Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98

Introduction. Rabbainu Tam says the only case when a guard swears the object was lost by accident is when there is another object that he admits and he gives back. That is there were two objects or two animals that he was guarding.

Tosphot asks on this in two places. One is in Bava Metzia page 98. The question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot. Over there the Mishna says a employee that says he was not paid takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel say that is where there are witnesses that he is in fact an employee. For if there are not witnesses then the employer is believed that he paid because he could have said a stronger plea and certainly be believed. That is the employer could have said "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life."
Rami Bar Chama said what a nice statement that is. Rava asked, "What is nice about it? If it is true then we would never have  a case of a guard taking an oath."
That is the entire Gemara that is relevant for us right now. It is from that Gemara that Tosphot sees a contradiction to Rabbainu Tam.
The question of Tosphot is this. If Rabbainu Tam is right, then the case of a guard is not that where there is a possibility of denying the whole thing because it is always a case when there is one object he is agreeing that he owes.
Crystal Clear. But then Tosphot adds two words  אהייא קאי which to my learning partner [David Bronson] made no sense.
"Which animal does he deny?" To David these words are problematic.

It is in order to answer the question of David that I wrote the next paragraph.
It occurred to me a possible way to answer the question of my learning partner on Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98. The original question was on the Tosphot on that page that asks אהייא קאי on which animal does the guard deny?  The answer I think is this. lets say the guard denied both animals? Then that is a straight case on לא היו דבאים מעולם. That is if he denies the animal that he denies then there is an oath because that is the regular case of הודאה וכפירה. If he denies the other animal then that is the case of כפירה  וכפירה. And in fact there would be no oath in that case--but we do not say he could have said that because that is then העזה and we always say that מודה מקצת is נשבע even though he could have denied everything and be believed. But there is no migo because of העזה
In other words this explains the question of Tosphot on Rabbanu Tam.

_____________________________________________________________________________


 עלה בדעתי דרך אפשרית כדי לענות על השאלה של השותף הלמידה שלי על בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א. השאלה המקורית היתה על תוספות בדף זה ששואל אהייא קאי על איזו חיה השומר מכחיש? התשובה לדעתי היא זו. נניח השומר הכחיש שתי החיות? אז זה הוא מקרה ישר "לא היו דברים מעולם". כלומר, אם הוא מכחיש את החיה שהוא מכחיש, אז יש שבועה כי זה המקרה הרגיל של הודאה וכפירה. אם הוא מכחיש את חיה האחרת, אז זה המקרה של כפירה וכפירה. ולמעשה לא יהיה שום שבועה במקרה זה, אבל אנחנו לא אומרים שהוא יכול לומר את זה כי הוא אז זה העזה ואנחנו תמיד אומרים מודה מקצת הוא נשבע למרות שהוא יכול היה להתכחש הכל ושיאמין. אבל אין מיגו בגלל העזה. במילים אחרות זה מסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם

Music for the Glory of God

r62  e minor

r 62 midi file

r62 in nwc

Yoga Leads to Idolatry & Possession

yoga leads to idolatry and being possessed by the Dark Side

This brings into question the larger issue of how much of what we do to get closer to God is actually resulting in the the opposite and from the Dark Side?


The problem of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] is greater than usually understood.
Powers from the Dark Side are what usually produces the kinds of supposed miracles that people think show that a person is holy man. This is a great problem when dealing with groups that think because their leader did some miracle that shows he is holy. The Devil give people the power to do miracles in order to be able to draw them to the Dark Side. 

Western Civilization

One comment of Vox Populi said: "European Christendom has a right to exist and to defend itself and promote it's interests." This seems self evident to me.
For some reason there are people that disagree with this. And it is a puzzle to me, "why?" To me it seems clear Western Civilization is a result of Judaic-Christian values aligned with the ideals of Ancient Athens and the political structure of Rome.
I see nothing to debate here. When other cultures can do something like this then give me a call:

Apollo 11

Shuttle Mission

unapologetically anti religious teachers. Religious teachers are the swore enemies of the Alpha Male. They are deluding themselves that they are self supporting when in fact they produce nothing of any economic value and depend solely on donations.

The unapologetically anti religious teachers  element of my thinking connects me with many people that have been terrorized by religious teachers  


Policies and principles don’t matter, nor do obsolete ideological divisions like Reform or observant , because the system itself is a sham.  


What we are seeing here is a convergence of two phenomena: Authentic Torah thought, popular discontent with phony religious teachers . 


I demand revolutionary change. But in order to make an impact on the system , I need quantity. We need lots of people to recognize that know that religious teachers  are frauds,
and predators. Their idea is to keep everyone working, so they can sit around all day relaxing with their friends in their so called yeshivas and kollel's. Real authentic Torah learning is the last thing they want.
There are of course a few authentic yeshivas but they are only about three in NY (Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat, Mir) and few others based on the Ponovitch approach in Israel. 


religious teachers  are the swore enemies of the Alpha Male. They are deluding themselves that they are self supporting when in fact they produce nothing of any economic value and depend solely on donations.
There is a good reason why the Rambam said not to give any money to any religious teachers. The reason w are seeing today when religious teachers are abusers and predators. And to top it all off they claim they malicious lies are from the Torah and Talmud.

All these problems would not exist if Torah and money were kept separate

Introduction to Talmud- Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri

If you need a simple introduction to Talmud I recommend the book of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri which combines simple, straight logic with depth

When I was in yeshiva there were two kinds of books around "Deep Lumdus" Deep learning  and "Easy Lumdus." The easy learning. The easy learning one were things you could learn and understand without having to have gone through the whole subject in depth. These were things that I would pick up and learn on Friday nights. [But it still gave you a good idea of the depths of the subject.]

The hard Lumdus is what it sounds like "hard." That is Reb Chaim [Soloveitchik], Baruch Ber, Shimon Shkop. Rav Shach combines these two things. Easy to understand without having to know all the sugia in depth while at the same time introducing you to the depth. [Yaakov Abuchatzeira also wrote a very good book of what you could call "easy Lumdus." An excellent book.]

Idea in Talmud Bava Metzia 98a

בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.

___________________________________________________________________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א

What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said  כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.


מה שנראה  לי הוא שכל זה תלוי במה רש''י מחזיק בכפירה. הדרך שהתוספות מבינים את רש''י היא שאם השומר אמר כפירה,  אז הוא לוקח שבועה. אם כן, אז למעשה יש שאלה על רש''י. השאלה היא שאין מיגו. אבל כפי שאני רואה את זה, רש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים היא כאשר הוא אומר נאנס, אבל אם הוא אמר הכפירה אז הוא היה אמין

Ideas in Bava Metzia Ideas in Talmud


If you need a simple introduction to this I recommend the book of Rav Shach the Avi Ezri which combines simple straight logic with depth.