Tracate Yoma about work on Shabat

  יומא ל''ד ע''ב


האם זה אפשרי שמשהו יהיה דבר שאינו מתכווין ועדיין להיות מלאכה שצריכה לגופה?
  אני מציע שזה יכול להיות. תן לי להסביר. אפשר שמלאכה שצריכה לגופה אין שום קשר עם כוונה. אחרי הכל אין שום דבר האמור בזה על כוונה.  הדבר היחיד שחשוב הוא האם  נצרך  או לא. אבל בתוספות ביומא ל''ד וכריתות נראה כי תוספות חושבים שלא מדובר במשתנים בלתי תלויים. יכול להיות מתכווין ועדיין מלאכה שאינה צריך לגופה, אבל לא להפך. הדוגמא הקלסית היא לחפור בור למטרה אחרת מאשר למטרת שלשם חפירה שנעשתה במשכן. כלומר הוא צריך העפר, לא בור. אבל כפי שניתן לראות בתוספות בכריתות, תוספות שם מחזיק אלה הם עצמאיים. יכול להיות דבר שאינו מתכווין אבל הוא עדיין צריך לגופה. אז מה הוא שיש לנו שלושה רעיונות בסיסיים של מה היא מלאכה שאינה מריכה לגופה. בשבת יש לנו רבינו יצחק, תוספות בכריתות, ותוספות בתחילת בבא קמא. אני רוצה להזכיר שאלות על תוספות זה בגמרא הכריתות יש לנו המקרה של הפיכה של גחלים 

Is it possible for something to be דבר שאינו מתכווין  and still be a מלאכה שצריכה לגופה?
 But I suggest there can be. Let us say we understand a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה has nothing to do with כוונה. After all there is nothing mentioned in it about כוונה. Rather the only thing that matters is whether it is נצרך or not.


In the תוספות  in יומא ל''ד  and כריתות it seems  that תוספות thinking that these are not independent variables. Rather something can be מתכווין and yet מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. But not להפך. The classical example is digging a hole for a purpose other than the purpose for which digging was done in the משכן. That is he needs the עפר, not the בור.

But as we can see in the תוספות in כריתות, the תוספות there holds these are independent. One can have a דבר שאינו מתכווין but it is still צריכה לגופה


So what we have in is three basic ideas of what is a מלאכה שאינה מריכה לגופה.  In שבת we have רבינו יצחק, the תוספות in כריתות that I am dealing with in this next essay, and the תוספות in the beginning of בבא קמא


\

I wanted to mention questions on this תוספות

In גמרא כריתות we have the case of turning over coals. For turning over the bottom coals רבי שמעון says he is not obligated. תוספות says there are three reasons to say he is ought to be obligated in a sin offering. It is מלאכת מחשבת and it is  damaging by fire which רבי שמעון says is obligated, and it is a case of   דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא. So why is he not obligated ? Answer תוספות. A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
Then why, תוספות asks, does not the גמרא say this? Why does it say the case is דבר שינו מתכווין? Answer to show the strength of רבי יהודה who says even though it is דבר שינו מתכווין, he is still obligated in a sin offering.

תוספות then approaches the גמרא in גמרא שבת דף ק''ג ע''א. There he is picking עולשים that can be eaten. If he does it to eat, then to רבי שמעון he is obligated only once and not for the additional obligation of making his field look nicer. But we ask is it not דבר שאינו מתכווין אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא?
 Answer: It is someone else's field.
That is just the straight גמרא.
The two questions on תוספות concerns the way he treats this later גמרא.
Question one: תוספות is satisfied with his being not obligated in someone else's field since it is אינו מכווין בפסיק רישא . This is in direct contradiction to what he said in כריתות concerning the parallel case of coals.
Think about it. The Gemara said R Shimon should have said it is liable and then answered it פסיק רישא ודבר שאינו מתכווין. But back in Kritut we said some thing can be that exact case and be liable. In fact it was listed by Tosphot as a reason to be liable!!!! The only reason in Kritut it is not is because מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה

Actually I just looked at my notes in Hebrew and I saw that I wrote there that this is in fact the intention of Tosphot--that is to ask on the previous idea in Kritut.




Question Two. In his own field, we should also make a distinction if it is  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה or not.

The second question is really just a note, but not really a קושיה.


תוספות says the reason in כריתות that the גמרא said it is a case of דבר שאינו מתכווין שאינו פסיק רישא is because it wanted to show the strength of רבי יהודה. So why, תוספות asks, then in a later on case when he draws the coals closer to himself, the גמרא does not say the same thing? Why does it say it is a case of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה?

