Bava Metzia page 100A and 100B

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the Gemara in Bava Metzia page 100. And this also must have bothered Tosphot. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the Mishna [BM 100a] we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the Gemara and Tosphot must have been bothered with this. Especially Tosphot. Because to Tosphot the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to Beit Din even without their pleas. And here in the Mishna the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And Tosphot brings from Bava Batra that the only time Sumchus says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the Mishna.

So Tosphot explains the Mishna is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the Mishna. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know Sumchus has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the Gemara and Tosphot are both depending on the Gemara back on page 97B without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

I am not sure how to put this. But it seems to me to be important to point out what must have been bothering the גמרא in בבא מציעא דף ק. And this also must have bothered תוספות. Even though neither brought it up but still it must have been in the back of their minds. The question is in the משנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א we have what amounts to המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה  and right after that חולקים

That is for the case when the seller is sure and the buyer is doubtful the seller takes and oath and when both are doubtful they divide. Surely the גמרא and תוספות must have been bothered with this. Especially תוספות. Because to תוספות the entire idea of דררא דממונא is specifically when there is a doubt to בית דין even without their pleas. And here in the משנה the only difference between the two cases is only in the pleas. And תוספות brings from בבא בתרא that the only time סומכוס says his law is only when it is  דררא דממונא. So we have what has to have seemed a direct contradiction in the משנה.

So תוספות explains the משנה is a case of דררא דממונא. But that only takes care of the end of the משנה. What about the case where the seller is sure and takes and oath? That has to also be דררא דממונא Because it is the same case in everything except the pleas. And yet if it is דררא דממונא we know סומכוס has to say חולקים to divide. What I think here is that the גמרא and תוספות are both depending on the גמרא back on page צ''ז ע''ב without saying openly that they are doing so. That is we have to say that ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or it is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם  as I already explained in my notes that is is a case of מודה במקצת

_________________________________________________________________________________

נראה לי חשוב להצביע על מה שהיה בוודאי מטריד את הגמרא בבבא מציעא דף ק. וזה גם כנראה הטריד את תוספות. למרות שהם לא העלו את זה, אבל עדיין זה בטוח שהיה  בדעתם. השאלה היא המשנה בבא מציעא ק' ע''א יש לנו מצב של  המוציא מחברו עליו הריאה, ומיד אחר כך הדין של חולקים.  במקרה כאשר המוכר הוא בטוח והקונה ספק המוכר לוקח שבועה, וכאשר שניהם  בספק הם מחלקים. אין ספק שהגמרא ותוספות הוטרדו מזה. במיוחד תוספות. כי בשביל תוספות כל הרעיון של דררא דממונא הוא במיוחד כאשר יש ספק אל בית דין אפילו בלי הטיעונים שלהם. והנה במשנה ההבדל היחיד בין שני המקרים הוא רק הטיעונים. וגם תוספות מביא מן הגמרא בבבא בתרא כי המצב היחיד שסומכוס אומר החוק שלו היא רק כאשר הוא דררא דממונא. אז יש לנו מה צריך נראה סתירה ישירה במשנה. אז תוספות מסבירה את המשנה הוא מקרה של דררא דממונא. אבל זה פותר רק של סוף המשנה. מה לגבי המקרה שבו המוכר הוא בטוח  ונשבע? זו צריכה להיות גם דררא דממונא משום שזהו אותו המקרה בכל המשנה פרט הטיעונים. ובכל זאת אם זה דררא דממונא אנחנו יודעים שסומכוס אומר לחלק. מה שאני חושב כאן הוא כי הגמרא ותוספות שניהם סמכו על הגמרא  בעמוד צ''ז ע''ב. כלומר אנחנו צריכים לומר כי ברי ושמא ברי עדיף או שזה מקרה של עסק שבועה ביניהם כפי שכבר הסבירתי בהערות שלי כי זה מקרה של מודה במקצת.

