Bava Batra 102b

 In the Mishna in Bava Batra 102b it says the owner of a field says to another , "I will sell to you a field that contains one Koor".  [(75000 square yards)]. If there are there stones that are higher than 10 hand-breaths, or crevices that are deeper than 10 hand-breaths deep not measured with the field. The owner has to give a full Koor land usable land. If the rocks are less high or deep than 10, then they are included.  R. Isaac says those stones are 4 "Kav." [טרשים שאמרו  ד' קבים] The Rashbam says that means even rocks that are less that the 10 (עשרה טפחים), if they are horizontally 4 Kav or more, they are not included as part of the field, but the owner must make up for the space they take with usable land. Rav Ukba said those 4 Kav are in 5 Kav of land. [ והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים] Rav Hiya said "If they are in most of the field." [והוא שמובלעים ברובה של שדה] The next mishna [103b] says if one says "I sell about a Koor" then even a 1/4  kav in a  Seah is included. The amount 1/4 Kav in a Seah is 1/24.
 Rav Hiya Bar Aba disagrees with  Rav Ukba bar Hama. But in what way? Rav Ukba said 4 Kav stone in 5 Kav of land. In that  the stones that are up until 4 Kav horizontally, but less that 10 hand-breaths are measured with the field. But more that 4 Kav are not included. This amount of Rav Hiya goes along perfectly with the general idea that when one buys a Seah of grain, it is natural to expect 1/24 of dirt or pebbles got mixed up in it. Rav Ashi said "I sell a Koor" is the same as "I sell about a Koor." So presumably the entire first mishna is talking about a case of "about a Koor", but then if the deal would be for exactly a Koor, no stones would be allowed? That in any case seems to go along with Rava on page 90 כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר [For anything that is measured, if the amount is at all different than the stated amount the whole deal is off. ] because of מקח טעות [faulty deal, or faulty purchase]. This in fact is the approach of Tosphot ד''ה אלא [circa page 104].
Tosphot asks from the Mishna that in the case the owner said I will sell to you about a Koor then even if 1/24 of land is not there at all, the deal is still valid. All the more so if the land is there but filled with stone. Tosphot answers the case of stones is meant to be able to be joined with lack of land. That is if lack of land along with stones of a   high density of 4 in 5 or 4 in most of the field  gets up to more than 1/24 [ שבריר אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה] then the deal is null and void.

_________________________________________________________________________________
 In the משנה in בבא בתרא דף ק''ב ע''ב  it says the owner of a field says to another , I will sell to you a field that contains one כור.   If there are there stones that are higher than עשרה טפחים, or crevices that are deeper than עשרה טפחים deep not measured with the field. The owner has to give a full כור land usable land. If the rocks are less high or deep than עשרה טפחים, then they are included.  רב יצחק says those stones are ארבע קבים. טרשים שאמרו  ד' קבים The רשב''ם says that means even rocks that are less that the עשרה טפחים, if they are horizontally ארבעה קבים or more, they are not included as part of the field, but the owner must make up for the space they take with usable land. רב עוקבא said those ארבעה קבים are in  חמישה קבים of land.  והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים Then רב חייא בר אבא said "If they are in most of the field." והוא שמובלעים ברובה של שדה The next משנה ק''ג ע''ב says if one says "I sell about a כור" then even a fourth of a קב in a  סאה is included. The amount a fourth of a קב in a סאה is אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה.
 Then רב חייא בר אבא disagrees with  רב עוקבא בר חמא. But in what way? רב עוקבא בר חמא said  ארבעה קבים stone in חמישה קבים of land.  The stones that are up until ארבעה קבים horizontally, but less than 10 hand-breaths are measured with the field. But more that ארבעה קבים are not included. This amount of רב חייא בר אבא goes along perfectly with the general idea that when one buys a סאה of grain, it is natural to expect אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה of dirt or pebbles got mixed up in it. רב שאי said "I will sell a כור" is the same as "I sell about a כור." So presumably the entire first משנה is talking about a case of "about a כור", but then if the deal would be for exactly a כור, no stones would be allowed? That in any case seems to go along with רבא on page צ' כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר [For anything that is measured, if the amount is at all different than the stated amount the whole deal is off. ] because of מקח טעות faulty deal, or faulty purchase. This in fact is the approach of תוספות ד''ה אלא. There וספות asks from the משנה that in the case the owner said I will sell to you about a כור then even if אחד חלקי עשרים ארבעה of land is not there at all, the deal is still valid. All the more so if the land is there but filled with stone. תוספות answers the case of stones is meant to be able to be joined with lack of land. That is if lack of land along with stones of a   high density of 4 in 5 or 4 in most of the field  gets up to more than 1/24 שבריר אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה then the deal is null and void.



