Bava Metzia 14b

There is some connection between what I wrote in Bava Metzia 14 and Rav Shach concerning a Ketubah. [Rav Shach's essay is found in the Avi Ezri on אישות laws of marriage]

In short the Rambam says if you have a man that has a few wives and then dies they all have equal right to מזונות [cakes] even if he married them one after the other because they are getting מזונות [cake and staples] from מטלטלים (movable property). The Raavad said even if the situation would be such that they get mezonot (cake) from land (non movable property). [The idea here is that in the Ketubah (marriage contract) the husband obligates his property to support her in case he dies until she remarries. There is no such stipulation in case of divorce however. This rule is sadly ignored today in most courts of law.]

At any rate, the ראב''ד (Raavad) brings from לווה ולווה וקנה (someone borrowed and then borrowed again from someone else and then bought property which is considred collateral for the loan) to show that the שיעבוד (right to collect cake and staples from the movable property) of all the wives is equal. And the Magid Mishna (commentary on the Rambam) disagrees with the Raavad. He adds if the Raavad would be right then the same would apply to the Ketubah itself



Rav Elazar Shach says that the Raavad is right because the obligation of the ketubah is not the same as מזונות. The obligation of the ketubah is because they were married. The obligation of mezonot is because he died. The obligations start at different time periods.
Thus in the case of a lender borrower and the borrower buys a field and sells it and then buys another field. At that point the lender would go after the second field. But then the borrower sells the second field. After which one does the lender go after?

If we go by the time the obligation starts then clearly the obligation on the first field came first.It was owned by the borrower before he bought the second field. That is the first answer of Tosphot in Bava Metzia.
But what does the  Rambam hold? He says only in the case where the wives are getting mezonot [their meals] from movable property that there is no order of who gets what first. But in case of land there is an order. Thus it seems he also goes by this idea that we look at who was married first and thus we look at when the obligation started.





_________________________________________________________________________________






There is some connection between what I wrote in בבא מציעא י''ד:ב and רב שך concerning the כתובה.

In short the רמב''ם says if you have a man that has a few wives and then dies, they all have equal right to מזונות  even if he married them one after the other, because they are getting מזונות from מטלטלים. Movable property. The ראב''ד said even if the situation would be such that they get מזונות from land. The idea here is that in the כתובה the husband obligates his property to support her in case he dies until she remarries.

At any rate, the ראב''ד brings from לווה ולווה וקנה to show that the שיעבודof all the wives is equal. And the מגיד משנה disagrees with the ראב''ד. He adds if the ראב''ד would be right then the same would apply to the כתובה itself



רב שך says that the ראב''דmakes sense  because the obligation of the כתובה is not the same as מזונות. The obligation of the כתובה is because they were married. The obligation of מזונות is because he died. The obligations start at different time periods.
Thus in the case of a מלווה לווה and the לווה buys a field and sells it and then buys another field. At that point the מלווה would go after the second field. But then the borrower sells the second field. After which one does the מלווה go after?

If we go by the time the obligation starts then clearly the obligation on the first field came first. It was owned by the borrower before he bought the second field. That is the first answer of תוספות in בבא מציעא.
But what does the רמב''ם hold? He says only in the case where the wives are getting מזונות  from מיטלטלים that there is no סדר גבייה. But in case of קרקע there is an סדר. Thus it seems he also goes by this idea that we look at who was married first and thus we look at when the obligation started.