Learning Books on Ethics

The school of thought of Israel Salanter was holding that by learning Musar [Ethics] something of what is learned gets absorbed. This was their idea of how to gain character improvement. And I would have to say that I think this idea at least helped me. I was first at a Litvak yeshiva that did not have Musar and I felt the lack. I can to some degree also see the drawbacks --that it can go off into crazy directions. Still I am happy for what ever Musar I was able to learn and practice.

[Reb Chaim Soloveitchik did not want Musar introduced into yeshivas and to a degree you can see today how Musar can get off track. Still I think the best approach is that of Musar.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

The sin of Adam and Eve. The Ari goes into this in detail but his explanations are characteristic of the Ari. That is:- he explains the types of damage that was caused to Nukva {the Female} and to Zeir Anpin etc. It is not a very satisfying explanation.

Reb Chaim Vital in the beginning of Eitz Chaim say the sin was being occupied with the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of the tree of life. The Rishonim have also a few explanations.

But what I have wished for was something more thematic. Something that would do more than make superficial sense. And that is not just on that part of the Torah, but on the whole Torah. In spite of this wish, I have never found such  thing.

I mean  something like you would hear from your English literature teachers about  Shakespeare or the Book of Job.

I am not sure how to explain this. But I am not looking for moral lessons, nor "gematriot," nor spiritual revelations. Rather something that you would hear in a Literature Class about Dostoevsky or from a Philosophy professor about the plays of Plato.

Like: "What was the snake thinking? "What was Eve thinking? How can you prove what you are saying, and not just make random speculations? Why did they not die that day? What did Adam hope to gain?" I have wished for something related to the text and not just people using the text to launch into some crusade. And sadly throughout my studies I have never found anything like that.

In other words, when you were in English Literature, what did the teacher talk about in the Book of Job? He or she would ask "What was Job saying? What were the arguments of his friends? How did they differ? How can you show and prove that that is what they were saying? How did Job answer his friends?"

So the same here with Adam and Eve.

Why is it that all religious commentaries on the Torah are so superficial and trite?

I would love to re-read my notes that I took in High School about the Book Of Job just to see how the teacher was analyzing it and see if I can gain any insight about how to see the patterns and motivations in other books of the Torah. The problem is all the commentaries cover up the hidden layers by means of their "explanations"\

I should mention that I brought up this problem with my learning partner and he suggested that Nachmanides fills this role. And from what I have heard from him this seems right. He in fact seems to deal with the basic themes and hows how they are developed within the context of the Torah itself.
The good thing for English speaking people is  Nachmanides on the Torah is in English

worship of people

The major thing which is troubling about groups that present themselves keeping Torah but are idolaters-they is they worship their tzadik-is the hypocrisy aspect of it. The way I see it is that people can either try to keep the laws of the Torah which includes the second of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" or not claim that are trying to keeping Torah and trying to get money constantly from secular Jews to support their supposedly superior life style.

But you can't say this openly nowadays because it is obvious. People only want to hear something complex because of "Physics Envy." The fact that the truth is sometimes obvious does not matter. People want it t be complicated.


I am not sure however how far to go with this. There still remains the question that some of the people like Reb Nachman were tzadikim. The fact that they are also objects of idol worship does not invalidate that. But it does invalidate the groups that do the idolatry.

The Gra put the whole group  into excommunication which has legal implications.For example one is not allowed to pray in a minyan with them. Nor learn Torah from them. Not teach them Torah. Nor sit within four yards of them. The laws differ between חרם and נידוי. [Cherem and Nidui] "Cherem" can be translated as excommunication. "Niduy "is rebuke. The category the Gra put them into was חרם excommunication.

An example of חרם is what you find in the Gemara with Rabbi Eliezer. Though he was clearly a tzadik still the excommunication had halachic validity as he he himself knew and acted accordingly He did not deny the validity of the excommunication.


There is a question how far to go with this. To what extent is it even possible?

