רמב''ם ה' גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. The רשב''ם holds  בפרק השואל the thief can pay back שווה כסף

The proof of רב שך that the רמב''ם hold by the רשב''ם is hard to understand.
His main point is the fact that the owner of the object can ask for the pieces back.
The point is that if the רמב''ם would be holding like רש''י and the רא''ש that the thief must pay back unbroken vessels or money, then paying back the broken pieces does not fit with that. But the way I see it neither does it fit with the רשב''ם. If he can pay back any שווה כסף Then what gives the owner the right to ask for those piece specifically?

Besides that to seems to me that the רמב''ם states the הלכה openly like רש''י and the רא''ש that the thief must pay back money. If he could also pay back שווה כסף I think the רמב''ם would have to state that.

רמב''ם ה' גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. הרשב''ם מחזיק בפרק השואל שהגנב יכול להחזיר שווה כסף. ההוכחה של רב שך כי הרמב''ם מהחזיק כהרשב''ם קשה להבין. הנקודה העיקרית שלו היא העובדה כי הבעלים של האובייקט יכולים לבקש בחזרה את החלקים. הנקודה היא שאם הרמב''ם  מחזיק כמו רש''י והרא''ש כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כלי שלם או כסף, אז לשלם בחזרה את השברים לא מסתדר עם זה. אבל כמו שאני רואה את זה,  זה גם אינו מתאים עם הרשב''ם. אם הוא יכול להחזיר שווה כסף אז מה נותן לבעל הזכות לבקש אלה דווקא? חוץ מזה  נראה לי כי הרמב''ם קובע הלכה בגלוי כמו רש''י ואת רא''ש כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כסף [דמים] . אם הוא יכול גם להחזיר שווה כסף אני חושב שהרמב''ם יצטרך להצהיר על זה.

Rambam laws of theft. Chapter 1, law 14.

Rambam laws of theft 1:14. The Rashbam holds Bava Metzia פרק השואל the thief can pay back שווה כסף [not just money, but rather anything that is worth money.]

The proof of Rav Shach that the Rambam hold by the Rashbam is hard to understand.
His main point is the fact that the owner of the object can ask for the pieces back.
The point is that if the Rambam would be holding like Rashi and the Rosh that the thief must pay back unbroken vessels or money, then paying back the broken pieces does not fit with that. But the way I see it neither does it fit with the Rashbam. If he can pay back any שווה כסף (anything that is worth money). Then what gives the owner the right to ask for those piece specifically?

That is one way or the other we need to find some reason the owner can ask for the pieces back. But what ever that reason is can not have anything to do with the argument between the Rashbam and Rashi and the Rosh.

This was the last idea I had before I broke my leg. [I called for help and some people called an ambulance and took me to the local hospital.] ]

It would be a worth while project to defend the basic Litvak path of straight Torah based on the insights of my predecessors. That would mean making full use of  Ari and the Kant and Hegel while not drifting off into mysticism nor sterile philosophy..
This would not be all that different than the Rambam's Guide. But it would need someone of that kind of stature to do this.[I mean to say I would come out with a neo Platonic approach anyway just like the Rambam did.]

My own personal defense of Torah really began with Dr Kelley Ross's web site where he has an approach based on Kant, Schopenhauer, and Fries. It of course did not hurt that I was aware of the Ari's  interpretations of Torah based on the Talmud and his own insights.
But this has all been personal, and rarely do I ever share insights in this regard.
And any serious effort in this regard would have to take into account the important results of Hegel. So even to get the philosophical part of this project worked out could not be easy as it would have to plow a middle path between the Kant School of Dr. Ross and Hegel.--no easy task.

Or one could  just simply depend on the Rambam's Guide which is a perfectly valid approach. But it seems that after the Ari and Kant and Hegel there is considerable work to be done. 

fear and love of God

In terms of coming to fear and love of God, the Rambam's position is not usually considered. It seems paradoxical of the face of it. No one that I have heard of ever thought that learning physics and metaphysics of Aristotle brings to fear and love of God.  No one except the Rambam that is.