במשנה בבא בתרא דף ק''ב ע''ב: הבעלים של מגרש אומרים ללוקח, אני מוכר לך שדה המכיל כור אחד. אם יש שם אבנים שגבוהות עשרה טפחים, או נקיקים עמוקים יותר מעשרה טפחים לא נמדדים עם השדה. לבעלים יש לתת את מלוא כור קרקע- קרקע שמישה. אם הסלעים הם פחות גבוהים או  הנקיקים עמוקים פחות מעשרה טפחים, אז הם כלולים. רב יצחק מחזיק בשיטה שאבנים אלה הן ארבעה קבים ברוחב. טרשים שאמרו ד' קבים. הרשב''ם כתב שזה אומר סלעים שהם פחות מעשרת הטפחים, אם הם באופק יותר מארבעת הקבים, הם אינם נכללים במסגרת השדה, אבל הבעלים חייבים לפצות על החלל עם קרקע שמישה. ולפי רב עוקבא אלה הארבעה קבים נמצאים בחמישה קבים של קרקע. היינו קב אחד של עפר וד' של אבן ביחד מגיעים לחמישה קבים (והוא שמובלעים בה' קבים). ולפי רב חייא בר אבא הוא שמובלעים ברוב השדה. הינו רב עוקבא בר חמא סובר ארבעה קבים אבן בחמישה קבים של הקרקע. האבנים שהן עד ארבעה קבים באופק, ופחות מעשרה טפחים בגובה נמדדות עם השדה. אבל יותר מארבעת הקבים אינם כלולים. סכום זה של רב חייא בר אבא הולך יחד באופן מושלם עם הדין הכללי שכאשר אחד קונה סאה של תבואה, טבעי הוא לצפות שאחד חלקי עשרים וארבע של עפר או חצץ התבלבל בה. רב אשי סובר "אני אמכור כור" זהה ל"אני מוכר  ככור". אז יש להניח שמשנה הראשונה כולה מדברת על מקרה של "כור" או "ככור", אבל  אם העסקה הייתה עבור כור בדיוק, לא שום אבנים יורשו.  בכל מקרה זה נראה שהולך יחד עם רבא בעמוד צ': "כל דבר שבמידה אפילו פחות משתות חוזר". [לכל דבר נמדד, אם הסכום הוא בכלל שונה מהסכום הנקוב, העסקה כולה בטילה.] היינו בגלל טעות במקח העסקה בטלה.  זה למעשה הוא הגישה של תוספות ד''ה אלא (ק''ד ע''א). שם תוספות שואלים מן המשנה כי במקרה שאמרו הבעלים שאני אמכור לך ככור, אז גם אם אחד חלקי עשרים וארבע אדמה חסר, העסקה עדיין בתוקף. על אחת כמה וכמה אם הקרקע נמצאת שם, אבל מלא אבנים. תוספות עונות המקרה של אבנים נועד להיות מסוגל שישולב עם מחסור בקרקע. כלומר אם מחסור בקרקע יחד עם אבנים של צפיפות גבוהה של ארבעה בחמישה או ארבעה ברוב של השדה קם ליותר מ 1/24  אחד חלקי עשרים וארבעה אז העסקה בטלה ומבוטלת.


The main thing I wanted to say was that you have to modify the case on age 102 to be like the case o age 103 "I will sell about a Koor" and after that I saw that that is exactly what Tosphot does.

Physics and Metaphysics bring one to love and fear of God.