Furthermore I want to point out that I would not be mentioning this if not for the damage these groups cause. That is what I suggest is that the excommunication only reflects an objective reality that is there regardless of the excommunication. Not that the Cherem made them bad but they were bad before the cherem. The cherem only addresses the issue of how to act.

The best way to deal with this issue is to learn the basic subject of idolatry from the Gemara itself. That is mainly the Gemara in Sanhedrin on page 63. Learning that sugia in depth helped me come to clarity about this issue.

Outside of that Gemara it is possible to see the problem by the ugliness of their deeds. That is hard to explain. Mainly I mean that it is one ugly deed then that is just a "קושיא" a question. But by that prevalence  of ugly deeds it is possible to draw a conclusion that there is something about the energy that produces ugly deeds as predictable as the setting of the sun and just as often. And it is not bad deeds. Bad deeds are just wickedness. But there is something ugly about their deeds that is not exactly wicked. It is just that their actions are ugly. There is something wrong with them that you hand put your finger on exactly. And it is not just as it applies to one person of the other. Since it is often and constant and perennial you can conclude that there is some ugly energy producing these ugly people and ugly deeds.

n75 a major n76  r3 a major

[n75 midi format]

 Utube The Secret History of Godel

My learning partner sent this video. 

My answer: 
"I looked at it briefly. I don't have the time right now to go through it all. I have seen both incompleteness theorems before. It is the completeness theorem that I thought would be good for you to look at because it would complete the Godel proof of the existence of God. I might have done the work myself but I never got the chance. In any case Godel is very important and very interesting."

I should mention that I am optimistic that my leaning partner has discovered Godel because he might be able to do something with Godel's proof--much more than I can.
It is true that in the book on Talmud, God did grant to me to make progress. But that was only after my learning partner had opened the way by asking some kind of fundamental question or bringing out some important point. That is ideally how a learning partnership should work.





My letter up above also was not written well. I meant to write the "compactness" theorem.



(1) See Schelling. The force that drives from the finite to infinity. The force that drives from infinity to the finite. The synthesis between them.

(2) See Kant's critique on the Ontological proof. See Dr Kelley Ross's Critique on Kant's Critique 

(3) My point is you need to (must) extend the set of positive traits to infinity and that will fill in the missing gap in Godel's proof. This must happen because of the completeness and compactness theorem.
See Mathematical Logic by Stephan Bilaniuk



(4) Godel mainly puts Anselm's and Leibniz's proof in logic symbols. 

 I noticed the self esteem thing got deeply into the Western psyche. But that was a little bit after I had been cloistered in a Musar yeshiva in NY. Musar means ethical works written during the Middle Ages. In Musar pride in oneself and abilities are universally considered the primary sin and the cause of all other sins. Mainly I think they derive this from Proverbs. So when people around me started talking about the importance of self esteem internally I always translated that to mean the importance of being wicked. It did not seem to make sense. I am not sure from where it comes from but I don't think they are getting it from Proverbs.


[Actually I do have an idea of where the self esteem thing came from [Eric Fromm], but I am not sure if that was the original source. I seem to recall some previous source. Nietzsche? I just can't put my finger on it this second.]
Nietzsche: Das Kriterium der Wahrheit liegt in der Steigerung des Machtgefühls. "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power." The psychologists picked it up from him. That is not rare. Most of their ideas come from Nietzsche.




Later I started noticing even Musar books that were distorting the message of Musar and insisting just like the psychologists that self esteem was a good thing.

Recently more serious psychologists have noticed that they were mistaken and rather that self esteem being a good thing it is the cause of violence and evil.

So Musar really had this right from the beginning. This shows that the idea of Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Musar is really correct.

Appendix: Each one of the major Musar books talks about the evil of Pride with no exception. חובות לבבות אורחות צדיקים מסילת ישרים שערי תשובה מעלות המידות ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם.
And furthermore all the disciples of Israel Salanter said the same thing. Isaac Blazzer, Yoseph Yozel Horvitz, etc.

The self esteem thing as the of cause of evil