In Reb Chaim from Voloshin  the main service of God is to sit and learn Torah--all day. I tried this for some time and it is an amazing thing.


Normally since I found learning Torah is such an amazing thing I would have to recommend it to others. But one difficulty is that if one tries to learn Torah for its own sake there are lots of obstacles.



There is a lot to discuss here because I did not find all yeshivas to be equal. Many are cults. They have the aura of respectability but are covering a rotten core. So when I say a legitimate yeshiva I mean to distinguish it from non legitimate.

[I should mention  that learning Torah the whole day is a noble goal, but I think at minimum at least an hour a day of in depth learning is important.--especially at the ages from 18 until about 24. There is something about learning Torah in depth that really needs to be absorbed at an early age. People that don't get it then in general don't ever get it.] 

Bava Metzia 14 Bava Batra 157

(1) We have a lender, borrower, one buyer of a field from the borrower after the loan; and then a second buyer. If there is default the lender gets the field and the first buyer gets the second field for the price of the field and for his improvement to the field he gets free property of the borrower.. גובה את הקרן ממשועבדים ואת השבח ממחוררין Tosphot asks in Bava Batra 157 why is there free property?  In Bava Metzia he asks why is there a second field?
I want to claim the question of Tosphot why is there a second field can be divided into two meanings.
One is the order of collection. That is we know his שיעבוד came first so he can get either field. So why specifically does he go after the first field? The other way is the second field was bought after the first field was collected and so Tosphot is asking what stops the lender from getting the second field.

(2) I tried to write a few paragraphs on what the Rambam would hold here. I tied this law to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה [borrowed and borrowed and bought] based on an idea of Chaim Soloveitchik. But this ideas needs to be explored based on an idea of Rav Eleazar Menachem Shach.

First of all there are two scenarios in Tosphot. One is where the second field was bought after the collection. If this is our case then there is a clear parallel to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה. In our case there is a lender and a buyer and the lender obviously has first rights. But if the second field was bought after the collection then the rights of both come at the same time. It is almost  the same case But we know what the Rambam says in לווה ולווה וקנה. That they split the field. If this is the same principle at work then why would the law here not be the same?

But there is another scenario in Tosphot. That is when the second field was owned at the time of the collection  by either the borrower or the second buyer. Here it is possible the Rambam holds like either opinion of Tosphot that the lender must go after the first field or the second. We don't really know from the language of the Rambam. All we know is the Rambam does not hold it is a case of an אפותיקי guarantee for the loan.
______________________________________________________________________________

 We have a מלווה, לווה, one לוקח of a field from the לווה after the הלוואה and then a second buyer. If there is default the lender gets the שדה and the first buyer gets the second field for the price of the field and for his improvement to the שדה he gets free property מחוררים of the borrower.. גובה את הקרן ממשועבדים ואת השבח ממחוררין. תוספות asks in בבא בתרא 157 why is there free property?  In בבא מציעא he asks why is there a second שדה?
I want to claim the question of תוספות why is there a second שדה can be divided into two meanings.
One is the order of collection. That is we know his שיעבוד came first so he can get either field. So why specifically does he go after the first שדה? The other way is the second שדה was bought after the גבייה and so תוספות is asking what stops the מלווה from getting the second שדה.

 I tried to write a few paragraphs on what the רמב''ם would hold here. I tied this law to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה based on an idea of רב חיים הלוי. But this idea needs to be explored based on an idea of רב שך.

First of all there are two scenarios in תוספות. One is where the second שדה was bought after the גבייה. If this is our case then there is a clear parallel to the law of לווה ולווה וקנה. In our case there is a lender and a buyer and the מלווה obviously has first שיעבוד. But if the second field was bought after the collection then the שיעבוד of both come at the same time. It is almost  the same case. But we know what the רמב''ם says in לווה ולווה וקנה. That they split the field. If this is the same principle at work then why would the law here not be the same?

But there is another scenario in תוספות. That is when the second field was owned at the time of the collection  by either the לווה or the לוקח שני. Here it is possible the רמב''ם holds like either opinion of תוספות that the מלווה must go after the first field or the second. We don't really know from the language of the רמב''ם. All we know is the רמב''ם does not hold it is a case of an אפותיקי guarantee משכון for the loan.

