בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב The actual way the גמרא however understands ר' יוסי is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then the other שכן can also put his object there. So the גמרא asks,  How could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place according to רבא? But perhaps that is exactly what ר' יוסי means? Each can put his thing by the border. The question I want to ask is this. Why does the גמרא insist on asking on ר' יוסי "How could this situation be found?" All ר' יוסי says in the משנה is "It is permitted." And even though the גמרא brings the full statement that says, It is permitted because the owner of the mustard can ask the owner of the bees: "Why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away.
Why not understand ר' יוסי simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.  How is it found? It is found because to ר' יוסי it is permitted.

What I mean to say is that the three תוספות on the page deal with the answer of the גמרא to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the ר''ת and ר''ח that say רבינא is  a different answer.  And in רבינא the understanding is that ר' יוסי means  the bees can be put Next to the boundary because the bees  are damaged but do not cause damage. That is at this point in the גמרא. The גמרא however does change this.

 I mean that my above question is only to the other תוספות because ר''ת can simply say that that is the very answer of רבינא, that the bees can be put there.
However R. Tam does not say that this idea that Ravina is a new answer makes the question on Rava dissolve. just the opposite. He says it makes the question on Rava all the more powerful to the degree that Rava has to retract his entire thesis --at least when it comes to the sages.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הדרך בפועל שהגמרא מבינה ר' יוסי היא כי אם שכן אחד שם דבורים או החרדל שלו ליד הגבול, ואז שכן השני יכול גם לשים האובייקט שלו שם. אז הגמרא שואלת, איך יכול להיות המצב הזה?  מי יכול לשים דבר על ידי הגבול מלכתחילה על פי רבא? אבל אולי זה בדיוק מה ר' יוסי מכוון? היינו שכל אחד יכול לשים הדבר שלו ליד הגבול. השאלה שאני רוצה לשאול היא זו. למה הגמרא מתעקשת לשאול על ר' יוסי "איך יכול המצב הזה ניתן להימצא?" כל מה ר' יוסי אומר במשנה הוא "מותר". ואף על פי הגמרא מביאה את ההצהרה המלאה שאומרת, זה מותר כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים לשאול את הבעלים של הדבורים: "מדוע אתם אומרים לי לשמור החרדל שלי רחוק משם? תשים את הדבורים שלך הרחק משם?למה לא מבינים ר' יוסי פשוט? הן החרדל הן הדבורים ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. איך זה נמצא? זה נמצא כי לר' יוסי זה מותר.

 שלושת התוספות על הדף אינם משנים את השאלה עצמה. מלבד ר''ת ו ר''ח  שאומרים רבינא הוא תשובה אחרת מתשובת הלוקח. וגם להם לרבינא ההבנה היא כי ר' יוסי אומר הדבורים ניתנות לשים ליד הגבול כי הדבורים יכולות להינזק אך אינן גורמות נזק בשלב הזה של הגמרא. גמרא אולם משנה זו אחר כך

 אני מתכוון כי השאלה הנ"ל שלי היא רק לתוספות אחרות בגלל שר''ת פשוט יכול לומר כי זו היא התשובה של רבינא, כי הדבורים ניתנות לשים שם..

It occurs to  me to ask really a simple question on Bava Batra page 18-b.

The question I want to ask is this. Why does the Gemara insist on asking on R.Yose "How could this situation be found?" All R. Yose says in the Mishna is "It is permitted." And even though the Gemata brings the full statement that says It is permitted "because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away."
Why not understand R. Yose simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.

The actual way the Gemara however understands R. Jose is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then he says the other can also put his object there. Soon that the Gemara asks according to Rava how could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place? But perhaps that is exactly what R Jose means? Each can put his thing by the border.


[I do not think Tosphot answers this even though I could be wrong. What I mean to say is that the three Tosphots on the page deal with the answer of the Gemara to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the R.Tam and R. Kananel that say Ravina is  a different answer.  And in Ravina the understanding is that R. Jose means  the bees can be put there because they are damaged - but not damagers.]


 I mean that my above question is only to the other Tosphots because R. Tam can simply say that that is the very answer of Ravina--that the bees can be put there.