It is hard to know what the Rambam meant by the idea he brings in the Guide for the Perplexed that learning Physics and Metaphysics brings one to love and fear of God. A few years ago, at the time I decided to start taking the Rambam seriously, I decided pretty much to concentrate on the Physics aspect of what he was saying.

[I first had to be sure that I was understanding the Rambam properly. So I looked at various different editions of the Guide and I looked carefully in the Mishne Torah also to see that this opinion of the Rambam was not just something he came to at the end of his life but rather was something he had held to even during the earlier years.]

It was not that I did not trust the judgment of the Rambam. It was rather that I figured I had enough to do with trying to get to Physics.

The way I approach this subject is not like they do in universities. There the basic idea that Physics is only for those who are talented at it. There is no concept there that it is a worthwhile project even for one who is not talented. With that approach I disagree. I base my approach on the Rambam and also the many Musar books that take the identical approach of the Rambam like the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות and מעלות המידות by Benjamin the Doctor. [A famous Musar book from the Middle Ages that used to be part of the regular set.] Thus a proper day of learning for me means about an hour of Physics and as much of Tosphot as I can fit into the rest of the day. [i.e. Gemara,  Tosphot and the Avi Ezri.]

[Since I admit I am not particularly talented, I do the basic kind of session that the sages said לעולם לגרס אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר "One should learn by just saying the words and going on even though he forgets and even though he does not even know what he is saying." [That Gemara is brought I think in tractate Shabbat and Avoda Zara and also in te book of Musar אורחות צדיקים]


[It seems clear to me that in terms of Metaphysics the Rambam was referring to the book of Aristotle by that name.] Today if I had the time, in order to listen to the Rambam I would learn Plato, Aristotle, the Enneads, Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson (the Kant-Friesian approach).]


[But a lot of secular subjects are terrible waste of time. And most are absolutely harmful. My advocating the Rambam's Physics and Metaphysics in no way implies anything good about most subjects in high school.] I also am not sure what to think about the issue of "פרנסה" that is the reason most people learn secular subjects. That is one area I have to say that I think I failed in. For if I had just stuck with the Mir yeshiva path of just learning Torah and letting פרנסה [money] take care of itself, I think I would be doing a lot better today. But that fact that I failed in that test gives me no higher perspective to comment on the subject.

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication is generally ignored even by people that try to follow the letter of the law and have "faith in the wise" concerning the Gra himself.
The reason is more or less connected with Ahijah Hashiloni the prophet who anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king over Israel [i.e. the ten tribes.]

Even though אחיה השילוני Ahijah does not get much space or attention in the Old Testament, he does get an extraordinary amount of attention from Rav Isaac Luria who held he was the greatest of all prophets after Moses. Yet the sum total effect of Ahiah seems to have been negative. He anointed Yeravam ben Navat who then proceeded to make two golden calves which resulted in the eventual disappearance of the ten tribes.
The reason is that sometimes a מכשול a stumbling block has to come into the world for unknown reasons and that itself gets Divine approval.

That does not mean the stumbling block is good. It means that according to some vast Divine plan it has to be there (even though it is evil).

The issue is what can be called a "Consciousness Trap." There are great and important ideas you might hear, but they are placed there in order to trap your mind and heart into the other things which are  there to hurt you. It is the Trojan Horse idea. Something that seems great and that you need, but there is a hidden poison inside.
But the fact that Yeravam ben Navat was set up by Ahijah meant that no one could stop it. The strength of the Dark Realm comes from what ever power they derive from holiness. Since the top and peak of all prophets [besides Moses] set it up, no one, not even Eliyahu nor any later prophets could change it.




Just for public information the basic idea of Rav Isaac Luria is that prophecy proceeds from נצח and הוד two Divine traits Victory and Splendor. The prophecy of Moses came from the face of both. The Ari then goes into details how the prophecy of Ahia was one step lower and that of Samuel and Eliyahu one step after that. [Ahiah from the front halves of the two. Shmuel from the front of Victory but not Splendor. Eliyahu from the back halves of both.]]

The basic idea here is the same as in honor of one's parents usually involves doing things that one does not understand, but simply takes on faith that one's parents know best. The idea is whom do you follow? Your own ideas or do you take the Ten Commandments seriously enough to disregard you own ideas and decide to listen to your parents? It is similar here. Do you follow you own ideas or do you in fact have "faith in the wise?"