Music for the glory of God

Q46   q46 midi [the reason for midi is in case anyone wants a way to  download the notes. this was written in a nwc format but most people do not have that, so intead i post this in mp3 and midi]

I was looking at my notes on Bava Metzia 14 and right now I am not sure my I thought there is a difference between the answer of Tosphot about apotiki and the version of the older Tosphot that says there is a second field because the lender already took his "shiabud". The second answer is that there is a second filed because there was only one field at the time the loan was collected. Then the lender bought another field. Then the first buyer collects from the second field. According to this if there had been a second field that was bought later the lender would have had to have gone after it. That is the exact same idea as the second answer of Tosphot about the apotiki. There also the only reason the lender went after the first field was because it was made a guarantee for the loan.
THEREFORE IN TERMS OF LAW THE SECOND ANSWER OF TOSPHOT AND THE OLDER TOSPHOT HOLD THE EXACT SAME THING.

Actually not exactly. How can I put this? Perhaps thus: They hold the same in that the lender must go after the second field, if he can. But the second answer of Tosphot and the older Tosphot will differ in the case that the lender has already collected part of his loan. The Old Tosphot holds once he has collected any part of his loan according to the circumstances at the time, then he can not collect again. The second answer of Tosphot about the apotiki holds he could continue to collect









____________________________________________________________________________
Tosphot Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157.
You have a lender, borrower and a buyer of a field from the borrower who bought the field after the loan.  Then you have another buyer of a field  that the borrower bought after the loan.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
Tosphot asks why is there a second field?



I am not sure why Tosphot is asking about why the second field is left. The braita can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second buyer goes after the first one. The first field was already sold at the time the second buyer bought the second field from the borrower.  And according to the answer of Tosphot about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the lender would in fact go after the second buyer and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of Tosphot in Bava Batra in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for Tosphot to say the law is the lender in fact has to go after the first buyer in all cases.

In any case I do not think Tosphot is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first field --because Then the second field would in fact also be collected. It is only in a case where the second field was left and Tosphot is asking about the order of collection of the loan.
Or perhaps Tosphot is thinking that the second buyer could still go after the first buyer if it happened that his field was taken by the lender because of the loan?











_______________________________________________________________________

תוספות בבא מציעא 14 and בבא בתרא 157.
You have a מלווה לווה  and a buyer of a field from the לווה who bought the field after the loan.  Then you have another לוקח of a field  that the לווה bought after the הלוואה.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
תוספות asks why is there a second field?



I am not sure why תוספות is asking about why the second שדה is left. The ברייתא can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second לוקח goes after the first לוקח. The first שדה was already sold at the time the second לוקח bought the second שדה from the לווה.  And according to the answer of תוספות about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the מלווה would in fact go after the second לוקח and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of תוספות in בבא בתרא in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for תוספות to say the law is the מלווה in fact has to go after the first לוקח in all cases.

In any case I do not think תוספות is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first שדה, because then the second שדה would in fact also be נגבה. It is only in a case where the second שדה was left and תוספות is asking about the order of collection of the loan.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Or perhaps תוספות is thinking that the second לוקח could still go after the first לוקח if it happened that שדה השני was taken by the מלווה because of the הלוואה?


 תוספות בבא מציעא 14 ובתרא בבא 157. יש לך מלווה לווה וקונה של שדה מלווה ש קנה את השדה לאחר ההלוואה. אז יש לך לוקח אחר של שדה שלהווה קנה לאחר ההלוואה. יש ברירת מחדל. המלווה מקבל את השדה הראשון. הקונה הראשון הולך אחרי השני. תוספות שואלים מדוע יש שדה שני? אני לא בטוח למה תוספות שואלים מדוע שדה השני נשאר. לא יכולה להיות  שהברייתא מדברת על המקרה ההפוך שהמלווה גבה מן שדה השני, כי אז זה לא יהיה אפשרי לומר לוקח השני הולך אחרי לוקח הראשון. השדה הראשון כבר נמכר בזמן שלוקח השני קנה שדה השני מהלווה. ולפי התשובה של תוספות על אפותיקי הדין במקרה רגיל הוא שהמלווה היה גובה מן לוקח השני ולא יהיה שום דבר ללוקח השני לעשות. אבל בתשובה הראשונה של תוספות בבא בתרא השאלה היא רטורית, כי השאלה פשוט נותנת פתח לתוספות לומר החוק הוא מלווה בעובדה שיש ללכת אחרי לוקח הראשון בכל המקרים. בכל מקרה אני לא חושב שתוספות שואלים במקרה שבו ההלוואה הייתה לא לגמרי שולם על ידי השדה הראשון, כי אז השדה השני היה למעשה גם נגבה. זה רק במקרה שבו השדה השני נשאר ותוספות שואל על סדר הגבייה של ההלוואה