 As for problems I think there is not anything I can say about specific problems;--  and in fact when the reason for a problem is unknown and not well understood, it is always best to do nothing. The reason is the as long as the source of any problem is unknown, almost anything one does to improve the situation is almost guaranteed to make things worse. George Washington was sick and the doctors advised blood letting.They did it so much that they certainly caused his death. So when actual mechanisms are not understood then doing nothing is always better than "something must be done." [Something must be done almost always amounts to walking into a pharmacy and just picking out any medicine on the shelf on the assumption that everything there is healthy.  ]

On the other hand there are things one should  do as general aspects of healthy living. Learning the Old Testament and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Also Learning Physics and Math and talking with God when one is  outside walking and trying to get exercise and eating healthy. 

medieval ethics

The idea of Reb Israel Salanter of learning medieval ethics in order to learn and develop good character  is a great idea in terms of learning the basic worldview of Torah. But it should not be assumed that people that represent this Musar movement today are anything like the original idea. The whole idea of the Musar movement basically got to be a kind of ''frumkeit'' [i.e. religious fanaticism].
But I have yet to hear of any system that can not be abused.  . Thus Musar also can be abused. But the basic idea is good and sound. In fact, I myself tried at one point to actually follow that path. I mean not just the basic set of Mediaeval Musar, but also to get through the Musar books that came later like the Shelah and Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah, and in fact to keep to what ever those books were saying.
I got off track I admit. However I do think if I had managed to stick with it, I would be doing a lot better today.
 The disciple of Reb Israel Salanter Isaac Blasser, gives a list of about thirty books that count as classical Musar in his own book of Musar "The Light of Israel."

[I am thinking that the fact that I got sidetracked, might be more common than is expected. That could be the reason that some Litvak yeshivas refused to become Musar yeshivas. It is hard to find the right balance. Musar can lead to getting out of balance. But I have to say that I think the advantages outweigh the risks. In any case I think that while I was at the Mir in NY the combination of Musar along with Gemara really was great for me.

The Sages of the Talmud say: מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור "What is above? What is below? What is inside? And what is outside? For one who looks into these things --it is better if he had never been created."
It does seem that most people that go into mysticism go a little bit insane. But they remain sane enough to hide their nutty ideas of grandeur. But eventually it comes out to the surface. They can not hide it forever.

The general approach of authentic Litvak yeshivas towards this is to disavow any knowledge. The response of roshei yeshiva towards this kind of thing is "It is high things." 

I myself spent a lot of time learning the Ari and the Reshash and Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira, but at this point it seems to me I would be doing a lot better today if I had stuck with Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.  

learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there or learn at home but to avoid all other religious organizations.

Reb Nachman fromUman mentions in quite a few places the problems involved in following Torah scholars that are demons. From this point of view, a person might seem like a true Torah scholar but in fact be a demon. This idea in fact is mentioned in the Talmud--but in such a way that the message gets lost. For in the Talmud it says the Evil Inclination [Satan] leaves the whole world and comes to rest on the Jewish people. Then it leaves them, and comes to rest on Torah scholars.

There are other hints to this in the Talmud itself, but the basic idea comes from the Zohar and the Ari.
Therefore  it became the custom in the Na Nach group to simply disavow any involvement with any Torah scholars at all;-- which seems to be the safe approach.

Since I do not have the books of Reb Nachman available I can not look them up to give references.  Mainly I am thinking of LM Vol. I ch. 8, ch. 12, ch. 28; vol 2 ch. 8. [Just now I also recall vol I ch. 61. In any case, there are other places Reb Nachman hints to this idea that I can not recall  off hand.]

The truth be told it is hard to know how to deal with this problem;-- which seems to be getting worse. The main problem certainly is in the groups that came under the excommunication of the Gra where the Satanic influence is obvious. The trouble is that this influence seems to have spread.

Reb Nachman also said that even if one would just take one statement of his and walk with that his entire life, that would be enough to make him a good person. The implication is that if all one would do would be to avoid Torah scholars that are satanic, that would be enough to guarantee that one will make it to the Garden of Eden.

But I should mention that learning Torah is very great and holy so there seems to be nothing to do but to find a Litvak yeshiva and learn there, or learn at home.

[Reb Nachman also mentions that in every area of value there is a side of holiness and an opposite side of the Sitra Achra. This applies  in this case also. That is why I am very grateful to God that he sent me on the straight path of Torah right from the start--to Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway [Reb Freifeld] and to the Mir in NY {Rav Berenbaum}]