_________________________________________________________________________________

 הקשר בין בבא מציעא י''ד: ורב שך בדבר הכתובה. בקיצור רמב''ם אומר שאם יש לך אדם שיש לו כמה נשים ולאחר מכן מת, יש להן את כל הזכות השווה במזונות אפילו אם הוא היתחתן אתן אחת אחרי השניה, משום שהן מקבלות מזונות מן מטלטלים. הראב''ד אמר גם אם המצב יהיה כזה כי הן מקבלות מזונות מקרקע. הרעיון כאן הוא כי בכתובה הבעל מחייב את רכושו לתמוך בה במקרה שהוא מת עד שהיא נישאת מחדש. בכל מקרה, את ראב''ד מביא מן הדין "לווה ולווה וקנה" להראות כי שיעבוד של כל הנשים שווה. והמגיד משנה חולק על ראב''ד. הוא מוסיף אם ראב''ד יהיה תקין, אז אותו חוק יחול על הכתובה עצמה. רב שך אומר כי הראב''ד הגיוני, כי חובתה של הכתובה היא לא אותו הדבר כמו מזונות. חובתה של הכתובה משום שהם (הוא והן) היו נשואים. חובת מזונות היא כי הוא מת. החובות מתחילות בתקופות זמן שונות. 
כך במקרה (בבבא מציעא יד:) של מלווה ולווה והלווה קונה שדה ומוכר אותו ולאחר מכן קונה אחר. בשלב זה מלווה ילך אחרי השדה השני. אבל אז הלווה מוכר את שדה השני. לאחר איזה מהם עושי המלווה ללכת? אם נלך לפי זמן שהחובה מתחילה, אז ברור החובה על השדה הראשון באה קודם. זה היה בבעלות הלווה לפני שהוא קנה את השדה השני. זוהי התשובה הראשונה של תוספות בבבא מציעא יד:. אבל מה הרמב''ם מחזיק? הוא אומר רק במקרה שבו הנשים מקבלות מזונות מן המיטלטלים שאין סדר גבייה. אבל במקרה של קרקע קיים סדר. לפיכך נראה שהוא גם הולך לפי הרעיון הזה שאנחנו מסתכלים במי הייתה נשואה ראשונה וכך נסתכל כאשר ההתחייבות נכתבה

T 17 E flat major in mp3 format.    T17 [in midi format.]

Navardok yeshivas

The way Navardok yeshivas were first made was by two students from the yeshiva just showing up in some town and sitting and learning Torah without asking for any favors. [It was part of that path to trust in God so asking people for favors was out.] I wonder if perhaps a similar approach is possible today. If there is no authentic Litvak yeshiva nearby then at least I suggest an hour a day of learning Torah [Old Testament, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash,  and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.].That is to restart the whole idea of Torah for its own sake, and trust in God.

In fact doing this at home is better as a rule. That means to have a session every day in Tenach, Mishna, Gemara, and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 



In essence Navardkok consisted of two complementary concepts (1) to learn Torah without monetary compensation. (That is known as "Torah Lishma," for it's own sake, not for the sake of anything else.) (2) Trust in God without effort. That is to trust in God without doing anything to get that help. That is not to do what is called Hishtadlus "השתדלות". (The the מדרגת האדם by Rav Joseph Horwitz-the Alter of Navardok for details.)

The reason this is important is: to receive the yoke of Torah really there is a need of a Beit Midrash where one can learn Torah without being bothered. But the religious world itself needs a thorough house cleaning. It is full of Chametz/leaven. That is the leaders as a rule are demons from the Hell and that tends to leave a bad effect on the regular people. So in  a practical sense, I would not walk into any religious place but pray in a Conservative or Reform. The only kind of religious place I would walk into would be an authentic Litvak yeshiva. [There are very few of these. In the USA the only ones that are true and authentic are in New York. In Israel there are only Ponovitch and its branches or startups from people that learned in Ponovitch. ]

[The basic idea of learning Torah Lishma is not to use Torah for money. So to  large degree all the yeshivas in Israel that do so are lying as the Rambam wrote (commentary of Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avot, chapter 4). Still the ironic thing is when they do learn for its own sake, then I think there is  mitzvah to give. I think this is clear in a few places in the Gemara.]

The false yeshivas use Torah to justify their sins and lies and covetousness and lust for money. They way they do this is to justify sin to make people feel good and positive. They say "We do not want any doom and gloom here. We want only positive messages. No Musar here."
The sin of the religious world is to use Torah to justify their lust for money. So I go no where near them.

[The classical example is the history (in the book of Kings) of Achav and Chizkia and the four hundred prophets that said, "You will be successful." Chizkiah however thought they were lying. So the called a prophet of God, Michayahu. He came and said also "Go up and you will be successful." Achav said to him How many times have I told you tell me only the truth in the name of God. Michaya said, "OK, you really want the truth? The truth is --you will not return alive." Achav said to Chizkia you see he always speaks bad about me. He is always negative.

