beats again. That is to say for the truah I do exactly 18 short bursts that last double the original tekia. This is subject to an argument. Some hold the length of the whole truah has to be the same length as the original tekia. And each burst a third of each of the individual shevarim.
I am not saying I have any great ideas about this. It is after all subject to debate and I went with the opinion that even the other opinion would hold to be valid. Look it up in Shulchan Aruch of Joseph Karo and you will see. There was another reason I choose this opinion. It was that the 9 short burst truah opinion seemed to have some problems involved in it.
So the first thing is tekia _________. Shevarim ___ ___ ___; (a going up sound). Then truah ... ... ... ... ... ... Then Tekia _________.
I did have some thoughts about the idea of setting Rosh HaShanah to correspond with the actual conjunction of the sun and moon --which is called the molad. And I already wrote a little about that I think. mainly I based this idea on Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10.
) סנהדרין י: רב אשי אמר שבית דין אין מקדשים את הלבנה, אלא מחשבים את המולד. התוספות מביאים דעה אחת שראש חודש תמיד מתחיל בזמן המולד [היינו יש שנייה אחת שהשמש והירח הם ביחד בדיוק על קו מאונך זקוף. היום שהשנייה הזאת נופלת בו, הוא ראש חודש]. (ולפי הדעה הזאת בתוספות, זאת דעת רבא ורב אשי.) וגם תוספות מביאים גמרא ירושלמי שמשמע כזה, וגם רש''י כאן על הדף משמע כזה. ("קדשו אתו בית דין של מעלה מאתמול"). נראה לי שזאת מחלוקת בין גמרות. שבמסכת ראש השנה משמע שהכול תלוי בראיה או אפשרות של ראיה (בסוגיא של ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן שם). הכסף משנה בהלכות יובל איפה שהרמב''ם מחשב את תאריך היובלות והשמיטות הולך בשיטה הזאת שראש חודש והמולד הם אותו דבר
I am not saying I have any great ideas about this. It is after all subject to debate and I went with the opinion that even the other opinion would hold to be valid. Look it up in Shulchan Aruch of Joseph Karo and you will see. There was another reason I choose this opinion. It was that the 9 short burst truah opinion seemed to have some problems involved in it.
So the first thing is tekia _________. Shevarim ___ ___ ___; (a going up sound). Then truah ... ... ... ... ... ... Then Tekia _________.
I did have some thoughts about the idea of setting Rosh HaShanah to correspond with the actual conjunction of the sun and moon --which is called the molad. And I already wrote a little about that I think. mainly I based this idea on Tosphot in Sanhedrin 10.
) סנהדרין י: רב אשי אמר שבית דין אין מקדשים את הלבנה, אלא מחשבים את המולד. התוספות מביאים דעה אחת שראש חודש תמיד מתחיל בזמן המולד [היינו יש שנייה אחת שהשמש והירח הם ביחד בדיוק על קו מאונך זקוף. היום שהשנייה הזאת נופלת בו, הוא ראש חודש]. (ולפי הדעה הזאת בתוספות, זאת דעת רבא ורב אשי.) וגם תוספות מביאים גמרא ירושלמי שמשמע כזה, וגם רש''י כאן על הדף משמע כזה. ("קדשו אתו בית דין של מעלה מאתמול"). נראה לי שזאת מחלוקת בין גמרות. שבמסכת ראש השנה משמע שהכול תלוי בראיה או אפשרות של ראיה (בסוגיא של ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן שם). הכסף משנה בהלכות יובל איפה שהרמב''ם מחשב את תאריך היובלות והשמיטות הולך בשיטה הזאת שראש חודש והמולד הם אותו דבר
Bava Metzia 14 b third Tosphot.
We have the case of a lender a borrower and the borrower had a field (field 1) at the time of the loan. After that he bought a second field. Then he sold the first field (field 1). The usual way a loan is written is "Whatever I will buy can be used to pay for this loan." Then he sells the second field.
The lender goes after the first field (field 1) and the buyer goes after the second field (field 2).
Tosphot asks so let's prove from this that, "What I will buy" and he sells, what he then bought is not obligated.
There are four possible reasons why the lender did not collect from the second field.
That is there are four things that can cause the lender to go after the first field.
The fact that Tospot says the only possible reason is the reason he gives shows that Tosphot holds no other reason can be valid.
