בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב Talmud Bava Batra page 18 side B

In בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. I was wondering why the גמרא asks on page י''ח ע''ב a question on רבא from ר' יוסי. Since for all we know the argument between אביי and רבא is only according to the sages of the משנה.  After all they can not be arguing about ר' יוסי who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the הלכה would be like ר' יוסי, still they can not be arguing about a statement of ר' יוסי that says "It is allowed". The argument between רבא and אביי is if one can put something by the boundary if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.] It occurred to me that in fact the question of the גמרא must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and ר' יוסי says they do not need to be kept away. But this question on רבא can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all רבא says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border. And that is in fact one answer of the גמרא, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.


בבא בתרא דף י''ח ע''ב. תהיתי מדוע הגמרא שואלת בעמוד יח: שאלה על רבא מר' יוסי. שהרי כל הוויכוח בין אביי לרבא הוא רק  לפי חכמי המשנה. הרי הם לא יכולים להתווכח על ר' יוסי שאומר שמותר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים. [גם אם ההלכה תהיה כמו ר' יוסי, עדיין לא ניתן להתווכח על אמירה של ר' יוסי שאומרת "מותר". הוויכוח בין רבא לאביי הוא אם אפשר לשים משהו בגבול ואין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק בזמן הזה. אז אם השכן שם שם מאוחר יותר משהו שיכול  להינזק אז הראשון היה צריך לקחת את הדבר שגורם נזק משם.] עלה בדעתי כי למעשה שאלת גמרא חייבת להיות רק על הקמת הגן בפועל שבו הדבורים הוצבו ליד הגבול, ועל כך החכמים  אומרים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים ור' יוסי אומר  לא צריך. אבל שאלה זו על רבא לא יכול להתקיים אלא אם כן החכמים מחזיקים כי דבורים עושים נזק לחרדל. אחרי הכל רבא אומר רק דבר שגורם נזק חייב להיות מרוחק מהגבול. וזו תשובה אחת של גמרא, כלומר שהחכמים מחזיקים  שהדבורים לא עושים שום נזק ולכן הם יכולים להיות ליד הגבול


A couple of years later: I have to mention I wrote this note when I did not have a Bava Batra with the Maharsha or Maharam. Yesterday I was able to get over to a Litvak place and take a brief look at this subject and noticed that both of these people go into it in detail. I only had an hour so I did not get the gist of what they were saying.

false Torah scholars

The trouble with false Torah scholars is that they cause more damage than if they would be open criminals. It is by the fact they present themselves as knowing  Torah and by that gaining people's trust that they cause the terrible evils they bring into the world. This is stated openly in the Talmud tractate Shabat. It's a wonder to me that Reb Nachman who brought up this problem did not quote that Gemara.[He has plenty to say about this problem but for some odd reason he never quoted that Gemara.]

The basic idea is that these false Torah scholars then cause the entire Jewish religious world to fall into the Dark Side and from there problems spread throughout the whole world.

It would be great and simple to  follow the Oral and Written Law if not for this particular problem which makes it difficult.

One method I have recommended in some of my blog entries is simply to learn Torah at home. Another good idea is to find an authentic Litvak yeshiva.  However neither of these ideas is very simple. [unless one is in NY or Bnei Brak]  Especially for working guys. Thus at least what I recommend is to save the first hour every day when one wakes up for a  half hour of Torah and a half hour of Physics and Metaphysics as per the Rambam and by that to be connected with Torah in an authentic way the whole day.

[The problem with finding an authentic Yeshiva just gets back to the original problem. Thus the best idea is to learn Torah at home--especially to guard that first hour for Torah and Physics.]

The problem I think goes into the area of money. That is that Torah is not supposed to be a means of making money and hen it becomes a means of making money that then it attracts lowlifes.

Bava Batra 18b

In Bava Batra 18b I was wondering why the Gemara asks on page 18b a question on Rava from R. Yose. Since for all we know the argument between Abyee and Rava is only according to the sages of the Mishna.  After all they can not be arguing about R Yose who says it is permitted to put the mustard next to the bees. [Even if the Halacha would be like R Yose, still they can not be arguing about a statement of R Yose that says "It is allowed".] [The argument between Rava an Abyee is if one can put something by the boundary f there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged at the present time. Then if there is placed there later something that could be damaged then one would have to take the thing that causes damage away.]