Nowadays it is common to hear the phrase, "No one can tell me what to do." as an axiom of faith. This is in spite of the fact that it is obviously false. A person gets hired to work at the counter in a grocery store. It turns out he has sticky fingers when it comes to money. The manager comes over and asks him to stop pocketing the money. And he answers: "No one can tell me what to do."
You are on a scouting trip in the mountains, and you do not know how to put up your tent. You have been struggling for hours to make sense of it. Someone with more experience comes over, and tells you, "You are doing it wrong. Let me show you how it is done." And you answer "No one can tell me what to do."

You are in class with Paula who gets straight A's in all her subjects. You know you are bright, but you still just barely manage a B+ average. You get some problem in Algebra that you think you have the answer to. It turns out that Paula raises her hand and suggests a different answer than the one you got. How much confidence do you now have that your answer is right?


[Few people acknowledge or admit that they use their own intellect in deciding who to follow. They might claim they have "faith in the wise,"-- but they use their own intellect about who they call "wise" according to what they want to hear and what appeals to their own interests.]


After thought. The idea that the signature of the Gra has validity in law came to me when I was reading a commentary on the Rambam. The idea I saw there is that  חרם excommunication derives its legal status from the law about נדרים vows. The law of vows is a legal category from the Torah itself. The basic idea is that a person can forbid use of his object to another person by saying, "This object is to you like a קרבן sacrifice." And that had legal validity. That is where the strength of a excommunication comes from. That is: a court [even in Babylon where there was no ordination] has the ability to forbid interaction with any said individual by means of a חרם, and that has legal validity in so far as one that transgresses the rule gets on himself automatically the same status. [That is one who ignores a חרם is under the same חרם.]

There was a biography of the Gra that came out a few years back that I think also made this same point. However I never saw it. My conclusions are based on a book that had the actual transcripts and letters of the court at Vilna.

U-67 C Major   u67 midi  u67 nwc

 S-20 A Major [s20 midi] [s20 nwc]This S20 was put on the internet before, but I just did a few corrections that I think are very necessary. U-68 D Major mp3    [u68 midi]  [U68 nwc]

Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach.

I must say that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach was more "global." The kind of small questions that I ask would not have  occupied much attention by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but rather big issue questions like how does this subject [sugia] relate to other sugiot as you would see in Reb Haim HaLevi's חידושי הרמב''ם or in Rav Shach's אבי עזרי.
But in Shar Yashuv, the kind of questions that would have been raised by Rav Naphtali Yeger were more of the kind that deal with "calculating the sugia".

While at the Mir itself I never got into the "big issues" types of learning. It is only later that I began  the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the חידושי הרמב''ם by Reb Haim Halevi. [Frankly speaking, I was no where near the general high level of learning that was at the Mir. Most of the learning there was somewhere in the stratosphere  while I was just barely prodding along. 
[I had done Hulin in my first year in Shar Yashuv. Then my mother died. Then my second year was spent doing Ketuboth. Then the third year was Yevamot then I went to the Mir in NY. There I did Nedarim and then Shabat and then got married and to Israel. Israel was amazing.]

Reb Shmuel himself could have written his own amazing ideas which were astonishing   insights along the lines the Reb Haim, but for some odd reason he and all the other amazing roshei yeshiva there confined themselves to just giving over their ideas in class. The only one who saw fit to write his stuff down was the the Sukat David, and that was only the beginner's level at the Mir. The other roshie yeshiva (as far as I know) never wrote down a word. It is sad. Every single class of Reb Shmuel was a astounding structure of amazing ideas.

I am upset that Reb Shmuel's classes were not written down. But there is nothing I can do about it. Thank God, at least Rav Shach wrote down his ideas which were along the same kinds of lines.

