ב''מ צח Bava Metzia

This might seem trivial but it occurs to me to bring it up anyway. Rav Shakh brings a doubt  about a guard who makes a plea, "the object was  taken by force." Is that really a good plea? The Torah does believe him with an oath, but still perhaps the actual plea in itself has little merit.  Or perhaps it is just like a regular plea of "לא היו דברים מעולם" ["I was never asked or paid to guard the object".]

The reason I bring this up is in the old notes on Bava Metzia [which I might bring here] there is a question that my learning partner [who asked me not to name him or mention him in my notes--that is why his name does not appear there] brought up about Tosphot. In the same Tosphot page 98  Tosphot treats, "I do not know if the object was taken by force or not" as כפירה [denial] that he was ever under an obligation to guard it. And he also treats it as a plea of "נאנסו" ("It was taken by force").

So if, "It was taken by force" is really not a  good plea in the first place, then "I do not know if it was taken by force" is not any better. But if "It was taken by force" is a good plea, then "I do not know" might be thought to be like straight denial of any obligation.

[The reason I bring this up is mainly because I simply would like to introduce the subject, and I am thinking that with the aid of this idea from Rav Shakh it might be possible to answer the question I bring up on Tosphot. But so far I do not know how it could help. I am only pointing out that the two views in Tosphot are parallel with the two views Rav Shakh brings. Does that help anything? I am not sure--but it might be. If so it would be great because that question on Tosphot has been sitting in my notes for a few years already. I am optimistic because it has happened to me that I saw an idea from Rav Shakh that helped me to answer questions that had been sitting in my notes for years.[I do not have a Bava Metzia and I also can not read  my notes very easily unless I can get a printed version. But still I have hope that maybe some solution can be found.(The problem is not if you can find a way to say איני יודע is כפירה or אונס. The problem is that Tosphot treats it both ways and seems obligated to treat it both ways according to the reasoning n Tosphot.])



These are some of my notes on that Tosphot:


ב''מ צח. תוספות משכחת. בתחלה תוספות [בענין שיטת הריב''א] צריכים להגיד ש"איני יודע" של המשנה היא כפירה- דאם "איני יודע" הוא טענת אונס (שבויה או נשברה) אזי לריב''א אין צורך לעוד בהמה.- והגמרא בפירוש מצריכה עוד בהמה. ואחר זה תוספות אומרים "איני יודע" הוא טיעון של טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה). איך רואים את זה? בשביל שהגמרא אומרת שכדי שתהיה שבועה, חייב להיות שלש בהמות: (1) הודאה, (2) כפירה, (3) ואיני יודע. אם "איני יודע" הוא כפירה, אז יש לך רק כפירה והודאה. סתירה ישרה.
למה תוספות נלכדו בזו? בשביל שהם מתעמלים לתרץ את הריב''א בדיוק כמו שעשו בבבא קמא. לר''ת אין צורך בכל זה ואצלו "איני יודע" הוא פשוט טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה).
אני חשבתי לתרץ את הקושיא הזאת על תוספות כך. בתחלה תוספות מחזיקים  שהשיטה של ש"איני יודע" הוא כפירה בשביל שיש בו קצת אונס,- תגיד למשל ארבעים אחוז. וזה אינו מספיק העזה להגיד שהוא מעיז להצריך שבועה אלא אם כן יש גם הודאה ביחד אתו. אחר זה תוספות מחזיקים את השיטה  של ש"איני יודע" הוא מספיק טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) כדי להיחשב שונה מכפירה סתם- וכדעת רמי בר חמא שצריך טענות כפירה והודאה באונס.
נחזור לזאת אחר כך, משום שזה אינו מתרץ את השאלה בגלל שהעזה שייכת רק למַלְוֶה. ופשוט הוא.] יש תירוץ יותר טוב. היינו טענת "איני יודע אם נאנס" נחשבת טענת אונס, וטענת "איני יודע אם היתה שם עוד בהמה בכלל" נחשבת טענת כפירה.  [להסביר את השאלה כאן במילים פשוטות-- בשיטת הריב''א, טענת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) צריך שבועה. ולכן בתחלה כשהגמרא מחייבת הודאה ביחד עם "איני יודע" אנחנו חייבים להבין "איני יודע" הוא כפירה. אחר כך, הגמרא מחייבת הודאה וכפירה ביחד עם "איני יודע" ולכן נראה שם ש"איני יודע" משמשת במקום טענת אונסים. (אם "איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה לרמי בר חמא אז לא צריכים עוד בהמה של כפירה), ואין לתרץ שטענת "איני יודע" יכולה לשמש במקום שתיהן, שאם כן בתחלה היתה מספקת טענת "איני יודע" להיות נחשבת אונס (שבויה או שבורה או מתה) וחייב בשבועה ואינו יכול להישבע, ולכן משלם.
לתרץ את זה, נראה לומר ש"איני יודע" היא טענת כפירה להריב''א, אבל לקמן בסוגיא של רמי בר חמא צריכים בהמה של "איני יודע" כדי שלא יהיה אפשר להישבע. רק הקושיא עם זה היא שתוספות בעצמם אומרים בענין אותה סוגיא ש"איני יודע" היא טענת אונס ,שבורה או מתה או שבויה.] נראה לי כעת שאפשר לתרץ את הקושיה הזאת על ידי החילוק של רב שך באבי עזרי בתחלת ספר המשפטים שטענת איני יודע בעצמה תלויה באיך שאתה מסתכל על טענת אונס.
היינו רב שך מביא ספק אם טענת אונס היא טענה חזקה או לא.
אם היא טענה חלשה אז איני יודע אם נאנסו אינה טענה כלל אינו פטור בגלל מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם אלא בגלל שאין לו טענה. אם היא טענה חזקה אז איני יודע חייב בגלל מתוך. וזה מקיים התנאי להתחייב שבועה.