Reason 1: The reason Tosphot gives. There is not any "shiabud" or what I think in English is called a lean or an obligation.
Reason 2: We always say the buyer can tell the lender "I left a place for you to collect from" does not work after the second field was sold.
Reason 3: The lender had to go after the first field,
Reason 4: The lender could have gone after the first field if he had wanted to, or the second. In our case he decided to go after the first field, but he could have gone after the second one.
In all four cases the second field would not have been touched.
What we see from the question of Tosphot is that Tosphot considers the other three reasons as invalid.
The Maharshal {Shelomo Luria} and the Maharam Shif both say the same thing. That from the question of Tosphot we see that when we always say "The buyer can tell the lender, 'I left a place for you to collect from,'" that applies even after the second field was sold.
What I want to point out further is that we see Tosphot does not hold from the third or fourth reason either. Tosphot holds there is no option. The lender must go after the second field. I want to point out that even if there had been a option for the lender to go after either field, then Tosphot would not have had any proof of his thesis. So it has to be the case that the only possible reason the second field was left is the reason Tosphot gives--that when one says, "What I will buy will be obligated to this loan" after he sells it, it is not obligated.
That is this is simple process of elimination Tosphot says the reason the second field was left is reason 1. Therefore Tosphot must hold reason 2 and 3 and 4 are not valid. So Tosphot says he had to go after field one and the reason can only be because of reason 1.
Why am I pointing this out you might ask? Because of the simple fact that the there is some doubt about this point. Because there is a Maharsha on Tosphot in Bava Basra 157 that holds the lender. goes after the first field even if the second one is possible to collect from. Only in our case he does not collect from the first one because he already collected from it once.That is the Maharsha hold that the Tosphot in Bava Batra has a different opinion from our Tosphot here.
I should also mention that I did not learn this with my learning partner so obviously this is on a much lower level that if I had merited to learn this with him. I am sorry about that and I apologize to all Israel and the whole world that this could have been a lot clearer than it is.
I also want to add two points.One is why is there any question in the first place. And the second point is maybe in fact it means either buyer can collect from the other buyer if the lender has collected from him. That is even if the lender collected from the second one the second one can collect from the first one.
First point why is there any question of תוספות how is it that the lender did not collect from the second field. Why not? Maybe because he had his whole loan paid up by collecting from the first field? Answer. The point of Tosphot it does not matter how much money was owed to the lender. It could have been the exact amount of the field . It could be the field was a thousand acres and he was owned only 100 dollars or it could be he was owned a million dollars and he collected from the field that was worth ten dollars. The point is what every the lender collected from the first field the first buyer goes and collects from the second field that exact amount.
The second point I don't know how to answer.
_________________________________________________________________________________ב''מ יד ע''ב
We have the case of a מלווה a לווה and the לווה had a שדה שדה הראשון at the time of the הלוואה. After that he bought a שדה השני. Then he sold the שדה הראשון. The usual way a loan is written is מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה Then he sells the שדה השני after the הלוואה and after he sold the שדה הראשון
The מלווה goes after the first field שדה הראשון and the buyer goes after the second field.
תוספות asks could we prove from this that מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד
There are four possible reasons why the מלווה did not collect from the שדה השני.
That is there are four things that can cause the מלווה to go after the first field.
The fact that תוספות says the only possible reason is the reason he gives shows that תוספות holds no other reason can be valid.
Reason 1 The reason תוספות gives. There is not any שיעבוד for a case of מה שאקנה קנה ומכר
Reason 2 We always say the לוקח can tell the מלווה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו does not work after the second field was sold.
Reason 3 The מלווה had to go after the שדה הראשון.
Reason 4 The מלווה could have gone after the שדה הראשון if he had wanted to, or the second. In our case he decided to go after the first field, but he could have gone after the second one.
In all four cases the second field would not have been touched.
What we see from the question of תוספות is that תוספות considers the other three reasons as invalid.
The מהרש''ל and the מהר''ם שיף both say the same thing. That from the question of תוספות we see that when we always say לוקח can tell the מלווה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו that applies even after the second field was sold.