I any case, overall I have to admit the yeshiva experience in a genuine Litvak Yeshiva like the Mir in NY was an astounding experience. If people would know about what the authentic Litvak yeshiva experience is like, you would not be able to find room to sit down. Everyone would flock like bees to honey. But I have to add that a lot depend on the rosh yeshiva. The kind of person he is. [Because of some kind of Divine grace my steps were led to two amazing yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir of NY. But to merit to the real thing apparently is either from some kind of merit one needs or simple undeserved grace from above. ]

[The Mir and Shar Yashuv for me were very enjoyable I should add. I can not really say what aspect I found best.]  [At any rate, the main idea is to learn how to be a "mensch" and good traits along with the fulfillment of the command to learn Torah. All I am saying is that there are some institutions like Ponoviz in Bnei Brak or the Mir in NY which do in fact help to bring to these goals.]

The whole Litvak (Lithuanian Yeshiva) idea is quite remarkable in that it the closest thing I know of that brings to learning and keeping Torah. What I mean is that there are institutions that do a fairly good job in bringing about the basic goals that they believe in. The Litvak Yeshivas --at least in Bnei Brak and NY do a fairly good job.
[I might mention that the basic idea there was to learn Talmud and Musar. Musar is a small set of Ethical books that were authored during the Middle Ages, and  now also includes the works of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. These books I have to say are very impressive, and do a wonderful job in explaining the world view of the Holy Torah.]  

[In terms of general education before the yeshiva years, I ought to mention that I mainly hold with the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Even though the Rambam openly said he was referring to how these subjects were understood in ancient Athens, I feel that today Quantum Mechanics, Field Theory, String Theory,  Kant and Hegel, the Enneads of Plotinus and of course Plato and Aristotle ought to be part of that. Obviously the Gra would have added Music and Astronomy also, but the above seems like a basic minimum.]
[I was officially in the class of Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but I not go regularly. I also was there at his home almost every Shabbat even after I got married.]
I have gone back and forth on Hegel. While in NY I borrowed from the Brooklyn Public Library a Cambridge Companion to Hegel which I liked. Later I got into Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Kelley Ross and kind of accepted  along with their very amazing ideas also their negative attitude towards Hegel. At some point I decided to do a more thorough reading of Hegel on my own and then became very impressed again. The strong part of Hegel is Metaphysics. His weak part is politics.  Thus for politics I think it makes more sense to read the documents of the founding fathers of the USA.

Bava Metzia page 102-B, Bava Batra page 105.

When I was going over my notes I had taken when I was learning Bava  Metzia page 102-B with David Bronson I apparently had forgotten or did not understand what he was saying about Bava Metzia page 102B פרושי קא מפרש in Tosphot. However it just occurred to me what probably was bothering David.




I think it was this. Tosphot asks a question on Rashi from Bava Batra page 165B from the Mishna that says if in a document it says So and so borrowed 100 zuzim which are 20 selaim.  (Normally 100 zuz are 25 sela.)The lender gets only 20 selaim. Tosphot answer for Rashi that the words in the document are far apart. What probably bothered David and which bothers me now is that there does not seem to be any difference between the case in Bava Batra page 165 and the cases of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי nor the case of "I will rent to you this bathhouse for a year for 12 gold coins which is one gold coin per month." So the question of Tosphot seems to apply just as much to the explanation of Tosphot as it does to Rashi and the answer he gives for Rashi does not seem very justified. After all the words "100 zuz" do not seem very far from "20 selaim". The only word that separates them is דאינון "which are" which should serve to connect the words rather than separate them.

The basic sugia as it is brought in Bava Batra page 105 is this. There is a Mishna [Baba Metzia 102a] that says One person says to another I will rent to you this bathhouse for a year for 12 gold coins which are 1 per month. Rav said he would give the whole 13th month to the owner. They ask on this: "Why did Rav need to say this again? He already had said  אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי?" That means תפוס לשון אחרון. We go by the last words. The Gemara answers "we might have said פרושי מפרש"