 גם אפשר לחלק בין איני יודע אם נאנסו ובין איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך. וגם אפשר לומר שאיני יודע אם נאנסו היא טענת הודאה כמו איני יודע אם שילמתי את החוב שמודה שחייב. איני יודע אם נתחייבתי לך היא טענת כפירה.

To Mueller: Have you no decency?

There are tons of laws in the USA. This is not a metaphor. The laws on the books in the USA could be used for ballast on a nuclear submarine.  There is no question if you get the best prosecutors around and have them examine any one individual for as long as it takes, you could convict anyone of countless crimes.
So to just keep investigating and then send for the best prosecutors in Manhattan to get at President Trump seems unfair. Usually what prosecutor does is investigate a crime after it is obvious that it has been committed. They do not look for crimes to investigate just because they do not like someone.

To Mueller: Have you no decency?

Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion

From what is possible to tell, I think that Hillel was thrown out of the yeshiva of Shemaia and Avtalion until he could pay the entrance fee. [You see this  from the fact that on days he couldn't pay the fee he went up to the roof to listen through a crack in the ceiling.]

And Rav Shach brings the idea אף חכמתי עמדה לי "The knowledge I learned with pain stood with me."

What this seems to indicate  is that the trouble people go through in Litvak yeshivas is the only way to merit to Torah.

When people ask about some hard experience they went through in a Litvak yeshiva, they often consider the question to be unanswerable and use it as a reason to leave off learning. And the questions are often very good questions. Yet the answer seems to be that going through what they go through is the only way to come to Torah.

I am not saying to ignore the questions. But rather I suggest that the attitude ought to be to hang on even though there are questions.

ויגרש את האדם מן הגן וישם שם את הכרוב עם חרב המתהפכת לשמור את הדרך

When God threw out Adam from the Garden of Eden he placed at the entrance an angel with a fiery sword to guard the path to the tree of life. We see one can not get to Torah without going through these kinds of questions and difficulties.

[Sometimes there is just cause for the fact that people get thrown out, sometimes not. But what I am suggesting here is that when you have gone through problems, you ought to assume that there is something internal that is the cause.]

philosophy of Torah

The Ran of Breslov [Reb Nahman] had a low opinion of the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed.
Also when he  listed subjects one must finish every year in such a way that the day does not seem long enough he listed the whole Talmud, and the poskim Rif, Rosh and the major book of Rav Joseph Karo The Laid Out Table. But he skipped the Rambam. It seems to me that he skipped it on purpose.
The Gra wrote his comments on the Laid Out Table,  not the Rambam.

The book I was most impressed with in terms of law is the Tur with the commentary of Rav Yoseph Karo.

But I also think the Rambam's Mishne Torah is good to learn with the basic commentary of Rav Shach's the Avi Ezri.

