The fact that there were great tzadikim like Gra does provide an excuse for copycats. It is sadly all too easy to play on peoples naivety and credulity. And it is impossible to warn anyone about the frauds charismatic fakers because of the prohibition of Lashon Hara (slander). Besides that, it is hard to tell the difference between miracles from the realm of holiness, and the exact same kinds of miracles from the realm of darkness. It is not worth the time to warn people. If someone of the stature of the Gra was ignored by his own disciples, then what good would my warnings do?
28.9.15
It is hard to judge the yeshiva world. The truth is it is very confusing. For example the tendency of Lithuanian yeshivas is to carefully protect what they are and what they are doing and to throw off and throw out anyone that does not seem to be a part of the program. I think this is a good thing except when they throw out people that are in fact learning Torah for its own sake.
The general rule is they present themselves are elite geniuses when that is not usually the case.
On the other hand there are places in the Lithuanian yeshiva world that are of the highest quality like Ponovitch in Bnei Brak.
But the advantage of all Lithuanian yeshivas is there tends to be a minimum amount of pseudo Kabalah and lunatics which are so prevalent today in the world of the religious.
One thing about the pseudo Kabalah that is taught nowadays is that it warps people's world view.
Pseudo Kabalah of course claims its lineage from Isaac Luria (the Ari), but in fact it teaches the Kabalah of the Shatz {Shabatai Tzvi} in disguise.
One fellow was telling me today his experience in some yeshivas when he was fourteen years old and was horrified how teaching young kids all kinds of pseudo Kabalah would warp and mess up their minds permanently.
This came up with another fellow who was telling me about the Shuvu Banim Breslov crowd and some of the Shabatai Tzvi kinds of Kabalah that got to be central to their teachings.
The general rule is they present themselves are elite geniuses when that is not usually the case.
On the other hand there are places in the Lithuanian yeshiva world that are of the highest quality like Ponovitch in Bnei Brak.
But the advantage of all Lithuanian yeshivas is there tends to be a minimum amount of pseudo Kabalah and lunatics which are so prevalent today in the world of the religious.
One thing about the pseudo Kabalah that is taught nowadays is that it warps people's world view.
Pseudo Kabalah of course claims its lineage from Isaac Luria (the Ari), but in fact it teaches the Kabalah of the Shatz {Shabatai Tzvi} in disguise.
One fellow was telling me today his experience in some yeshivas when he was fourteen years old and was horrified how teaching young kids all kinds of pseudo Kabalah would warp and mess up their minds permanently.
This came up with another fellow who was telling me about the Shuvu Banim Breslov crowd and some of the Shabatai Tzvi kinds of Kabalah that got to be central to their teachings.
27.9.15
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.]
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.
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.
26.9.15
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)