What I want to point out further is that we see תוספות does not hold from the third or fourth reason either. תוספות holds there is no option. The מלווה must go after the second field. I want to point out that even if there had been a option for the מלווה to go after either field, then תוספות would not have had any proof of his thesis. So it has to be the case that the only possible reason the second field was left is the reason תוספות gives, that מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד
That is this is simple process of elimination. תוספות says the reason the second field was left is reason 1. Therefore תוספות must hold reason 2 and 3 and 4 are not valid. So תוספות says he had to go after field one and the reason can only be because of reason 1.
Why am I pointing this out you might ask? Because of the simple fact that the there is some doubt about this point. Because there is a מהרש''א on תוספות in בבא בתרא קנ''ז that holds the lender must go after the first field. That is the מהרש''א holds that the תוספות in בבא בתרא has a different opinion from our תוספות here.
I also want to add two points. One is Why is there any question in the first place? And the second point is maybe in fact it means either לוקח can be גובה from the other לוקח if the מלווה has been גובה from him. That is even if the מלווה has been גובה from the second לוקח the second לוקח can be גובה from the first לוקח.
First point why is there any question of תוספות how is it that the מלווה did not גובה from the second field. Why not? Maybe because he had his whole loan paid up by being גובה from the first field? Answer. The point of תוספות it does not matter how much money was owed to the מלווה. It could have been the exact amount of the field . It could be the field was a thousand acres and he was owned only 100 dollars or it could be he was owned a million dollars and he was גובה from the field that was worth ten dollars. The point is what every the מלווה was גובה from the first field the first לוקח goes and is גובה from the second field that exact amount.
The second point I don't know how to answer.
_______________________________________________________
) ב''מ יד: (וב''מ קי:) יש לנו הדיון של מלווה לווה, והלווה היה לו שדה (השדה ראשון) בזמן של ההלוואה. אחרי ההלוואה הוא קנה שדה שני. ואז הוא מכר את השדה הראשון. הדרך המקובלת של הלוואה היא שהלווה כותב מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה. ואז הוא מכר את השדה השני לאחר ההלוואה ולאחר שמכר את השדה הראשון. המלווה הולך אחרי שדה הראשון והקונה הולך אחרי שדה השני. (בלשון הגמרא הלוקח גובה את הקרן ממשוחררין את השבח ממשועבדים של הלווה.) תוספות בדף י''ד שואל אולי אפשר להוכיח מזה שמה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד? (זאת אומרת הסיבה שהמלווה אינו גובה משדה השני היא שאינו משתעבד מאחר שנמכר.) ישנם ארבע סיבות אפשריות שהמלווה לא גבה משדה השני. כלומר יש ארבעה דברים שיכולים לגרום למלווה ללכת אחרי שדה הראשון. העובדה שתוספות אומר שהסיבה היחידה האפשרית היא הסיבה שהוא נותן מראה כי תוספות סובר שאין שום סיבה אחרת שיכולה להיות תקפה. סיבה ראשונה, הסיבה שתוספות נותן. אין שיעבוד במקרה של מה שאקנה קנה ומכר. סיבה שנייה, זה שאנחנו תמיד אומרים שהלוקח יכול להגיד למלווה "הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו" לא עובד אחרי ששדה השני נמכר. סיבה שלישית, מלווה היה חייב ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון . סיבה רביעית, המלווה היה יכול ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון, אם הוא היה רוצה, או השני. במקרה שלנו הוא החליט ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון, אבל הוא היה יכול ללכת אחרי השני. בכל ארבעת המקרים לא היה נוגע בשדה השני. מה שאנו רואים מהשאלה של תוספות הוא שתוספות רואה שהשלוש סיבות לא תקפות. המהרש''ל והמהר''ם שיף שניהם אומרים את אותו דבר. כי מהשאלה של תוספות אנו רואים שכאשר אנו אומרים תמיד שהלוקח יכול להגיד להמלווה "הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו", שזה חל גם לאחר ששדה השני נמכר. מה שאני רוצה להציין נוסף הוא שאנו רואים תוספות אינו מחזיק מסיבה השלישית או רביעית. תוספות סובר אין אפשרות אחרת. המלווה חייב ללכת אחרי שדה השני אם זה היה משועבד. אני רוצה לציין שגם אם היה אפשרות למלווה ללכת אחרי או שדה, אז תוספות לא היו לו כל הוכחה לתזה שלו. אז זה חייב להיות שבמקרה זה, הסיבה האפשרית היחידה ששדה השני נותר היא הסיבה שתוספות נותן, כי "מה שאקנה קנה ומכר אינו משתעבד". ואם היה משתעבד היה חייב ללכת אחר שדה השני. תוספות אומר שהסיבה ששדה השני נותר היא הסיבה הראשונה. לכן התוספות חייב להחזיק סיבות 2 ו- 3 ו- 4 אינן תקפות. למה אני מציין על זה אתם שואלים? בגלל העובדה הפשוטה שיש ספק על נקודה זו. המהרש''א על תוספות בבא בתרא קנ''ז מחזיק שמלווה חייב ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון אפילו אם הוא יכול ללכת אחרי השני על פי דין. (היינו אפילו אם יש שיעבוד על שדה שני,עדיין הוא חייב לגבות משדה שראשון אם הוא יכול.) רק שכאן הוא כבר גבה מן הראשון פעם אחת ולכן הוא הלך אחרי השני. מהרש''א גורס כי התוספות בבא בתרא יש דעה שונה משלנו תוספות כאן.