There are three explanations. The Rashbam and the Ri who both say פרושי מפרש would go on the bathhouse. But they differ in this.The Rashba says If Rav had only stated the case of bathhouse we might have thought the owner meant 12 per year but if it is a leap year then  one gold coin per month. The Ri explains  if Rav had only stated the case of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי  (which we would know means תפוס לשון אחרון)then when we would come to a case of a bathhouse we would say the owner meant to explain that he meant the rent ought to be paid at the end of every month. Not the end of the year. But that still the whole overall price would be 12 gold coins.
Rashi says פרושי מפרש goes on אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and that it means a אסתרא גרועה a low value אסתרא. But that would not imply in general to go by לשון אחרון.
The question on Rashi come from Bava Batra page 165. 100 zuz that are 20 selaim where the law is he gets the least amount.20 selaim. Also if the document said 100 zuz which are 30 sela he gets only 100 zuz. This seems to be a question on everyone. Not just on Rashi. And the answer Tosphot gives seems hard since דאינון means "that are" which would seem to connect more than to disconnect.
However Tosphot does bring a different version of the Mishna on page 165 that says 100 zuz דהוו קיימין "that equal". So that might help explain Tosphot. What are the extra words דהוו קיימין there for except to separate? But still it is not clear why the question of Tosphot would not apply equally well to the Rashbam and to the Ri himself.





I must say that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, the general approach was more "global." This kind of question would not have  occupied much attention by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, but rather big issue questions like how does this sugia relate to other sugiot as you would see in Reb Haim HaLevi's חידושי הרמב''ם or in Rav Shach's אבי עזרי.
But in Shar Yashuv, this is exactly the kind of question that would have been raised by Rav Naphtali Yeger. 
I also should mention that I assume Tosphot answers this somehow in his laconic language but I just so far have not been able to  see how Tosphot answer this.

It should be mentioned that the Ri himself is hard to understand.He says if we would only have the statement of the איסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי the when we come to bathhouse we would say he gets 12 because it is not a case of two statements but one statement which explains something about the first statement. But our Gemara in Bava Batra is assuming we already have the statement of bathhouse..I can imagine that my learning partner David Bronson might have been wondering about the Ri also. But that much is fuzzy in my mind. I do not recall. But the part about the question from Bava Batra 165 is somewhat clear to me --that he was bothered by that.

In any case the Ri seems more or less clear. He is going on the Gemara in Bava Metzia where we have the statement of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and from that we would not know the bathhouse.

My impression is that the Ri held if something changes the basic meaning of an idea, then it can not be called "explaining it". So if the owner said 12 and then 1 per month which in a leap year means 13, then that is not called "explaining".
Other than that I can not see what else the Ri was saying here.














___________________________________

בבא בתרא ק''ה ע''ב
תוספות ד''ה פרושי מפרש
 תוספות asks a question on רש''י from בבא בתרא page קס''ה ע''ב from the משנה that says if in a document it says "So and so borrowed מאה זוז which are עשרים סלעים." (Normally מאה זוז are עשרים וחמשה סלעים.) The lender gets only עשרים סלעים. Then תוספות answers for רש''י that the words in the document are far apart. What  bothers me now is that there does not seem to be any difference between the case in בבא בתרא page קס''ה and the cases of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי nor the case of "I will משכיר to you this bathhouse for a year for שנים עשר זהובים which is one gold coin per month." So the question of תוספות seems to apply just as much to the explanation of תוספות as it does to רש''י and the answer he gives for רש''י does not seem very justified. After all the words מאה זוז do not seem very far from עשרים סלעים. The only word that separates them is דאינון (which are) which should serve to connect the words rather than separate them. The basic סוגיא as it is brought in בבא בתרא page ק''ה ע''ב is this. There is a משנה בבא מציעא ק''ב ע''א that says one person says to another I משכיר to you this bathhouse for a year for שנים עשר זהובים which are דינר זהב per month. רב said he would give the whole 13th month to the owner. They ask on this: "Why did רב need to say this again? He already had said  אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי?" That means תפוס לשון אחרון. We go by the last words. Theגמרא answers "we might have said פרושי מפרש" There are three explanations. The רשב''ם and the ר''י who both say פרושי מפרש would go on the bathhouse. But they differ in this. The רשב''ם says If רב had only stated the case of bathhouse, then we might have thought the owner meant שנים עשר זהובים per year, but if it is a leap year then  one דינר זהב per month. The ר''י explains  if we only  had  the case of אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי  (which we would know means תפוס לשון אחרון), then when we would come to a case of a bathhouse, we would say the owner meant to explain that he meant this. The rent ought to be paid at the end of every month. Not the end of the year. But that still the whole overall price would be שנים עשר זהובים. However רש''י says פרושי מפרש goes on אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי and that it means a אסתרא גרועה, a low value אסתרא or a low grade אסתרא. But that would not imply in general to go by לשון אחרון.
The question on רש''י come from בבא בתרא page קס''ה. The משנה says when the document says מאה זוז that are עשרים סלעים  the law is he gets the least amount. That is עשרים סלעים. Also if the document said מאה זוזים which are שלשים סלעים he gets only מאה זוזים. This seems to be a question on everyone. Not just on רש''י. And the answer תוספות gives seems hard since דאינון means "that are" which would seem to connect more than to disconnect. However תוספות does bring a different version of the משנה on page קס''ה that says מאה זוזים דהוו קיימין "that equal". So that might help explain תוספות. What are the extra words דהוו קיימין there for except to separate? But still it is not clear why the question of תוספות would not apply equally well to the רשב''ם and to the ר''י himself.

