בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א

The תוספות ד''ה לפיכך in the beginning of בבא בתרא seems to me hard to understand. The משנה says partners that have decided to divide up a courtyard are forced to build  wall. If it falls, it is therefore belongs to both of them. Then תוספות asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is this. In the beginning of בבא מציעא we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in the case of a מציאה a found object.
My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our משנה in בבא בתרא. It is this. In our משנה we say we divide the wall and the גמרא says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The משנה in בבא מציעא says מחבירו עליו הראיה. What is the difference? Answer: in the משנה in בבא בתרא they are both forced to build the wall. That is the reason the משנה itself gives and it makes perfect sense.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his רשות.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not  say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (sumhos) also.

I admit this is all vague to me since I do not actually have the Gemara Bava Metzia to look it up. It is just that off hand I seem to recall the Gemara saying המע''ה over there.  

בבא בתרא דף ב" ע''א. התוספות ד''ה לפיכך בתחילת בבא בתרא נראה לי קשה להבין. המשנה אומרת שותפים שהחליטו לחלק את החצר שלהם נאלצים לבנות קיר.ולכן אם זה נופל, הוא שייך לשניהם. ואז תוספות שואלים אפילו בלי סיבה זו, זה צריך להיות של שניהם מאז שלא היינו אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה זה. הסיבה שאנחנו לא היינו אומרים את זה בגלל שהוא לא היה ברור מההתחלה שהוא היה שייך רק אחד. השאלה יש לי על זה זה. בתחילת בבא מציעא אנחנו .אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה של חפץ של מציאה.

השאלה שלי כאן היא שהאובייקט שאבד לא היה שייך רק אחד מהם ולא של האחר. ובכל זאת הגמרא עדיין רוצה להחיל את העיקרון של המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

לי נראה שיש הסבר פשוט יותר של המשנה בבבא בתרא. זה הוא זה. המשנה שלנו בבבא בתרא אומרת שאנחנו מחלקים את הקיר והגמרא אומרת זה הדין גם אם נפל לתוך התחום של אחד. משנה בבבא מציעא אומרת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מה ההבדל? תשובה: במשנה בבבא בתרא הם נאלצים לבנות את הקיר. זוהי הסיבה שהמשנה עצמה נותנת וזה הגיוני. אותו הדבר חל במקרה שבו הם לא נאלצו לבנות את הקיר אבל הסכימו לבנות אותו. בכל מקרה קיימת הנחה מקורית כי הוא שייך לשניהם ובגלל זה אנחנו לא אומרים שזה שייך רק אחד אפילו אם הוא נמצא ברשות שלו.

התשובה לכך לדעתי היא כי המשנה בבבא מציעא לא אומרת המע''ה. הגמרא אומרת  אותו שם אבל זה לא בגלוי במשנה. למעשה הגמרא סוברת כי המשנה יכולה להיות של כסומכוס גם

אני חושב שיש לך להגיד כי הר"י פשוט משתמש בשכל ישר. רק בגלל שהקיר נפל לתוך התחום של אחד מהשותפים, מדועזה זה צריך לתת לו  טיעון יותר חזק מאשר השותף השני

Tosphot in the beginning

The Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra seems to me hard to understand. The Mishna says partners that have decided to split up a courtyard are forced to build a wall. If it falls, it is therefore of both of them. Tosphot asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (One who wants to claim money that is in the domain of his friend must bring a proof). In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is that in the beginning of Bava Metzia we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (his must bring a proof) in the case of a מציאה a found object.[My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our Mishna in Bava Batara. It is this. In our Mishna we say we split the wall and the Gemara says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The Mishna in Bava Metzia says הממע''ה (his must bring a proof). What is the difference? Answer: in the Mishna in Bava Batra they are both forced to build the wall.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his domain.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not actually say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (Sumhos) also.

[In any case it is obvious that the Ri [Rabainu Isaac] must have felt this question on the was so great as to be forced to say something in answer that is clearly not the great kind of answer. He must have felt the question on the mishna to be really powerful to force him into a corner. Even with my answer  for the Ri I have trouble seeing the force of the question.] In any case it is clear to me that I need to do a lot more thinking into this to understand exactly why the Ri thinks this is such  big question.

[I do not have a Gemara Bava Metzia to look this up]

I think you have to say that the Ri is simply using common sense. Just because the wall has fallen into the domain of one of the partners, why should that give him more claim to it than the partner?

U-74 B Flat Major mp3  u-74 midi  u-74 nwc

serving in the IDF

The Gemara does give some kinds of פטור (no obligation) to people that are learning Torah for taxes, street sweeping, building a wall {Bava Batra 7.} -- but not for digging wells, since they also need water. Thus to me it seems clear that serving in the IDF also would be included in things they are obligated in since they also need נטירותא guarding. When the rockets from Syria were raining down on Safed, they all ran south. No one said their Torah learning would protect them.


In any case, what do you call "learning Torah"? If that means simple straight Litvak yeshivas  learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,-- then these places are very rare. Most yeshivas in Israel were made in the first place in order to avoid the draft.  Learning Gemara is the last thing on their minds. [Other ones were made to make money for the rosh yeshiva and his close buddies. They are basically country clubs made for sitting and talking all day. They also have nothing to do with learning Torah except for show.]
In fact, the enormous amount of fraud that got into the whole thing tempts me to say the best thing is to shut them all down except Ponoviz and a few of its offshoots and branches.