) ב''מ ק''י אני גם רוצה להוסיף שתי נקודות. אחת מהן הוא מדוע יש כל שאלה בכלל? והנקודה השנייה היא אולי איזה לוקח שיהיה יכול לגבות מן לוקח האחר אם מלווה היה גובה ממנו. כלומר, גם אם המלווה גבה ממן השני אז הלוקח השני יכול להיות גובה מלוקח הראשון . נקודה ראשונה מדוע יש כל שאלה של תוספות בכלל איך זה שהמלווה לא גבה משדה השני. למה לא? אולי בגלל שהוא נפרע כל הלוואתו על ידי כך שגבה משדה הראשון? תשובה. נקודת תוספות היא שזה לא משנה כמה כסף היה מגיע למלווה. זה היה יכול להיות הסכום של השדה המדויק. זה יכול להיות השדה היה אלף דונם והוא היה והחוב היה רק מאה דולרים או שזה יכול להיות שהיה חוב של מיליון דולרים והוא גבה מהשדה שהיה שווה עשרה דולרים. הנקודה היא מה שהמלווה גבה מן השדה הראשון הלוקח הראשון הולך וגובה משדה השני אותו סכום מדויק. הנקודה השנייה אני לא יודע איך לענות עליה.
11.9.15
Rosh Hashanah was the time I first learned the Or Israel (Light of Israel) of Isaac Blazer (a disceple of Israel Salanter). So though I had heard of Musar before that, still that was the time that I understood the reasoning behind the Musar movement.
And though that was more than a few years back, it still makes the most sense to me. So what I suggest is to get the basic set of Medieaval Ethics books and plow through them. That is do every day a little bit. A page when you get up before you start your day. And also a page or two during the day to keep up the effect of fear of God.
But make sure you get authentic Musar --not the cheap knock offs or inferior copies.
The later in time period Musar gets, the more diluted it gets. People write so called Musar books with all kinds of strange agendas in mind or to make up for their own guilt complexes. None of it is straight Torah. To get to authentic Torah nowadays is basically impossible. Everyone has some agenda and they use the name of Torah to advance it. The more religious they seem, the more you can be sure there is some hidden agenda. The old Lithuanian yeshivas where Torah was authentic are mainly gone. You only have left a hand-full of places like Ponovitch in Bnei Brak or the Mir Yeshiva in NY. [Apparently some of these places have branches. I have a friend who was a teacher in a branch of Ponovitch in Jerusalem. So I admit I don't know where all the authentic places are. What makes a place authentic is not what you see on the surface. It is not if physically they are learning Torah all day. What makes a place authentic is a reason why they are learning Torah all day.
And though that was more than a few years back, it still makes the most sense to me. So what I suggest is to get the basic set of Medieaval Ethics books and plow through them. That is do every day a little bit. A page when you get up before you start your day. And also a page or two during the day to keep up the effect of fear of God.
But make sure you get authentic Musar --not the cheap knock offs or inferior copies.
