letter of excommunication that the Gra signed.

There is an argument to support the idea of being careful about the letter of excommunication that the Gra signed. That is the idea that is brought about a certain disciple of an Amora who heard some amazing claim by R. Yohanan [Bava Batra]. That disciple did not take them seriously until he actually saw the evidence. Then he came back and said over what he had seen. But it was clear that before he had seen he did not really believe. Thus he was considered "to be making fun of the words of the sages." [That disciple had seen angels carving pearls that were 30*30  yards. How great a level he must have been on to be able to see angels. Still his great level did not change  the facts.  ]

Thus even though one has seen evidence to show the Gra was right, that does not take him out of the category of making fun of the words of the Gra.

Nowadays however the Gra is universally ignored even when there is copious evidence to support him. That seems even worse than the event in the Gemara where that disciple believed R. Yohanan after he had seen the evidence..

[There s another argument that I have mentioned once before based on some of the commentaries that bring the idea that a excommunication gets its legal category from the concept of "oath." That is different than what is called a "Shavua". An oath "neder" is the concept that one can forbid his own property to himself or to others. See the beginning of Nedarim where this is explained in detail. So if an excommunication has legal validity then that makes it forbidden to ignore, even if one does not agree with it.]

בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות

בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות. The way תוספות explains עולא is this. If you have a circle with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for .66  אמות, you get the length of the inner חוט to be רדיוס הפנימי times שש.  The length of the outer circle רדיוס החיצוני times שש
So then if you flatten out the area between the inner and outer circle, you get a מלבן  with a triangle at the top. The area of a triangle is חצי base times height. That brings up from the 768 square אמות of עולא up until the 833.3 of the משנה. The difference is 65. Does all that work? What would be the regular way of figuring it out? You would take the area of the large circle minus the area of the small circle. Does that come out the same as תוספות? There is a slight discrepancy. But  תוספות is making an approximation.

בבא בתרא דף כ''ז ע''א תוספות. דרך שהתוספות מסביר עולא היא זו. אם יש לך מעגל עם רדיוס 16 ועוטף את חוט סביבו  עבור 0.66 אמות, אתה מקבל את האורך חוט הפנימי להיות רדיוס מעגל הפנימי פעמים שש. אורך החוט על מעגל החיצוני הוא רדיוס החיצוני פעמים שש. אז אם אתה לוקח את השטח בין המעגל הפנימי והחיצוני, אתה מקבל מלבן עם משולש בראש. השטח של המשולש הוא חצי של הבסיס פעמים הגובה. זה מעלה מ 768 האמות המרובעות של עולא עד 833.3 של המשנה. ההבדל הוא 65 בערך. האם כל זה עובד? מה תהיה הדרך הרגילה? היית לוקח את השטח של המעגל הגדול מינוס שטח המעגל הקטן. האם זה יוצא כמו תוספות? יש פער קל. אבל תוספות הוא עושה קירוב.

What is remarkable is that one can be a perfect saint and still have past sins that have not been taken care of. And also that we see from the sages that repentance does not finish the job.

A man marries a woman on condition he is a perfect saint, even if he is a perfect רשע evil person, she is married because of a doubt that he might have been thinking to repent. So we see if in fact he had been thinking of repenting then she is certainly married. From this we learn repentance is accepting on one's self not to repeat one's evil deeds.
But that does not make up for past deeds as the Gemara says repentance on a איסור עשה (positive command) works. Repentance on a לא תעשה [negative command] helps and the Day of Atonement finishes. Repentance on לא תעשה שיש בו כרת [negative command with cutting off] Repentance and the day of Atonement hep and pains and problems finish.But for חילול השם you need and three and then the day of death finishes the atonement.
What is remarkable is that one can be a perfect saint and still have past sins that have not been taken care of. And also that we see from the sages that repentance does not finish the job.

[This I think is not well known and even when I learned the Gates of Repentance of R. Yona I think I did not get the idea.]

One can sit and learn Torah in Israel and one can accept that stipend

Besides that the Madragat Adam [מדרגת האדם] and the Navradok approach emphasizes trust in God, it is clearly an essential part of the aspect of the Gra. For example see the אבן שלמה which brings from the Gra that the purpose of Torah is to bring to Trust in God.
The obvious question is the practical implementation of this. See many verses in Proverbs where preparation for the future is emphasized.

The verse about the ants comes to mind, [מכינה בקיץ לחמה] but there are a lot more over there that indicate the same basic idea.


[My own feeling is that given the situation that one can sit and learn Torah in Israel and one can accept that stipend. That is what I probably should have done myself. That does however not mean not to go and serve in IDF. But rather when one is not working or in the IDF then one can depend on the situation to accept the monthly stipend in order to sit and learn Torah.]
[Mainly the reason I say this is that apparently during the time of the Gaonim we see the Geonim did receive a stipend from the community. Also Rav Joseph Karo does bring from the Tashbatz to allow this.] [Apparently Rav Shach himself did depend on this idea and other great sages.]

Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.

I just wanted to share two thoughts I had about Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.
One thought is about the "Other path" that Tosphot brings in the middle. The way that "other path" is understanding Ula is this: When Ula say a tree needs 16 yards around it and the Gemra then add that means as a square  is a fourth larger than a circle and that Ula meant 16 2/3, the way Tosphot understands that is that Ula was describing a square with one side being 33 1/3. Thus the whole square is 33.3^2 and a fourth is the size of the ground around the tree that the Mishna gives which is 33.3* 25.
That is the opposite of the way Tosphot was thinking up until  that point that Ula was describing a circle with radius 16.6 

The other thought I had was about the very first way that Tosphot understands Ula which is his winding a string method. The idea I had was that even without looking up the geometric formulas what Tosphot says makes a lot of sense. That is if you have a circle around the tree with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for 2/3 a yard you get the length of the inner string to be 2*r*pi=32*pi and the length of the outer circle 2*r*pi=33.3*pi.
So then if you flatten the whole thing out you get a rectangle pi*2r1*2/3=64 with a triangle at the top. And that from what I recall the area of a triangle is 1/2 base*height,- which is exactly what Tosphot says there 1/2*4*2/3. And all that brings up from the  768 square yards of Ula up until the 833.3 of the Mishna.[difference of 65].

Does all that work?--you might ask. I mean what would be the regular way of figuring it out? Normally you would take the area of the large circle (pi*r^2=pi* 16.67^2)=[833]-the area of the small circle (pi*r^2=pi*16^2). [827-768] Does that come out the same as Tosphot?There is a slight discrepancy. But in any case Tosphot is making an approximation as I mentioned before.

[The Gemara in this section is using an approximation of 3 for pi and the difference between a aquare and a circle to be 4/3]

In any case what looks important here is that in fact the Tosphot string method is not exact.

the path of the Gra as the right path

Repentance I think can encompass a "path" as much as individual deeds.  I myself  used to concentrate on the issue of daily schedule. And in fact I think that is important. That is to get one's daily schedule to include the right kinds of learning sessions and physical exercise etc. So I do not minimize the importance of finding the proper daily schedule. But I think one's "path" is just as much an issue of repentance. In my own case while at the Mir yeshiva in NY  I more or less accepted the path of the Gra as the right path -but it did not take long until I gave that up for what I thought were greener pastures. Though at first, my daily schedule did not change,- but eventually it did,-- and with disastrous consequences for my family. So I think the issue of "path" is just as much an issue of repentance as much [and more so] as any individual actions.

[Just for background information: the path of the Gra is more or less described simply as learning Torah and trust in God. But in more detail it is basically the path of Litvak [Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas.]


I admit however not everything is so grand in actual Litvak yeshivas. There is a large discrepancy between the ideal and what is actually the situation on the ground. However, I refer above more towards the idea of striving for a certain kind of goal-- though one might fall from the ideal. Getting to the ideal of the Gra might very well mean in practical terms to learn Torah at home and work for a living,-- rather than having to do with any institutions. You might say simply: "Litvak yeshivas ain't what they used to be."

comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a

 I do not really have a question but rather a kind of comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a concerning the value of pi. This was noticed by my learning partner David Bronson in a different context where Tosphot was giving his winding a string or rope method where the Maharshal has a diagram showing what Tosphot meant.

My comment is this. That Tosphot is going with an approximation that Pi is 3. And so he defends the idea that a tree really would need 16 2/3 to get up to the value of the Mishna. [That how he explains one Girsa in the Gemara which says "there is lacking 2/3"] On the other hand the Rashbam defends the idea of a tree needing 16.5. But with a more accurate value of pi to be about 3.141 the actual radius around the tree would have to be 16.288. [I.e., (833.3/pi)^1/2. ]
Still it makes no difference in terms of the Gemara which says that Ula was simply being a drop strict in saying a tree with less than 16 amot from a neighbors's field is not allowed to bring Bikurim.


The background information here is this: Ula says a tree needs 16 amot [yards] radius of area areound it. The Gemara asks from where does he get this law? It suggests from the Mishna that gives three trees a space of 2500 square amot/yards. Thus each tree is getting 833.33 square amot.

[Tosphot has around five different ways of explaining the Gemara, but as far as I have gotten so far, it seems Tosphot is using  a rough approximation for pi.]

[The winding method of Tosphot is to wind a string around a circle of 32 diameter and to keep winding until the diameter is 33.33. So the low circumference is 32*pi. The big one is 33.3*pi. Then you take the area which is 65 and that brings from the area of Ula up to the  area of the Mishna. That works fine. See Tosphot for the exact calculations. But still Tosphot is using a very rough approximation for pi.

[I recall that there are places like in tracate סוכה where the Gemara gives a much more accurate approximation for pi, but I guess here it was thinking that that degree of accuracy was not necessary.]

I should mention that the winding method of Tosphot is quite ingenious. It does not require measuring the all the string but merely the inner string and the outermost string.