בבא בתרא ק''ה ע''ב תוספות ד''ה פרושי מפרש. תוספות שואלים שאלה על רש''י מן בבא בתרא דף קס''ה ע''ב מן המשנה שאומרת שאם במסמך כתוב  "פלוני לווה מאה זוז שהם עשרים סלעים." (בדרך כלל מאה זוז הם עשרים וחמשה סלעים.) המלווה מקבל רק עשרים סלעים. ואז תוספות נותנים תשובה לרש''י כי המילים במסמך הן רחוקות אחת מהשניה. מה שמטריד אותי עכשיו הוא שלא נראה כל הבדל בין המקרה בבא בתרא דף קס''ה ואת המקרים של "אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי" ולא המקרה של "אני משכיר לך מרחץ זה במשך שנה עבור שנים עשר זהובים אשר הם מטבע זהב אחד לחודש." אז השאלה של תוספות נראה שחלה באותה מידה להסבר של תוספות כפי שהיא חלה לרש''י והתשובה שהוא נותן עבור רש''י לא נראה מוצדק מאוד. אחרי הכל, המילים מאה זוז לא נראות מאוד רחוקות מעשרים סלעים. המילה היחידה שמפרידה אותן היא דאינון (שהם) אשר היא אמורה לשרת לקשר את המילים ולא להפריד ביניהם. סוגיא הבסיסי כפי שהיא מובא בבבא בתרא דף ק''ה ע''ב זו. ישנה משנה בבא מציעא ק''ב ע''א שאומרת אדם אחד אומר לשני שאני משכיר לך מרחץ זה במשך שנה עבור שנים עשר זהובים אשר הם דינר זהב לחודש. רב אמר שייתן בעבור החודש השלשה עשר כולה למשכיר. הם שואלים על זה: "למה רב צריך להגיד את זה שוב? הוא כבר אמר אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי"? כלומר תפוס לשון אחרון. אנחנו עוברים למילים האחרונות. גמרא עונה התשובה "יכולנו אולי לומר פרושי מפרש". ישנם שלושה הסברים. רשב''ם והר''י  אומרים "פרושי המפרש" ילך על המרחץ. אבל הם נבדלים בזה. רשב''ם אומר אם רב הגיד רק את המקרה של בית המרחץ, אז אנחנו עלולים לחשוב הבעלים מכוונים שנים עשר זהובים לשנה, אבל אם היא שנה מעוברת אז דינר זהב לחודש. ר''י מסביר שאם  רק היה המקרה של אסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי (אשר היינו יודעים אמצעי תפוס לשון אחרון), אז כאשר היינו מגיעים למקרה של מרחץ, היינו אומרים הבעלים  להסביר התכוונו לזה. דמי השכירות צריכים להיות משולמים בסוף כל חודש. לא סוף השנה. אבל עדיין המחיר הכולל כולו יהיה שנים עשר זהובים לשנה. עם זאת רש''י אומר "פרושי מפרש" נמשך לאסתרא מאה מעי מאה מעי וכי פירושו אסתרא גרועה, (ערך נמוך). אבל זה לא היה להגיד בכלל ללכת על לפי לשון אחרון. השאלה על רש''י באה מבבא בתרא דף קס''ה במשנה שאומרת כאשר המסמך אומר "מאה זוז  שהם עשרים סלעים" החוק הוא שהוא יקבל את הסכום הנמוך ביותר. כלומר עשרים סלעים. כמו כן אם מסמך  מאה זוזים אשר שלשים סלעים הוא מקבל רק מאה זוזים. זה נראית שאלה על כולם. לא רק על רש''י. והתשובה שתוספות נותן נראית קשה מאז המילה דאינון (שהם) הקובעת לכאורה לקשר יותר מלנתק. אולם תוספות מביא גרסה שונה של המשנה בעמוד קס''ה שאומרת מאה זוזים דהוו קיימין (ששווים). כך שזה עשוי לעזור להסביר תוספות. מהן מילות  "דהוו קיימין" עושות מלבד להפריד? אבל עדיין לא ברור מדוע שאלת התוספות לא תחול באותה מידה על הרשב''ם ועל הר''י עצמו