Answer: In drawing coals it could be that he does not mind if they get hotter. So the גמרא can't say it is not intended. Only in the case of turning over coals in which case he is against the idea of the bottom coals getting hotter. He would rather they would not . But he simply has no choice since he has to get the top ones to the bottom of the pile where they will cool down and  become usable coals. My point here is that תוספות says that even so, רבי שמעון would say he is obligated to bring a sin offering except for the fact that it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה .

So why then in גמרא שבת is תוספות satisfied with the fact that it being דבר שאינו מתכווין שאינו פסיק רישא  makes him not obligated even thought it is simply a case of his not caring whether the field gets improvement in value.

I probably should mention here that I do not mind if he is not obligated in שבת ק''ג because it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. I only wish that that would be the reason that the גמרא or תוספות would use over there.

My learning partner made a suggestion that perhaps תוספות meant for the original three means of being obligated to רבי שמעון  were meant to work together. I.e.  that the idea דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא with the idea of מקלקל by fire.  Maybe תוספות meant for those three original means to be obligated to work together. But if you look at the actual language of תוספות you can see that is not what he says. But at least it might save תוספות in a conceptual manner, even if it is not exactly what he said.



[1] Work done not for its own sake. Classical example. Digging a pit for the dirt, not for the hole to plant in.
Work not intended: Classical example. He does something permitted but something forbidden might result.
פסיק רישא is he does something permitted, but something forbidden must result.

[3] There is a third question also on the same תוספות. It concerns the issue of how תוספות treats the גמרא in כריתות. In that גמרא there is a case where someone pulls burning coals closer to himself. the גמרא itself says it is not obligated in a  sin offering because it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה

Now to some degree we can accept this. We already are understanding that the only time lighting a fire is חייב is when he needs the coals. I might like to argue about this here but I am anxious to get to a much more glaring difficulty. Before תוספות says one of the three reasons רבי שמעון would say tuning over the bottom coals is חייב is that even though it is אינו מתכווין it would be חייב for even מקלקל by אש is obligated. I mean to say that תוספות. That is, you do not need intention to be חייב for lighting a fire. So even if he thinks he is pulling apples closer to him, he would be obligated in a קרבן חטאת. how then do we say he is not obligated because of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? That is for רבי שמעון you do not need מלאכת מחשבת for fire.

I saw a small booklet with a picture of Yaakov Abuchatzeira on it. [You know the one. It is all over the place.] I have to admit whenever I see a picture of Yaakov Abuchatzeira or his grandson Bava Sali  I get the shivers. The Fear of God gets into me. You might ask well then why not go for it? Find some descendant of that family? The reason for my hesitation is several fold.

First of all I am trying to combine for myself several aspects of the service of God. That is I try to divide my day into small sessions so that I can accomplish a small amount in every field that I feel is important. That means learning Torah and prayer and also involvement in the natural sciences.

In any case the Abuchatzaira thing I should say is for Sephardi people mainly. There is a great deal of tension when an Ashkenazic Jew shows up in a Sephardi neighborhood. Inevitably there is some hot head who makes it his business to get rid of the Ashkenazic guy no matter how nice he tries to be.
But the actual family of  Abuchatzaira tend to be pretty holy people. So to go to them for  a blessing certainly makes sense.

In fact if you are near Netivot I recommend going to Shimon Buso for a blessing. He is a grandson of Bava Sali from the side of one of Bava Sali's daughters.

Also I have to say the basic path of Bava Sali was straight forward. What he did and what he recommended to others was nothing more that learn and keep Torah in the most basic and simple fashion possible with no side dishes.


Each group of Sephardi and Ashkenazim seems to have its pluses and minuses. But for an Ashkenazi fellow to meander into a Sephardi areas is a guaranteed invitation for disaster. On the other hand whenever there is some Ashkenazic Rav that wants a following around him, and lacks the right amount of talent for that, he goes to some Sephardic community and recruits them and he gets his own cult of followers.
In fact, almost every well known Ashkenazic group you can think of was made in exactly this way.

q41 in mp3 format   [q41 in midi]   q41 in nwc

insane religious "frum" world.

How to improve one's character?  Musar.


It might not be the best way to work on ones character. It might not even be that effective. But Israel Salanter thought learning books that were written to instill good character is the best type of way of going about thus that he saw. I mean you could ask what good does it do to learn about good character? Still compared to whatever else he saw this was the most effective means. You could say the Boy Scouts of the USA had the same purpose in mind. But you see where they have fallen to.