What is wrong with giving money to places that make learning Torah  into a business is that when you pay people to learn Torah for money, there is no room for people that learn Torah for  its own sake. This is a well known and documented phenomenon. I have heard and seen this plenty of times. If some one wants just to sit down and learn Torah without getting paid for it but just for its own sake there is almost no yeshiva that will not throw him out. It is a outrage but it is a fact and woe to the individual who brings attention to this.

I am not trying to make a halachic kind of decision here. This was dealt with by The Rambam and Beit Joseph and later on people. To the Halacha side of this issue I have nothing to add. But to the practical side of this I have a tremendous amount of facts that show that surprising people that use the Torah for money only hurts Torah. Support for the frauds makes things hard for sincere people.

When Reb Chaim from Voloshin started the yeshiva movement the way things were that the synagogue was used as a study hall during the day and was connected with the local Rav. Reb Chaim changed that to the new paradigm of a yeshiva as an independent institution. This was a good thing but people started seeing that it is a good business. And that ruined it.

What was the excommunication of the Gra for? It was to prevent idolatry.


Today we have idolatry.Glamour.

Glamour is an illusion, originally a magical spell of concealment.

Glamour, in most of its modern applications, conceals the ordinariness of someone and makes them appear, in turn, godlike . This is the clue here. We probably have never met any gods.

 However, the Gra was aware of what some groups are doing.
 Their leaders appear with a glamour that makes them appear like gods. We cannot, of course, get too close, or the illusion will break; but the glamour itself bespeaks some kind of knowledge of the gods would be like.

Glamour offers us a glimpse into another world, more perfect than this one, and for that moment, enchantment swirls around us. And then it is gone again. 

This experience does not carry us out of the world, like mystical transport, but it involves its own kind of ecstasy and exaltation nevertheless -- the "leaping up" origin of the latter term even fits, precisely, the behavior that was evident, for instance, during the first tour of the Beatles in the United States, when fans, mainly female, bounced up and down in their excitement, eager for the darshan, , the numinous appearance and magical charisma (, "grace".




That is it seems idolatry is more common today than is usually thought. When people give to other people the honor due to the gods and attribute powers to them that belong to the gods --that is a kind of idolatry.

You have a lender, borrower who sells a field after the loan and a buyer. The borrower defaults. The lender gets the field. The buyer gets a second field that borrower sold after the loan and after he bought the field. Tosphot asks, "Why is there a second field?"


The case is when the debt was paid by the first field. The question of Tosphot is on the order of collection.


I wanted today to discuss the Maharsha in Bava Batra 157. תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old Tosphot which had the version כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right version of our Tosphot. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our Tosphot and the regular old Tosphot. This is quite common in Yevamot. Our Tosphot says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח

But in any case to get back to the point. The Mahrasha also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.

That means this the way the Maharsha understands our Tosphot there are only two answers on the question why is there a second field? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our version. In our version the lender had to go collect from the first buyer because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.

But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out Tosphot says openly. It is just the Maharsha says that there was no second field nor free property either at the time of the גבייה.

I have nothing new to add here but I just wanted to make things clear and to put what I had written to make this argument dependent on an idea of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik in another place

I used Reb Chaim to get this argument to be the same as another one between the Rambam and the Raavad.-If that is the case it ends up the Rambam going like the first answer in our Tosphot. That in the first place the lender was required to go after the first field.
_______________________________________________________________________________


You have a מלווה, לווה who sells a field after the loan and a לוקח. The borrower defaults. The lender gets the field. The לוקח gets a שדה שני that לווה sold after the הלוואה and after he bought the field. Why is there a second field?