They way people usually translate him in the religious world is that he meant something like mysticism even though he refers specifically to the physics and metaphysics of the ancient Greeks which clearly is not the same thing.

I have usually defended the Rambam's based on the idea of the hidden Torah that is concealed in the work of Creation which you do find in the Ari. But that does not mean the Rambam is referring to the Ari.
[The hidden holiness in creation is a fairly big subject mentioned by Reb Nachman.]

And even though I do hold the Rambam was right, I still feel the learning "Musar" the ethical works written during the Middle Ages is important in order to come to fear of God.--

Reb Nachman's own objections to what is called secular learning has to be understood as a reaction to the over-sided emphasis on on secular learning that the enlightenment had. Both the gentile enlightenment and later the Jewish one. As a reaction to that, Reb Nachman's ideas can be understood. Certainly the Enlightenment was not aiming towards fear of God of learning Torah.
My own emphasis of Physics and Metaphysics can also be seen in the light of my experiences in the religious world where I saw over religiosity does not bring to fear of God. Just the opposite. Over religiosity often  comes with exaggerated degrees of wickedness as anyone in the religious world can bear witness to.


[Using Reb Nachman as a source and an authority seems to be an venerable Litvak practice. I never even heard of any Litvak gadol  in Torah claim otherwise. Though there is an an awareness that Breslov is a cult, still people freely borrow and make use of the ideas of Reb Nachman pretty much all the time and I approve of that

The truth is my history with Reb Nachman is long. But the sum total of my observations is easy to sum up. People that become Breslov go downhill very fast. People that stay Litvak and simply learn Reb Nachman privately gain a lot. Nothing could be simpler.

כי הרשב''ם מחזיק אין שמין לגנב אומר לנו שאנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין כאשר כלי נשבר.

In other words, in my way of understanding, הלכה י''ד is complete. The first part deals with the case the כלי went down in value whether it was broken of not and then we go by the time of העמדה בדין. And that is not like the רשב''ם. For the רשב''ם holds אין שמין לגנב tells us one thing that we go by שעת העמדה בדין when the כלי  was broken. It matters not if it went up or down in value before that.

במילים אחרות, בהבנתי, הלכה י''ד שלמה. החלק הראשון עוסק במקרה שהכלי ירד ערך, אם הוא נשבר או לא, ואז אנחנו הולכים לפי זמן של העמדה בדין. וזה לא כמו הרשב''ם. כי הרשב''ם מחזיק אין שמין לגנב אומר לנו שאנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין כאשר כלי נשבר. זה לא משנה אם זה עלה או ירד בערך לפני זה.

And therefore the Rambam can not hold by the opinion of the Rashbam. Then we still are stuck because Rav Shach brings  a proof of the exact opposite.

I am really not sure what to make of all this.[I went on later to write about this in Ideas in Bava Metzia, but I do not recall if I was ever able to resolve this issue.] 

A proof that the Rambam holds like Rashi and the Rosh that a thief must pay either money or whole vessels, not שווה כסף [Things that are worth money]

 I think there is a proof that the רמב''ם does not hold like the רשב''ם but that אין שמין לגנב means he must pay כלים שלמים or כסף.
רב חיים הלוי says there is  a doubt about this, and רב שך brings a proof that the רמב''ם does hold with the רשב''ם that the גנב can pay שווה כסף
The proof I have that the רמב''ם does not hold by the רשב''ם is from הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד.
My reason is simple. If the רמב''ם would hold by the רשב''ם then why does he not write simply if the גנב broke the כלי we evaluate it according to the time of העמדה בדין? Why does he divide הלכה י''ד into two parts? One is which the value of the כלי went down and we go by שעת הגניבה and part two is where it went up in value and then he broke it and we go by שעת העמדה בדין?
Part one  by itself is not a question on the idea that that רמב''ם hold from the רשב''ם because it only is referring to a case where the כלי was not broken. But if we look at הלכה י''ד  in its entirely it is obvious something is missing in part one. That is the case where the כלי went down in value and then it was broken. If the רמב''ם really would be holding from the רשב''ם then he would say if the vessel went down or up in value and then it was broken we go by שעת העמדה בדין.
So instead according to the way I see it, אין שמין  has nothing to do with the time of evaluation but the fact that the thief must give back כלים שלמים or כסף.