The major advantage of Litvak yeshivas is that they learn straight Torah. Also they take seriously the חרם the excommunication with the signature  of the Gra which is important in that it warns people to stay away from the Dark Side. That is one advantage. Another advantage of paying attention  to the signature of the Gra is from the standpoint of law--even if it would have no basis in reality. 

Hegel and Leonard Nelson

I feel a little guilty in recommending Hegel because this is quite different from the Kant-Friesian School which started with Leonard Nelson. Still I feel the total dismissal of Hegel is not warranted.

The problem is that while Hegel to me seems very great, a lot of misuse still is made of him. Now Popper thought that he was the cause of all totalitarian movements that came later, but that does not seem accurate at all. Never the less nowadays self identified Hegelians do seem to have gone off into the deep end of the swimming pool. 

[You might look at the debate between Dr Kelley Ross and a self identified  Hegelian on his web site  and you will see what I mean. The weak part of Hegel in fact seems to be when people try to apply his ideas to politics.]
So far I like to look at German  Idealism as one. That is one solid body of knowledge. The differences I like to think are only the result of looking at different aspects of the same thing. So I tend to see Hegel, McTaggart as not all that different from Leonard Nelson. Just different aspects.

[Anyway just take McTaggart's critique of Hegel --in particular his "take" on dialectics and you do not end up much different than Leonard Nelson. That is his idea that dialectics corrects mistakes.]

[ I have tried to ignore one German idealist after the other. It does not seem to .work. You can try to take Hegel in a vacuum and that does not work. Try to take Kant in a vacuum and that works even worse. Try to ignore them all and that goes down blind alleys. I think you really in the end have to accept Kant Hegel and Leonard Nelson.

If you try to go with the basic Rambam approach in the Guide you end up immediately in the Middle Ages. The Logic works but the axioms do not. That is the problem with all Medieval Philosophy.The Logic is always rock solid but the axioms seem clearly false. Try to go with later Rationalists or Empiricist the  logic is mostly circular and the axioms are  false. So to avoid Kant and Hegel which is what a lot of people would like to do just does not work. --Unless you like twentieth century philosophy which is sheer gibberish.]



Looking at for one example the real is rational in terms of time and Bradley and McTaggart's dealing with it leads me to notice the same thing that Dr Kelly Ross does, and Job also--the universe now is not perfect. Whether it is with Hegel or Dr. Ross I get the same idea that perfection is only in the Platonic spheres, not down here.

[McTaggart's concept of time is also just not all that different from Kant but from different reasons., i.e. there is no time. However here too it seems necessary to divide reality into two parts, the dinge an sich and phenomena as Kant does.

In terms of Quantum Mechanics this idea of the problem with time come up in so far that thing are superpositions of many possible values in space and time before they are actually measured.
But that doe not mean there is no time.Rather things do not have any one value in space or time until measured. This you know from the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality. [Bell did not like QM and base on the Einstein [EPR] set up he showed that any hidden variable theory would come out differently that QM. Nature shows QM is right. [Bell used the EPR set up to build  his inequality. ]
However I have to add that the moon is there even before you see it because of coherence lifetime. That is the atoms are not in a vacuum. They interact with each other and that causes the wave function to collapse to just one state. Coherence lifetime is the reason quantum computing is hard --it is hard to get atoms all by themselves.

The Metaphysics of the Rambam

The Metaphysics of the Rambam was not Kabalah. You can see in the Guide where he defines it as the Metaphysics  of the ancient Greeks. But even in his commentary and in the Mishne Torah itself you can see this when he makes references to Plato and Aristotle' s system.
Besides that I do not feel the Zohar is all that it is cracked up to be.   But on the other hand I have great respect for the Ari and the Remak but not because of their insights into the Zohar but rather from their own personal service by which they gained insight.
The Zohar itself I think is a work from the Middle Ages. As for example" גרדני" [guards] is not an Aramaic word. "עם כל דא" also is a clear red light. It is  a translation of  a phrase invented by the Ibn Tibon family to stand for "although" which before the Middle Ages was "אף על פי" or "אף על גב".
Rav Yaakov Emden already went into this. [The phrase invented by Ibn Tibon was עם כל זה]

The Zohar itself basically takes the world view of the Middle Ages and expands on it.
The oddest thing about it is when Rav Isaac from Acco asked the author about it, he answered with an oath that more or less said may G-d strike him down if it is not from R. Shimon ben Yohai and that he would show him the original manuscript if Rav Isaac would visit him and that promise was not fulfilled since in fact G-d struck him down afterwards. But stories are not proof. The main point is that internal evidence shows it is a work of the Middle Ages. If one wants to know and understand the deeper nature of reality, it is better to abide by the approach of the Rambam.

I decided a long time ago to go along with the idea of faith in the wise and I think there is no doubt that the Rambam fits the category of "wise."

But Metaphysics has made progress since the Neo Platonic School that the Rambam was basing himself on. Thus I think to fulfill what the Ramam was saying the best idea is to learn, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel. [To understand Hegel the best idea is to learn McTaggart.]

U-72 C Major  u-72 midi  u-72 nwc