The awkward thing about Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra is that it seems to contradict the Tosphot on page 34b. Over there on page 34 Tosphot [ד''ה ארבא] brings from the Riva  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the Gemara there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

[I admit I just am relaying on my vague memory that the Gemara holds שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים because of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.]
I am not saying this is a "קושיא" rather just something that needs to be worked out.
_____________________________________________________________________________


The awkward thing about תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא is that it seems to contradict the תספות on page ל''ד ע'ב. Over there on page 34 תספות ד''ה ארבא brings from the ריב''א  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the בבא בתרא there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

דבר המביך בתספות בתחילת בבא בתרא הוא שנראה שסותר את התספות בעמוד ל''ד ע''ב ד''ה לפיכך. שם על דף ל''ד תספות ד''ה ארבא מביא מן הריב''א שהחוק של שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים חל גם אם לא מחזיקים אותו. הסיבה לכך היא כי אותו החוק חל על מסמך. אז הסיבה היא כי יתכן ששניהם הבעלים שלה. מקרה כזה הוא אפשרי אם שניהם הרימו אותו באותו הרגע. אם מצד שני יש מקרה שבו זה לא יכול להיות אז החוק יהיה כל דאלים גבר. אבל בבבא מציעא שם מבואר כי סיבת החוק כי הם מחלקים אותו הוא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ותספות בתחילת בבא בתרא אומרים שאנחנו לא אומרים המע''ה במקרה שבו יכול להיות של שניהם. אנחנו אומרים המע''ה רק כאשר האובייקט חייב להיות של אחד מהם ולא את שלשניהם.

Metaphysics.In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about.

Do you include Kant,  Hegel  in the category of Metaphysics that the Rambam requires. I think so. It is the subject matter and its development that the Rambam is thinking about. [However I do not know how to decide between them. What I assume about Kant and Hegel is that it is similar to the debate between Plato and Aristotle in this way. Philosophy tends to come up to some kind of problem once in about 1000 years. It takes a long time until the problem is understood and even longer to come to any kind of solution. Thus the problem of change was formulated by Parmenides and answered by Plato and Aristotle. But the difference between them led to new problems until the synthesis of Neo Platonic thought. I assume this same kind of process is going on with Kant and Hegel with the Mind-Body problem. There is a lot of tension between these two streams of thought.


[The Rambam's opinion about this is in הלכות תלמוד תורה where he says the עניינים הנקראים פרדס that he explained in the first four sections of Mishne Torah are included in learning the Gemara. He is much more open about this in the Guide, but it come up throughout his writings. It is not something he decided only when he was older,-- but rather he held by this approach from the beginning.]
Some people were upset with the Rambam because his opinions offended their sensibilities. However "faith in the wise" require us to hold with the wise even when we imagine that we know better. In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about. In any case the Rambamis safely within the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus. But how would he stand in regard to the issues raise by Kant and Hegel?]




This is not all that different than when the Rambam requires learning Physics. I do not think that I have to learn Attic Greek and the set of books, The Physics  by Aristotle. Rather I think it refers to the subject matter.

On the other hand, the Rambam limits severely  the subjects one ought [or is allowed] to learn. The Rambam does not give a free pass into modern day pseudo sciences.

He also has a large category of what you would call ספרים חיצוניים "outside books" that one is not allowed to learn- Does he decide like R Akiva that one loses his portion in the next world by reading them? I do not see him bring down R Akiva as law.  Still there the plenty of things he forbids to read. And what is most interesting is the opinion of the Rif and Rosh that say ספרים חיצוניים outside books are books that explain the Torah not like דרשת חז''ל [the way the verses are explained in the Midrash and Gemara.]  That would mean that to understand the meaning of Torah one would have to go into the many Midrashim מדרש רבה מדרש תנחומא ספרי ספרא וכו

I actually had a learning partner in the Mir that spent all his free time learning Midrash. [Eventually he became rosh yeshiva in Leningrad and later in Jerusalem.] If I had been smart I would have done the same thing.

Midrash however is sometimes hard to get. For example, many amoraim [sages of the Talmud] take a highly negative view of Job. That is a bit hard to swallow. However there is a another sage of the Talmud that says Job was greater than Abraham the Patriarch. 

U-75 G Major

But in some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.

A lot of times, movements are caused by perceived abuse of an existing system. Not that the newer system (that is promised) turns out so much better. It does not matter so much if the old system was really all that bad. What matters is that people got mad enough to decide to change it.
I am thinking of Communism for one example. Enough people were upset by the abuses they saw under capitalism. And to a large degree the abuses were real.
But then Communism did not exactly turn out the way most people expected in Russia. So they went back to capitalism. I was kind of shocked when I asked people in the former USSR how were things? And I always expected an answer "terrible." But instead they always said "Better than now.."
[Even today I asked one woman, "I guess you did not love the USSR?"
She answered me "What do you mean not love? Things were better. I went to school for free. I went to a technical college for free. All my brothers and sisters went to university for free, and families stayed together. Now I can barely pay for my daughter to go to a local college. People's children go off into foreign countries because there is nothing doing here. No work no nothing." And she went on but since my Russian is really rusty I did not get the whole gist. Sometimes they mention they got their homes for free or else bought a new home for $200. And as I was walking along one street today I looked across  the river at the numerous and enormous buildings the soviets built for housing.I can not tells the differences in style. But I assume they were built after the 1960's.]



The same thing applies to Martin Luther. Enough people got upset with the Catholic Church to throw it out. But that is not to say that what they got instead was much of an improvement.
In the Middle Ages this dynamic existed in what was considered "fair price" of goods.


This dynamic still take place  when people wander from movement to movement.


[The thing about Russia is that the abuses were bad enough for enough people to revolt against the czar. Better systems try to alleviate the abuses to the degree that people have less reason to be angry. The whole dynamic of Leftist movements is mainly to get people angry at real or imagine abuses in the USA. The main idea of Leftists is that whatever the USA does is by definition wrong.  The reason why it is wrong always come after the aforesaid conclusion.]

But some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves  to be thrown out.

This dynamic I think is  a good thing. The question.is how to tell when a system has gotten bad enough to need to be scraped? And what to replace it with? A lot of times people  decide to go back to the old system they previously threw out because the abuses already have been forgotten.


[The Litvak yeshiva world  certainly has a degree of trouble in it. But it seems much less than any other system I have seen. But it is not irrelevant. The question really is how much abuse is tolerable until you decide to overthrow the system and with what will you replace it with? Something better? Or worse?]
Thus my own kind of solution is to simply avoid the problem by learning Torah at home and minding my own business. And the few great Litvak yeshivas I have seen [like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway] to recommend them to anyone that will listen.

Of course Ponoviz I have not seen,-- but any place that could produce a masterpiece like the Avi Ezri has to have something gong for it.
[ Rav Silverman's yeshivas in Jerusalem that go by the Gra also are excellent.]

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