The later in time period Musar gets, the more diluted it gets. People write so called Musar books with all kinds of strange agendas in mind or to make up for their own guilt complexes. None of it is straight Torah. To get to authentic Torah nowadays is basically impossible. Everyone has some agenda and they use the name of Torah to advance it. The more religious they seem, the more you can be sure there is some hidden agenda. The old Lithuanian yeshivas where Torah was authentic are mainly gone. You only have left a hand-full of places like Ponovitch in Bnei Brak or the Mir Yeshiva in NY. [Apparently some of these places have branches. I have a friend who was a teacher in a branch of Ponovitch in Jerusalem. So I admit I don't know where all the authentic places are. What makes a place authentic is not what you see on the surface. It is not if physically they are learning Torah all day. What makes a place authentic is a reason why they are learning Torah all day.
I don't always make it a point to thank God publicly for his kindnesses.
Usually I leave that to be between Him and me. That He granted to me to write two booklets on the Gemara is something so out of the expected that I have to say that I am overwhelmed with this. There really is not known to me any reason why God would grant this amazing and tremendous merit to fall to me. I am really not any good in learning Talmud and I hardly even do so at all. It is just for some reason that is unknown to me I was a disciple of authentic Torah scholars and was born into a home of amazing fear of God and wholesomeness and love and I was granted a learning partner with whom the ideas just seem to flow. So I publicly acknowledge my debt to God for doing for me yet another two kindness for which there is no clear reason for. [The truth the same could be said about my children and my whole amazing family and the music he has granted to me and grants to me and to be able to learn Physics at all, and to be in Uman right before Rosh HaShanna. For all these and the many more kindness he has granted to me I thank him openly.]
Usually I leave that to be between Him and me. That He granted to me to write two booklets on the Gemara is something so out of the expected that I have to say that I am overwhelmed with this. There really is not known to me any reason why God would grant this amazing and tremendous merit to fall to me. I am really not any good in learning Talmud and I hardly even do so at all. It is just for some reason that is unknown to me I was a disciple of authentic Torah scholars and was born into a home of amazing fear of God and wholesomeness and love and I was granted a learning partner with whom the ideas just seem to flow. So I publicly acknowledge my debt to God for doing for me yet another two kindness for which there is no clear reason for. [The truth the same could be said about my children and my whole amazing family and the music he has granted to me and grants to me and to be able to learn Physics at all, and to be in Uman right before Rosh HaShanna. For all these and the many more kindness he has granted to me I thank him openly.]
I can pin point the four areas where I have to do repentance easily. But how to go about correcting these wrongs is not simple. As we see with מעפילים לעלות. Moses said, "Go to Israel" and the spies said "No." So people decided not to go. The God got mad. So what would be the natural reaction? To repent right? The sin was not to go, so they decided yes to go. And it was perfect repentance. Because they did not want to because they thought God would not help them. So true repentance was to go even though they knew that God would not help them. [That we normally say that repentance is true when one is in the same situation he sinned in but this time he does not sin.] But we know what happened. They went up and were killed.
The sages of the Talmud said the same thing. "The letter ה is open on the bottom so anyone who wants can fall. But to get back in one needs to go through the upper opening. By why not get back in the same way he fell? לא אסתיא מילתא It won't work."
But at least I can say my repentance revolves around major points. My parents, the land of Israel, Isaac Luria. Lack of learning Torah might be included also but I don't have an exact proof of that as I do for the other four. {ביטול תורה כנגד כולם}. That is the lack of learning Torah is considered as bad as the three major sins plus gossip. The three major ones are idolatry, murder, and the sexual relationship forbidden in Leviticus.
Of course I know there are probably millions of wrongs and bad thoughts and words and deeds I do all the time. But here I am looking for the major areas of interest.
The sages of the Talmud said the same thing. "The letter ה is open on the bottom so anyone who wants can fall. But to get back in one needs to go through the upper opening. By why not get back in the same way he fell? לא אסתיא מילתא It won't work."
But at least I can say my repentance revolves around major points. My parents, the land of Israel, Isaac Luria. Lack of learning Torah might be included also but I don't have an exact proof of that as I do for the other four. {ביטול תורה כנגד כולם}. That is the lack of learning Torah is considered as bad as the three major sins plus gossip. The three major ones are idolatry, murder, and the sexual relationship forbidden in Leviticus.
Of course I know there are probably millions of wrongs and bad thoughts and words and deeds I do all the time. But here I am looking for the major areas of interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)