I am not sure if the Book of Job is taught in public schools but when I went to high school in California, it was part of the curriculum. So what I am saying about Rav Moshe Lutzato (Ramhal) is very relevant. For I have not heard of anyone so far actually tying in the Ramhal with Job. But the approach of the Ramhal makes the book of Job highly understandable.




[I was in California  because my Dad had gone to Cal Tech for his master's degree, and then liked it so much that he decided to move out West when he began raising a family. His parents were penniless immigrants from Poland. In any case, there was a debate if to have the Bible in public schools. Apparently by the time I got to high school, the issue was settled to have the book of Job in English literature. classes. In Israel, the entire Old Testament is taught in public school.]

That is when a person has mostly sin he gets the reward for his good deeds in this world and the punishment for sin in the next. But Job had mostly good deeds. Therefore he was punished for bad deeds in this world and rewarded in the next.

Part of the reason for the fact that the Ramhal is ignored in the academic world is probably due to the fact that the academic world in understanding Job they think Job was totally righteous. They think the Satan was picking on him for no reason except spite and jealously. Still they have a point that it is hard to see anything wrong with Job. Even in God's answer to Job which is "my ways are inscrutable"[not possible to understand] there is no hint that Job had done anything wrong.

In any case I feel that in high schools is the USA, this approach of the Ramhal ought to be given attention. [And it is in accord with the Talmud  which assumes that Job was not as great as he thought. Also it is in accord with Maimonides who as far as I recall hold the fourth friend was the only one who got the issues right. It also goes along with the Rambam who also has this idea that one can have a certain percent of good deeds and an opposite percent of evil deeds.]
[The Secular world does not recognize this because either they are Christians who believe one is saved or not. It is a simple matter of this or that and nothing in between. Or they are thinking like Kant of radical sin or radical virtue. Once one decides to be righteous in everything then he is totally righteous because of good will. Even if he makes mistakes. One who has not decide to be righteous in everything is by definition radically wicked. That is Kant.  Far be in from me to disagree with Kant. However the opinion of the Ramhal I think also should be considered as it certainly goes along the lines of Hegel. Hegel would more approach virtue as steady progress towards a goal.
[Catholics thankfully do have a concept of Purgatory which is to clean from sins that remain unwashed. [.e. non mortal sins. However Catholics do agree that there are sins for which one stays in Hell. But that is not the same as Purgatory.] In general, in Torah though things are slightly different. In Torah, we have seven levels of Hell, but only the very lowest level is permanent. Otherwise Hell itself is a cleansing process. The Ramhal [Rav Luzato] goes into this a little but it is well known from the Zohar.]



The issue of Job is not if he was sinless. We see later on in the statements of Eliphaz [cira 22 where Eliphaz goes through a whole list of Job's sins. ]that there is reason to believe that Job had some sin. Probably his sins were due to a fact about all good deeds.They always entail something evil. You can see this if you imagine yourself in politics. You know that any good measure your enact will entail some evil consequences and some good.  So you try to maximize the good. But that is not limited to politics. It s the same in every individual's life.
Rather the issue with Job is that he was doing the best he could. So the question the Book of Job raises is not: If objectively a saint can suffer? Rather it is: If a person that is doing the best he knows how can suffer?