As for the Guide itself,  I can see the that the Ran of Breslov had a point, -- it seems a little out of date. In terms of the philosophy of Torah, I think Saadia Gaon's Faiths and Doctrines is better. In any case, Reb Nahman did not think learning any philosophy makes sense, and from that fact I thought  not to do so. Though I wanted to listen to the Rambam about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, but because of the warning of Reb Nahman, I decided not to spend any effort on philosophy except as a pastime to relax.   I think anyone looking at philosophy today would have to agree that it is a waste land.

[However Leonard Nelson had a good point about non-intuitive immediate knowledge. That is knowledge that one knows,- but not through sense perception and not through any intellectual deductions (and not through anything. It is immediate, not mediate).  It is akin to Michael Huemer's idea of what reason perceives. Direct awareness of facts and of external objects. Not through anything. Huemer builds on Thomas Reid, but the idea seems close to Leonard Nelson's immediate non intuitive knowledge.--another word for faith.]

The smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.

Can great people make a mistake?
The first time I heard this issue was in my first Litvak (Lithuanian) Yeshiva Shar Yashuv. This was brought up in reference to Moses (Moshe) accepting the mixed multitude and the other mistakes mentioned in the Torah [hitting the rock]. And the fact that when a great person makes a small mistake it can lead to terrible consequences.

John von Neumann brought a proof against the hidden variable theory. It turned out that the proof was wrong. [That is what led John Bell to reconsider hidden variable theories and to reexamine the EPR experiment, and that is when he discovered his famous inequality. --the one that Nature violates.]

Apparently, even the smartest of the smart, and the best of all righteous people can make mistakes.

Even more than that.- Ahia Hashiloni anointed Yeravam ben Navat as king of Israel. And Ahia is considered the greatest prophet after Moshe. That is indicative that some things must happen-- even though they seem less than desirable.
Oddly enough even with Moses there seem to things than are not considered mistakes, but still seem to have been less than desirable, e.g sending of the spies to see if Israel was a great as all that.

Taking Musar seriously

The beginning of my taking Musar seriously was on Rosh Hashanah in the Mir in NY. It was during Musaf [a prayer on Rosh Hashana] and I had the book of a disciple of Reb Israel Salanter, The Light of Israel by Rav Isaac Blazer.
Going through the introduction, I got an idea of what it is all about. However I should add, that I was in any case attracted to the Mir in the first place because I felt it had an atmosphere of Fear of God.

At any rate, I got into it deeply. But that was in a way I can not describe now at all because I fell from that higher state of consciousness.

And I would like to add that it is possible for people to come to a higher state of consciousness and to fall to a lower state. Not just individuals, but even whole countries.


The main way I got into that  higher state of consciousness was simply doing the Musar thing as it had been originally accepted in Litvak Yeshivas--that is to learn Musar about a 1.5 hours per day and the rest of the day Gemara. I do not say that I could do that now, but that is what I was doing back then, and I found it   to be an amazing method and path.

[I admit I might have over done it. But I figure it is better to overdo it than to under do it.]



What I'm trying to say is that at the Mir in NY and also in other Litvak yeshivas, the Musar session is short. It is 20 minutes before Minha [afternoon prayer] and 15 minutes before Maariv [evening prayer]. However in Europe the Musar sessions were longer and if you added them up, they came to about about 1.5 hours per day.

I also think that the approach of the Boy Scouts is important--that is one learn good traits by action. The way the Boy Scouts do that is to learn good traits as an aspect of survival skills. [The Boy Scouts used to be more based on faith. Sadly they fell from that.]


[I should add that Rav Shach thought that the Musar movement was very important. I mainly can see the importance of Musar in terms of the ideas that it implants into one. It helps to develop a healthy world view. And people in their teens and 20's are looking for making sense of the world around them. And Musar does a great job in giving an accurate representation of what the world is actually like, and what one's responsibilities in it are.  And for me I think the main effect of Musar was to help me form my world view and correct mistakes. I did not perceive any effect on my traits--though I might have missed that.]

[So why do Litvak yeshivas learn less Musar than advocated by Reb Israel Salanter. I imagine it is because of the "law of limited returns."That law indicates that there is an upper limit as to how effective it can be. It is like drinking water. It is good for you, but there is a limit.]

u92 music file

u92 F Major

u-92 nwc filw