I wanted to make it clear that if the מלווה had gotten all of his debt paid then we would not be having this discussion. We are only talking about when the חוב was beyond what could be collected from the שדה הראשון.


I wanted today to discuss the מהרש''א in בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old תוספות which had the גרסה כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right גרסה of our תוספות. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our תוספות and the regular old תוספות. This is quite common in יבמות. Our תוספות says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח

But in any case to get back to the point. The מהרש''א also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.

That means this the way the מהרש''א understands our תוספות there are only two answers on the question why is there a שדה שני? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our גרסה. In our גרסה the מלווה had to go collect from the לוקח ראשון because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.

But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out תוספות says openly. It is just the מהרש''א says that there was no שדה שני nor מחוררין either at the time of the גבייה. Everything besides the first field was bought after the גבייה/

בבא בתרא קנז: ב''מ יד: ב''מ קי: יש לך מלווה, לווה שמכר שדה לאחר ההלוואה, ולוקח. ויש המחדל של הלווה בתשלום. המלווה מקבל את השדה. הלוקח מקבל שדה שני שהלווה מכר לאחר ההלוואה ואחרי שהוא קנה את השדה הראשון. תוספות שואל מדוע יש שדה שני? אני רוצה להבהיר שאם המלווה קיבל את כל חובו אז לא היה צורך של דיון בזה.  אנחנו רק מדברים כאשר החוב היה מעבר למה שיכול להיות נגבה מהשדה הראשון. אני רוצה  לדון במהרש''א בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה הוא מצא  תוספות ישנים שהייתה להם הגרסה "כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו." המלווה כבר קיבל את כל שיעבוד.  (אבל אני רוצה להציע שזה פשוט ויכוח בין התוספות שלנו והתוספות הישנים הרגילות. זה די נפוץ ביבמות.) התוספות שלנו אומרים "כבר שיעבודו על לוקח."
 מהרש''א גם אומר  ללווה אין רכוש בעת שההלוואה נגבה גם לא משועבדים. זה אומר שזה הדרך שהמהרש''א מבין תוספות שלנו. יש רק שתי תשובות לשאלה מדוע יש שדה שני? אבל התשובה הראשונה היא לא כמו התשובה שיש לנו בגרסה שלנו. בגרסה שלנו המלווה היה צריך ללכת לגבות מלוקח ראשון משום שהשיעבוד כבר היה השדה הראשון. אבל בגרסה שלנו היה כבר השדה השני היינו משועבדים שניים כבר היו בזמן הגבייה. וזה למעשה מה שתוספות אומרים בגלוי.  רק מהרש''א אומר שאין שדה שני (משועבדים) ולא מחוררין  בעת הגבייה. הכל חוץ מהשדה הראשון נקנה לאחר הגבייה.
_____________________________________________________________________________


I should mention that the basic answer of Tosphot in Bava Metzia and Bava Batra goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available.  And that is the answer of Tosphot in both places, that is  that the first field was made an apotiki [guarantee ] for the loan. But then the Tosphot asks there in Bava Metzia if that is the case that the lender must always go after the second field then why not say simply that the reason there is a second field is because it was bought after the first field was collected. This is not the same as the answer of the Older Tosphot that the Maharsha brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if bought after the first field was collected still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer Tosphot gives whys not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I should mention that the basic answer of תוספות in בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available.  And that is the answer of תוספות in both places, that is  that the first field was made an אפותיקי for the הלוואה. But then the תוספות asks there in בבא מציעא if that is the case that the מלווה must always go after the שדה השני then why not say simply that the reason there is a second שדה is because it was bought after the first שדה was נגבה. This is not the same as the answer of the older תוספות that the מהרש''א brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if שדה השני  was bought after the first שדה was נגבה still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer תוספות gives why not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field. This is because the only reason he does not in general collect for his loss of the שבח is that it has no limit. But here it has a limit after the field was נגבה.