I was just looking over my notes on Bava Metzia

I was just looking over my notes on Bava Metzia [since I have no sefarim to be able to learn]. It occurred to me that it is possible to understand the Rambam who says the law is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in spite of the fact that all stam mishnas in Shas goes like Sumchos. The reason is the Rambam is going like the opinion in the Gemara in BM pg 100 that Sumchos only said his law in the case that each plaintiff is in doubt.--which the Rambam holds is דררא דממונא. Still this does not satisfy everything. For surely the sages hold even in that case המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.
So it simply turns out that the Rambam is going like Sumchos completely. --and that makes a lot of sense because after all it is hard to push off a whole lot of stam mishnas just because of a braita brought just once in Bava Kama.

_________________________________________________________________________________
It is possible to understand the רמב''ם who is פוסק the law is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in spite of the fact that all סתם משניות in ש''ס goes like סומכוס. The reason is the רמב''ם is going like the opinion in the גמרא in ב''מ דף ק' ע''א that סומכוס only said his law in the case that each plaintiff is in doubt. That case the רמב''ם holds is דררא דממונא. Still this does not satisfy everything. For surely the חכמים hold even in that case המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.
So it simply turns out that the רמב''ם is going like סומכוס completely. And that makes a lot of sense because after all it is hard to push off a whole lot of סתם משניות just because of a ברייתא brought just once in בבא קמא.



אפשר להבין את הרמב''ם שפוסק החוק הוא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה למרות העובדה שכל סתם משניות בש''ס הולכות כמו סומכוס. הסיבה היא רמב''ם הולך כדעה בגמרא בב''מ דף ק" ע''א כי סומכוס רק אמר החוק שלו במקרה שכל תובע מוטל בספק. במקרה זה רמב''ם מחזיק הוא דררא דממונא. אבל ברור שהחכמים מחזיקים גם במקרה כזה המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מתברר כי הרמב''ם הולך כמו סומכוס לחלוטין.  כי אחרי הכל קשה לדחוף את סתם משניות רק בגלל ברייתא המובאת רק פעם אחת בבבא קמא..

It is my impression that one can merit to give charity many times every day even if one has no money. That is by praying for the good of Israel. That is because even if you can not help someone directly but by praying for them you can perhaps help them.

The question I have in the Obligations of the Heart in Trust:3. He holds one should trust in God alone without joining anyone else along with God. Then he brings as a proof the events surrounding the end of the life of King Asa. But the verse there says Asa trusted in the doctors instead of God.--not along with God. וגם בחליו לא דרש את השם כי ברופאים Even in his sickness he did not seek the Lord but rather the doctors.

There must be something I am missing here but i can not imagine what it is.

Is learning Torah a good way to make money???

Some people in kollel believe that learning Torah is a good way to make money. I encountered this opinion myself in many. This seems to fly in the face of the well known rule that one is not allowed to use Torah to make money. The odd thing was that they used that idea to convince my wife to leave me since I was learning Torah not for money but for its own sake.

However we do find that people have cast themselves on God to learn Torah and to believe that parnasa [money] would come to them from Heaven--and they succeed in that. The basic idea in a nutshell is that a guy says to himself "I am going to learn Torah no matter what, and I believe God will take care of my needs".
Even though this is famous for being the practice of the Musar Navardok Yeshivas, still you can see this in the Obligations of the Heart also. [Navardok held no השתדלות/ The Obligations of th Heart held Trust with effort.]

In a practical sense what I think about this is  that the basic idea to sit and learn Torah and to trust in God for a living is a good practice --even though I did not merit to this myself. Obviously after I was divorced I was not only not going to be in any kollel but was also a social pariah.  [persona non grata]. So I have had to make do with what ever scraps of Torah I can learn here and there.
Eventually I started seeing that the fact that I am not part of the religious world is a great blessing.
Even if I do not learn much Torah, but at least the little I can pick up here and there is not in order to make money.

in any case the events that happened to me certainly make me wonder what the point of kollel is if people  there are not so nice. Is it not an important aspect of Torah to have good traits?

There is great importance on Rosh Hashanah of avoiding cults

There is great importance on Rosh Hashanah of avoiding cults. Even if they entice by pretending to keep mitzvot, once they worship human beings, the mitzvot do not count. That is what you find in the Gemara about a shofar of idolatry. מכתת שיעוריה. It is considered to be ground up so one does not fulfill the mtzvah of hearing a shofar from it.
The best idea is to go to a place of genuine Torah like a Litvak yeshiva.

[While it is true than some Litvak yeshivas and kollels are run in a way that is less than desirable, still there is a difference between the surface and the substratum. If the substratum is a spirit of authentic straight Torah that should be enough to outweigh the surface problems. That is in any case what I discovered in Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and the Mir in NY,--that the substratum was that of authentic Torah.]

[You would normally hope Sefardi synagogues would be immune to this problem but I have seen than that is not the case. The Sitra Achra has penetrated there too ]

The basic way to blow the shofar is actually an argument. The Tekia is one long blast. the sevarim is three shorter ones that would fill up the tekia. The truah is 18 short ones that each set of three would fill up one of the three sevarim. But some say 9 short ones.(The Gemara itself is on the last two pages of Rosh Hashana and brought own by Rav Joseph Karo.)

Also the way to do the shevarim is the starting low and going high as brought in הגהות מיימוניות

It is rare to hear anyone doing this right. The best idea is to get your own shofar.

Concerning lashon hara [slander] some questions and one answer to an old question I heard at the Mir.

Ketuboth page 46 as brought in the Hafetz Haim says מוציא שם רע (One who brings a evil name on his bride.) (Note 1) gets lashes because of לא תלך רכיל (Thou shalt not go about as a tale bearer among your people.). I wonder why. Is not לאו שבכללות (a prohibition that includes more than one thing.)?(note 2) Also a לאו שאין בו מעשה (a prohibition that is not an act but rather a word.)? In my little booklet on Shas I remember I wrote something about לאו שבכללות (a prohibition that includes more than one thing) that also over there in Sanhedrin was not clear when you say it and when you don't.
The person that noticed that is my learning partner but I did mention his name because he said not to bring up his name

The gemara over there gives the exceptions and certainly lashon hara is not one of them!

I also wanted to mention that in the Mir Yeshiva in NY they asked about באפי תלתא this question: who is asking? One of the three! So just tell him not to spread the lashon hara any further and then there will not be three that are making it known. I think the Hafetz Haim himself meant to avoid this problem when he brings the idea that the whole permission of באפי תלתא does not apply if any one of the three are a ירא שמים

(Note 1 ) One who brings a evil name on his bride. He thinks she was not a virgin.
(Note 2) a prohibition that includes more than one thing does not get lashes. And לא תלך רכיל includes lashon hara and rekilut.