T16 C major   t16 midi  t16 nwc

Rambam 21:10 מלווה ולווה Laws of Lending and Borrowing

Rambam 21:10 מלווה ולווה Has been a confusing halacha for me for a long time. I did not realize that the Magid Mishna had actually explained it simply,-- even though he left it with  צ''ע (not clear why it is so.)

The basic idea is the same case that I have mentioned before in this blog many times. You have a lender a borrower and someone that bought a field from the borrower after the loan.
If the field is regular [not a guarantee for the loan] the lender gets it in case of default and 1/2 the improvements and in Halacha 21:1 he does not even pay for the expenses.

In Halacha 2:10 [when the field is collateral for the loan] the way the Magid Mishna explains it if the expenses are more than the improvement he gets half the improvement and pays nothing.  If the improvement is  more than the expenses, he can take all the improvement and pay for the expenses.
This would not be worth the time writing if not for the fact that the Rambam there is so unclear.
The way to see this in the Rambam is in the wording. The first part of the halacha is clear. The שבח is more than the הוצאה so the בעל חוב says "my field made the שבח" so he is claiming all the שבח and pays the הוצאה. Clear enough. But then: The שבח is less than the הוצאה he collects 1/2 from the בעל חוב and 1/2 from the מוכר. That is where the Magid Mishna and Rav Shach come in. At that point the בעל חובis coming by the claim of normal שיעבוד by which he has only a right to half the שבח as it says in Bava Batra. Still the בעל חוב gets the field with everything on it --all the שבח - but he has to pay only for a half and the other half he has a right to. So the part he has a right to the לוקח has to collect from the מוכר as per the same agreement "What I buy will be משועבד to this חוב."

It is clear but only with Magid Mishna and Rav Shach. [In any case the part the part that the בעל חוב is collecting because of מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד לחוב הזה he is not paying for. The only part he pays for it that which comes because it is part of the field. So with regards to 21:1 where the Rambam brings two opinions if the בעל חוב pays for the הוצאה in the normal case that the field is not collateral he is going like the opinion he does not have to pay.]






In any case there is still a lot to talk about in this halacah as you can see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I have had occasion to bring this up also in my notes on Shas, and I also recall that Reb Chaim Soloveitchik brought it up.
This is what I wrote about this about a year ago:
  ב''מ קי: ב''מ י''ד: בבא בתרא קנז: הסוגיה כאן הוא בב''מ יד: ובבבא בתרא קנז: יש מחלוקת בין תוספות בב''מ ותוספות בבא בתרא. המחלוקת תלויה בסברת רב חיים הלוי מבריסק. הסברא היא זאת: לפי דעת הרמב''ם, בדיון של מַלְוֶה לווה ולוקח (ויש ברירת מחדל) שהמַלְוֶה גובה רק חצי השבח (השיפוצים) וחצי נשאר אצל הלוקח בגלל ששיעבוד שניהם עובר דרך הלווה. אבל המַלְוֶה גובה את כל השבח שגדל ממילא בגלל ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמו ישיר, ולא דרך הלווה [שהוא המוכר]. (זאת אומרת שאחר שהשיעבוד חל על השדה, הוא נשאר שם, ואינו שם בגלל המשכה של כח המוכר.) זאת היא סברת תירוץ הראשון בתוספות בבא בתרא במצב שלנו איפה שהמַלְוֶה גובה את הקרקע מן הלוקח, אף על פי שיש קרקע אחרת ללוקח השני. הסיבה היא ששיעבודו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. מצד השני, תירוץ השני ותוספות ב''מ יד: אוחזים שאם יש לוקח שני, המַלְוֶה צריך לגבות ממנו בגלל ששיעבודו הולך דרך המוכר, ואינו חל על הקרקע בעצמה. ועכשיו מחלוקת שני שתירוצים היא מחלוקת ראשונים. שהסברא של תירוץ הראשון היא שיטת הרמב''ם לפי פירושו של רב חיים ברמב''ם. והרמב''ן והראב''ד חולקים על הרמב''ם.  ותירוץ השני ותוספות בב''מ יד: הולכים לפי שיטת הראב''ד והרמב''ן
ואין להקשות על זה מדברי הרמב''ן שכתב שהמַלְוֶה אומר: "ארעאי [הקרקע שלי] השביח", בגלל שכוונת הרמב''ן היא שבגלל שיעבודו על הלווה הקרקע נחשב של המַלְוֶה והשיעבוד בא דרך הלווה