From what I can tell Musar has very limited effectiveness.


Musar  can lead to fanaticism. And today it seems to have in fact become associated with being extra frum. That seems like an aberration from its intended purpose.

The main problem I think there is with the way Musar is practiced today is the idea of social norms. People assume the message of Musar is to be frum (religious) as defined by the generally insane religious "frum" world.  Musar after all does say to keep all the commandments of the Oral and Written Law. But where they are wrong is they think Musar says to keep the social norms of the  religious world. I should say I am completely against being frum and against trying to get people to be frum. Being frum (religious) and keeping Torah are two exact opposites.
In what way can you see this? In the area of social norms. Torah itself has no concern or interest in any one's opinions or conventions.

Let me see if I can make this clear. The religious  world is accustomed to going off in certain directions crusading for one cause or the other. These are most often against the Torah. But they present their crusade as being a part and parcel of keeping Torah.

That is the most obvious area. But there are many others --more subtle things. How it comes out in the end is if you want to keep Torah, stay away from the frum as far as you can possibly get. However Lithuanian yeshivas do  make an effort in keeping the Torah like it says in the most basic and simple way. So even if they may seem frum their center of attention is in fact the Torah so that makes them OK. [But the kelipa of frumkeit does seems to have infiltrated them to some degree.]

In almost every major Torah principle that I can think of the frum are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Examples.
Learning Torah is one area for example. Their major concern is to make money off of the Torah.
Honor of one's parents.
Settling in Israel or at least support for Israel.
Monotheism.
Kindness for its own sake. I.e where do you go in a time of emergency? Who will help you in a time of emergency. Not the frum. If you find yourself out of luck they will do their best to push you down further.

Conservative or Reform are good places but the frum are a trap.

Though I can't compare myself to Rav Shach in any way, but I should mention that he was not afraid to voice criticisms in public. And when he was asked about it he quoted a Mishna: "Any argument that is for the sake of Heaven will be established."
Of course he did not exact win any popularity contests. But he certainly wrote the most important Torah book to come out in the last hundred years.

Bava Metzia page 14
 A field was stolen. The thief sold it and the buyer worked on it. Then the field goes back to the owner with the improvements. Rav said the buyer gets the amount of the improvements from the thief along with the money he paid for it. Shmuel said he does not get the improvements.
Tosphot says this is the same principle being applies as is applied on page 101 where someone goes into  a field and plants trees. There the owner pays either the improvement or the expense whichever is less.

I wanted today to say what is bothering Tosphot. I did not put that in my essay yesterday since I thought it was enough that at least I said what Tosphot was thinking. But today I wanted to say why he is thinking what he is thinking. He is bothered by several questions.  Lets say the case is the improvement is less. Then why does the owner not give the buyer the amount of the improvement directly to Rav? And it seems strange that on page 101 a  someone who directly walks into someone else field gets paid the amount he improved the field while the buyer on pg 14  gets nothing to Samuel. This I think is perhaps the main thing that is bothering Tosphot. Thus Tosphot comes up with an elegant solution.--He says it is the same principle at work in both places. I.e. he is thinking that the buyer from the thief also gets paid for the work he did--but that he gets the amount directly from the owner.

__________________________________________________________________


 A field was stolen. The thief sold it and the buyer worked on it. Then the field goes back to the owner with the שבח. The law is this.  רב said the buyer gets the amount of the שבח from the thief along with the money he paid for it. שמואל said he does not get the שבח.
On page 14 תוספות says this is the same principle being applies as is applied on page ק''א where someone goes into  a field and plants trees. There the owner pays either the improvement or the expense whichever is less.

I wanted today to say what is bothering תוספות.  He is bothered by several questions.  Let us say the case is the שבח is less. Then why does the owner not give the buyer the amount of the שבח directly in the opinion of רב? And it seems strange that on page ק''א a  someone who directly walks into someone else field gets paid the amount he improved the field while the buyer on page י''ד  gets nothing to שמואל. This I think is perhaps the main thing that is bothering תוספות. Thus תוספות comes up with an elegant solution. He says it is the same principle at work in both places. I.e. he is thinking that the buyer from the thief also gets paid for the work he did, but that he gets the amount directly from the owner.