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה

בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה מכלל על סוגיא של חרדל ודבורים. שאלת הגמרא היא שהחכמים מחזיקים שהמזיק מחוייב להרחיק את עצמו, ולכן  חייב להיות שר' יוסי מחזיק על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. אבל אם כך אז למה הוא לא אומר את אותו הדבר על משרה וירקות? כלומר, החכמים מחזיקים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים כי למרות שהדבורים גורמות נזק, עדיין הן נחשבות ניזוקות כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ר' יוסי מחזיק בשיטה שאחד יכול לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, משום ששניהם שווים, וכיוון שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך גם את החרדל אפשר לשים ליד הגבול. אז תשובת הגמרא היא כי ר' יוסי גם אומר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. פירוש הדבר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק ושהחרדל אינו גורם נזק כלל לדבורים ולכן יש להעביר את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ישנן שתי שאלות. מדוע תוספות משנה את החכמים. בהתחלה הם מחזיקים שהדבורים נחשבות דברים ניזוקים כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ובתשובת הגמרא הם מחזיקים שדבורים לא גורמות שום נזק בכלל. השאלה השנייה היא זו. למה הם משנים את דעתו של ר' יוסי גם? ראשית הם אומרים שר' יוסי מחזיק שיכולים לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, כי שניהם שווים. מאז שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך חרדל גם ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. אז תוספות אומר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק לחרדל, אבל החרדל לא גורם נזק בכלל לדבורים. לכן מחוייבים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. אני מתכוון באמת כי לא נראה שיש סיבה לשנות את דעתו של ר" יוסי כך דרסטי. גם בחלק שאלת גמרא מובן כי דבורים גורמות נזק, אז אפשר להשאיר העובדה הזו במקום ולומר שר' יוסי אומר שאתה יכול לעזוב את הדבורים במקום לשים את חרדל לצד זה. ההבדל היחיד יהיה בחלק שאלת גמרא העובדה שהוא היה מותר לשים הדבורים ליד הגבול וזה הופך את הדבורים להיות נחשבות ניזקות. בתשובה שהתקבל אתה יכול פשוט לעזוב את הרעיון הזה כי ממילא בתשובה לא אף אחד מחזיק בזה

In בבא בתרא page י''ח ענוד ב the  תוספות ד''ה מכלל on the סוגיא of mustard and bees. The question of the  גמרא is since the חכמים hold על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו, so it must be that ר' יוסי holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. But if so then why does he not say the same this about a  משרה and vegetables? That means to תוספות that the חכמים hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because even though bees  cause damage, still they are  considered to be damaged because they were put next to the border by permission. ר' יוסי holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then the גמרא answers that ר' יוסי also says על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. That means to תוספות that ר' יוסי holds  that the bees cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved ששה טפחים away from the border.There are two questions.  Why does תוספות change the חכמים. At first they hold from the bees are considered things ניזוקות because they were put next to the border by permission. Then they hold bees do no damage at all.

 The second question I have is this. Why do they change the opinion of ר' יוסי also? First they say that ר' יוסי holds you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal. Since the bees are next to the border, so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then תוספות says  that ר' יוסי holds that the bees  damage mustard, but  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees. Therefore צריכים להרחיק את הבורים ששה טפחים  away from the border. The answer these questions must come from the way the גמרא answers the question on ר' יוסי.

I  mean  there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion  of ר' יוסי so drastically.  Even in the question part of the גמרא it is understood that bees cause damage, so one could  leave that fact in place and say ר' יוסי means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it. The only difference would be in the question part of the גמרא the fact that he was allowed to put the bees there make it that the bees are considered the ניזק. In the answer you could simply leave out that idea which in any case n the answer no one hold from, not even the חכמים






IN Plain English:

In the Talmud Bava Batra the third Tosphot on the sugia of mustard and bees [page 18 side B] there are two questions that I have. One is why does Tosphot change the sages from the bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission, to they are considered subject to damage but not causing  damages because they in fact cause no damage.

The second question I have is why do they change the opinion of R. Yose also from you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. To then saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

The answer to both questions must come from the way the Gemara answers the question on R Yose saying he and also the sages hold it is upon the one that cause damage to remove the object.


Just to make my questions more clear let me present what Tosphot actually says. I just make it clear that this Tosphot is not anything like the Tosphot that comes right before it and they both are holding radically different ideas about this sugia  and they disagree on major points. [However both Tosphot hold that this part of the Gemara is still holing that half the field was bought.]

The question of the Gemara is since the sages hold the one that causes damage must remove his object so it must be that R. Jose hold the one that is damaged must be the one to remove his object.
[But if so then why does he not say the same this about a washbasin and vegetables?] That means to Tosphot that the sages hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because bees are  considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission. R Jose holds  you can put the  mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border.

Then the Gemara answers that R Jose also says that it is upon the one that causes damage to remove his object. That means to Tosphot that R Yose hold saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and  that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.

I  mean even in R. Jose there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion so drastically.  Even in the question it is understood that bees cause damage, so leave that in place and say R. Jose means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it.