 להבין את מה הרמב''ם יחזיק כאן קשרתי את החוק הזה לחוק של לווה ולווה וקנה. קודם כל יש שני תרחישים בתוספות. אחד מהם הוא שבו השדה השני נקנה לאחר הגבייה. אם זה המקרה שלנו אז יש קשר ברור לדין לווה ולווה וקנה. במקרה שלנו יש מַלְוֶה וקונה ולמַלְוֶה כמובן יש שיעבוד ראשון. אבל אם שדה השני נקנה לאחר הגבייה, אז שיעבוד של שניהם באים כאחת [באותו הזמן]. זה כמעט אותו המקרה. אבל אנחנו יודעים מה רמב''ם אומר בלווה ולווה וקנה, שהם חולקים את השדה. אם זה אותו העיקרון אז למה החוק כאן לא יהיה אותו הדבר
 תירוץ: יכול להיות שזו כן דעת הרמב''ם שיכול לגבות מאיזה מהם שהוא רוצה. זה כמו בלווה ולווה וקנה שיש לנו ספק ומניחים הברירה בידם לפי פירוש הרמב''ם
אבל יש תרחיש אחר בתוספות. כלומר, כאשר השדה השני היה בבעלות בעת הגבייה (או  של הלווה או של לוקח השני). כאן אפשר רמב''ם מחזיק כמו  חוות דעתו של תוספות שמַלְוֶה חייב לגבות את שדה הראשון או השני. אנחנו לא באמת יודעים מלשון רמב''ם. כל מה שאנחנו יודעים הוא שהרמב''ם אינו מחזיק אותו שהוא מצב של  אפותיקי (או משכון) להלוואה.

That is I had gone back and forth on the idea if this is related to לווה ולווה וקנה as you can see. And in the end I guess I decided it was.
I do not recall if it was there in that place but I do know I used Rav Shach's idea about the difference between what grows on its on and what grows by means the efforts of the buyer. In any case I wanted to bring up this halacah because of the clarity the Magid Mishna and Rav Shach both bring to it.

I should mention that שיעבוד of a field whether a field that is collateral or just plain is the same when it comes through מה שאקנה יהיה משועבד that is the buyer and the lender divide the שבח.

problem with Islam

I noticed the problem with Islam but only after it was brought to my attention in the most unpleasant ways possible. Personal experience. Before that I had assumed as many others that we are all just people underneath our skins and everyone really just wants the same things security and happiness. I had to learn the hard way what Brett Stevens is suggesting apparently simply from thinking things out thoroughly.

It might be considered a fault of mine to give people and groups the benefit of  a doubt long after they have shown their true colors.
But on the other hand when I finally do decide that some group is bad, then at least I being a reliable source.

The Mishna says כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ "The yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the world is removed from one who accepts on himself the yoke of Torah."
I took this to heart a few years ago thinking that I needed to get back to Torah.
Then I noted the Rambam brings this idea in an expanded way in Laws of Repentance ch 9, where he brings the idea that "all fears" are removed from one that accepts the yoke of Torah. This is the same idea but in a more general sense.
This idea can be used by unscrupulous people that try to get money out of secular Jews. Still abusus non tolit usum. Abuse does not nullify use. And I can see that there is a great need to sit and learn Torah.

Since the really great and authentic Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas based on the Gra are few and far and the evil yeshivas that are hot beds of the sitra achra [the Dark Side] are close and many, thus there really is no choice but to get yourself the basic set of Torah and learn at home. The most important I think is Rav Shach's Avi Ezri which contains the basic principles of how to learn and most of the basic principles of Torah.

But in case people are reading this that might need a more basic introduction: the best of introductory books I have seen are those of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsh --that is his book, the Horev. After that The English Soncino Talmud I think is great. I am not exaggerating. The translations there are works of genius. After that the best book of Jewish Law is the Tur with the Beit Yoseph. I really loved learning that book with the Bach also.