פה אני מסביר למה תוספות אומר מה שהוא אומר. שדה נגנב. הגנב מכר אותו והקונה עבד עליו. אז השדה חוזר לבעלים עם השבח. החוק הוא זה. רב אמר הקונה מקבל את סכום השבח מהגנב יחד עם הכסף שהוא שילם על זה. שמואל אמר שהוא אינו מקבל את השבח. בעמוד י''ד תוספות אומר שזה אותו העיקרון שחל כמוחל על דף ק''א שבו מישהו נכנס לשדה של מי שהוא ונטע עצי שדה וצמחים. שם הבעלים משלמים או השבח או ההוצאה לפי הנמוך מביניהם. אני רוצה לומר היום מה מטריד את התוספות. תן לי לומר המקרה הוא השבח הוא פחות. אז מדוע הבעלים לא נותנים לקונה את סכום השבח ישירות בדעתו של רב? עוד שאלה: זה נראה מוזר שעל דף ק''א מישהו שהולך ישירות לתוך שדה מישהו  שהוא מקבל תשלום הסכום שהוא שיפר את השדה בעוד הקונה על י''ד הדף אינו מקבל שום דבר לשמואל. זה אולי הדבר העיקרי שמטריד את תוספות. כך תוספות מגיע עם פתרון אלגנטי. הוא אומר שזה אותו העיקרון בשני המקומות. כלומר הוא חושב שהקונה מהגנב גם מקבל תשלום עבור העבודה שהוא עשה, אלא שהוא מקבל את הסכום ישירות מהבעלים.

Music for the glory of the God of Israel.

q41 mp3   q41 midi   w41 nwc format

I should mention that Mozart sometimes takes a motif into 5 or three measures instead of what you would usually expect. I am not sure why he does this but I feel that if he thinks it is OK to do so --well that is good enough for me also.  Go and check and you will see that Mozart does this more often than people are aware of.

Bava Metzia 14b 101a

I wanted to preface my remarks with thanks to God for granting me even a little bit of learning Torah. I wish I could do it like it is supposed to be done but I don't have the merit for that. My sins block my way to Torah. But when God grants me to see the light from the deep dark places I have fallen to I am enormously grateful.

The case here is you have a thief. He took a field and he sold it. The field goes back to it original owner. The thief has to give back the money he took. But what happens if the buyer spend money and time planting trees? Or maybe he did other kinds of improvement? Now the field goes back to the original owner with the improvement who pays the buyer? Rav said logically enough the thief pays for the improvement. That makes abundant sense. So here is my essay on this



You have a thief and the owner and the buyer of a field. Rav said מעות יש לו שבח יש לו.(lit he gets money and improvement.) I.e. The buyer gets the price of the field and  שבח (improvement) from the thief. On page 101 you have a person that went into the field of his friend without permission and planted trees. The owner there  has to pay either the improvement or the expense which ever was less (ידי על התחתונה). Tosphot says this is the same case and the same law.

[note: the Rambam and Rashi have a different approach. I am only trying to deal with Tosphot here.]

It occurred to me what this Tosphot means. The question you have to think about to make this all clear is who pays whom?

To Rav the owner pays the thief for the improvement, and then the thief pays the buyer. But to Shmuel the thief does not pay the buyer for the improvement. But to Samuel the buyer goes to the owner and gets back the same amount that was fixed on page 101.



בבא מציעא יד: קא.
אני רוצה לפתוח את דבריי בתודה לאלוהים על שהעניק לי אפילו קצת לימוד תורה. הלוואי שהייתי יכול לעשות את זה כמו שהוא אמור לעשות, אבל אין לי את הזכות לזה. החטאים שלי חוסמים את הדרך לתורה. אבל כאשר אלוהים מעניק לי לראות את האור מהמקומות העמוקים והאפלים שנפלתי אני מאוד אסירת תודה.

יש לך גנב ובעל הבית ולוקח שדה. בעמוד יד: רב אמר קרן יש לו שבח יש לו. לוקח מקבל שבח מהגנב. בעמוד קא. יש לך אדם שנכנס לשדה של חברו ללא רשות ונטע עצים. הבעלים שם יש להם לשלם וידי הנוטע על התחתונה. בעמוד יד: תוספות אומר שזה אותו המקרה ואותו החוק.  לרב הבעלים משלמים לגנב השבח (או היציאה איזה שהוא פחות), ולאחר מכן הגנב משלם הקונה את כל השבח. (אם הבעלים נתנו לו רק היציאה בגלל שזה פחות אז הגנב צריך לשלם את היתר להגיע לסכום של כל השבח). אבל לשמואל הגנב אינו משלם הקונה לשיפור. אבל לשמואל הקונה הולך לבעלים ומקבל בחזרה את אותה כמות שהיה קבועה בעמוד קא., או השבח או היציאה