It occurred to me that in fact the question of the Gemara must be only about the actual set up of the garden where the bees have been placed next to the border, and on that set up the sages say the mustard must be kept away from the bees and R. Yose says they do not need to be kept away.


But this question on Rava can not exist unless the sages hold that bees do damage to mustard. After all Rava says only the one that causes damage must be kept away from the border.
And that is in fact one answer of the Gemara, that is to say that the sages hold the bees do no damage and that is why they can be put next to the border.

Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] (The verse itself I think is in Leviticus 19.)

One thing they were emphasizing in the Mir Yehiva in NY was Lashon Hara [the prohibition to speak bad about others] and that I never really got into much. Later I found out that Rav Israel Abuchatzeira also was really into that kind of thing but it still never really became one of my major principles to hold onto. Part of the reason is because it is never really all that clear when you are required to warn others about something and when not.

[Rav Israel Abuchazeira had just one picture in his house --that of the Chafez Chaim. And his granddaughters had organized a חוג group in their school of girls that would learn two laws in the Chafez Chaim [the book of Laws of Lashon Hara] every day and they would put their names on a list of people that every person would pray for every day to find their true spouse. So this thing about Lashon Hara was fairly well emphasized by that whole family also.--Not just Bava Sali himself. I think most of the people on that list got married after a very short time.]





The opposite point that one is required to warn people of danger of associating with a bad person is what makes this whole thing difficult to deal with.

In the book of the Gra [collected sayings of the Gra] אבן שלמה it says to give rebuke even when one knows the rebuke will not be accepted. Thus in our case here, it would seem that to warn others of danger is an obligation even when one knows his words will not be accepted.

[The Mir in NY was different from other Litvak yeshivas in this respect -the emphasis on not speaking Lashon Hara. All Litvak yeshivas are unified in the conviction about the prime importance of learning Torah as defined by Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot. But the Lashon Hara was unique to the Mir.

The trouble nowadays with women is they have lost their place. They no longer know who they are and what are their responsibilities. Thus to come to any degree of self respect they need to accuse some man or men of sexual assault. This makes them feel worthy and gives them a feeling of self respect. If they would learn the laws of Lashon Hara all that would be changed.

[One thing I have to add here. That you can learn the whole Chafez Chaim and not notice the argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona about Lashon Hara about what is true. The Rambam holds it is forbidden unless in a court of law. To Rabainu Yona it is only forbidden because of collateral damage that might come out of it but in itself it is not forbidden as you can see clearly in the Shaari Teshuva. And also I must add that extra strictness in this easily deteriorates into not opposing evil where it is warranted and required. So I generally depend on Rabbanu Yona.]

There is something in Tosphot in Bava Batra page 18B that is a little hard to understand. Basically the subject is a Mishna where the sages say one must keep a vat that one uses to soak laundry away from a neighbor's vegetables.  Also mustard from bees. R. Jose allows the later because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep away from your bees? You should keep your bees away from my mustard because they also do damage.
Abyee says if the neighbor has not put anything by the boundary yet then one can place mustard of anything else by the boundary until he does. Rava says one must keep things that can cause damage away from the border even if the neighbor has not put anything nearby yet. So how can Rava fit with R.Yose? At that point Tosphot says the Gemara means that Abyee is OK because the owner of the bees has put his bees by the border and then the intention of R.Yose is to say the owner of the mustard can also put his mustard seeds by the border.
The Gemara then answers the question on Rava saying the case of the mishna is when one neighbor sold half his property to the other neighbor. That would then mean  that the mustard was there first and then he sold it to the owner of the bees. Then when R Yose says it is permitted that means the mustard can stay where it is and the owner of the bees must keep his bees six hand-breaths away from the border. And Tosphot makes a point in saying the owner of the bees can not put the bees near the mustard. This seems to me difficult to understand why Tosphot is changing things in the middle of his argument.

I only thought of this problem today on Shabat when I was outside walking and  am not sure what to make of this situation. I do not know if there is  a serious kashe here or just a comment.


The thing is if this is how Tosphot learns in the end then why not when he was explaining R Jose according to Abyee that he did not say that R Jose allows it means he allows the bees to stay where they are and he must keep the mustard 6 hand-breaths away?

בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב. יש משהו בתוספות בבא בתרא עמוד י 'י''ח ע''ב שהוא קצת קשה להבין. ביסודו של דבר הנושא הוא המשנה שבה החכמים אומרים אחד צריך לשמור על מרחק ממשרה המשמשת כדי להשרות כביסה רחוק  מירקות של שכינו. גם חרדל מדבורים. ר יוסי מאפשר את זה האחרון כי הבעלים של חרדל יכולים לומר הבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להתרחק מן הדבורים שלך? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך מהחרדל שלי, כי הם גם עושים נזק. אביי אומר אם השכן לא שם שום דבר על ידי הגבול עדיין אז אפשר למקם חרדל או כל דבר אחר על יד הגבול עד שהשכן שם מה שהוא שם. רבא אומר שצריך לשמור על מרחק מהגבול בכל דברים שיכולים לגרום נזק  גם אם השכן לא שם שום דבר בקרבת מקום. אז איך רבא מתאים עם ר. יוסי? בשלב זה תוספות אומר שגמרא מחזיקה שאביי הוא בסדר כי בעל הדבורים  שם את הדבורים שלו על הגבול ולאחר מכן  כוונתו של ר. יוסי היא כי שבעל החרדל יכול גם לשים את זרעי החרדל שלו על הגבול. גמרא אז עונה על השאלה על רבא ואומרת המקרה של המשנה הוא כאשר אחד מן השכנים מכר חצי רכושו לשכן השני.  זה אומר כי חרדל היה שם ראשונה ואז הוא מכר חלק מן השדה לבעלים של הדבורים. ואז כאשר ר. יוסי אומר  מותר הכוונה שהחרדל יכול להישאר במקומו  ובעל הדבורים חייב לשמור על דבורים שלו שישה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ותוספות עושה נקודה לומר הבעלים של הדבורים לא יכולים לשים את הדבורים ליד החרדל. הדבר הוא אם זה איך תוספות לומד בסופו של דבר, אז למה לא כאשר הוא הסביר ר. יוסי לפי אביי, שהוא לא אומר ש"ר' יוסי מרשה לו"  הכוונה שהוא מאפשר לדבורים להישאר במקומן  שהן נמצאות, והוא חייב לשמור את החרדל ששה טפחים משם

"Torah" is a word like "Democracy" that is notoriously ambiguous. [Like the German Democratic Republic which was the Communist power in East Germany] Even if you would get down to defining it properly , what it would mean in practical terms is subject to debate as wide as the sky. It is almost as if it can mean what ever anyone wants it to mean.
Thus almost anything you do based on what you think Torah says is sure to backfire. It is like walking into a pharmacy and taking the first set of pills that seems to appeal to you--since after all-- all the pills there are good for people one way or the other..

Thus I try to limit my basic principles to things I think are in fact what the Torah requires.
Honor and obedience to my parents, speaking the truth with total self sacrifice, learning the Old Testament and Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot. Learning Math and Physics as per the Rambam. Creation ex nihilo Creation something from nothing as the Rambam and Saadia Gaon go into in detail. Staying away from all the cults.

[Torah does not exist together with counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side. Since the entire religious world has accepted the counterfeit Torah of the Dark Side thus it is almost impossible to find true Torah. True authentic Torah has gone into hiding. One who wants to find it must do the same thing.]

Spiritual intoxication and bad advice.

Spiritual intoxication.
This intermediate zone is dangerous for a reason not mentioned by Aurobindo--the problem with advice.
The problem is that anything one does to help a difficult situation is not likely to help unless one knows the actual mechanics and how things work. For example in 1799, George Washington was sick and the expert doctors were called in, and among the remedies they recommended blood letting.They did it so much that it surely killed him. The reason is that the body is complicated, and they had no idea what they were doing. So it is in spiritual things. Whatever advice the experts give is almost assuredly going to cause more damage than help because the experts themselves are in the Intermediate Zone and have no idea what they are talking about.





[Aurobindo asserted that spiritual aspirants may pass through an intermediate zone where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible. These can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment and yogic siddhi, and even be falsely interpreted as full spiritual realisation. Those who go astray in it may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth, or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes. According to Aurobindo, this happens to many sadhaks and yogis.]


For this reason it makes sense to follow the advice of the Gra--Trust in God and not your own intellect.
That is to say there is a Gra that Navardok brings about trusting in God with no effort and this seems to conflict with the book the Obligations of the Heart who has trust with effort. What I am suggesting here is the difference between mechanisms that are well understood and those that are speculative.