אני חושב שיש הוכחה שהרמב''ם לא מחזיק  כמו הרשב''ם, אלא אין שמין לגנב אומר שהוא צריך לשלם כלים שלמים או כסף. הרב חיים הלוי אומר שיש ספק לגבי זה, ועוד רב שך מביא הוכחה שהרמב''ם מחזיק כרשב''ם שהגנב יכול לשלם שווה כסף. ההוכחה שיש לי שהרמב''ם אינו מחזיק כרשב''ם היא מתוך הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. הסיבה שלי היא פשוטה. אם הרמב"ם יחזיק כרשב''ם אז למה הוא לא כותב פשוט אם הגנב שבר את הכלי אנו מעריכים אותו לפי שעת העמדה בדין? מדוע הוא מחלק את ההלכה לשני חלקים? אחד הוא מצב שערך של הכלי ירד למטה ואנחנו הולכים לפי שעת הגניבה וחלק שני הוא כאשר הוא עלה בערך ואז הוא שבר אותו ואנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין. החלק הראשון, כשלעצמו, אינו שאלה לגבי הרעיון שהרמב"ם מחזיק כרשב''ם משום שהוא מתייחס רק למקרה שבו הכלי לא נשבר. אבל אם נתבונן  בה בכלל, ברור שמשהו חסר בחלקו הראשון. זה המקרה שבו הכלי נפל בערך, ולאחר מכן נשבר. אם הרמב''ם באמת מחזיק כרשב''ם, אז הוא צריך להגיד אם כלי ירד או עלה, ואז הוא נשבר, אנחנו הולכים לפי שעת העמדה בדין. אז על פי הדרך שאני רואה את זה, לדין אין שמין אין שום קשר עם הזמן של הערכה, אבל אלא כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כלים שלמים או כסף.

Right before I broke my leg, I was thinking that Rav Shach's proof that the Rambam hold like the Rashbam is not a strong proof. I do not know if I wrote my thoughts down anywhere but as far as I recall Rav Shach was building on the idea that the owner of the broken vessel can ask for the pieces back. If the Rambam would hold like Rashi how could that make sense? But the way I see it even if the Rambam hold like the Rashbam this still makes is a problem. If after all the thief owns the broken object, what gives the owner the right to ask for the pieces back? So you have to say this is just a special thing to allow the owner to ask for the pieces back.

I might just mention the important fact that the Rambam does say the thief pays back דמים money. If he would be holding like the Rashbam that at least  seems curious.

I am not sure how to say this simply but basically I think there is some proof that the Rambam does not hold like the Rashbam but that אין שמין לגנב means he must pay כלים שלמים or כסף.
Reb Chaim says there is  a doubt about this and Rav Shach brings a proof that the Ramabm does hold with the Rashbam that the גנב can pay שווה כסף
The proof I have that the Rambam does not hold by the Rashbam is from הלכות גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד.
My reason is simple. If the Rambam would hold by the Rashbam then why does he not write simply if the thief broke the vessel we evaluate it according to the time of העמדה בדין? Why does he divide halacha 14 into two parts? One is which the value of the vessel went down and we go by שעת הגניבה and part two is where it went up in value and then he broke it and we go by שעת העמדה בדין?
Part one  by itself is not a question on the idea that that Rambam hold from the Rashbam because it only is referring to a case where the vessel was not broken. But if we look at halacha 14 in its entirely it is obvious something is missing in part one--then case where the vessel went down in value and then it was broken. If the Rambam really would be holding from the Rashbam then he would say if the vessel went down or up in value and then it was broken we go by שעת העמדה בדין.
So instead according to the way I see it, אין שמין  has nothing to do with the time of evaluation but the fact that the thief must give back כלים שלמים or כסף.
However Rav Shach's proof is also valid. Thus we are left with a doubt about what the Rabam really holds.