Rav Shach in the Rambam in laws of hire

Rav Shach in the Rambam in laws of hire says an idea to answer the Rambam over there. But I think that Rav Shach himself came up with a better idea a few pages later.


To be as direct and short as I can.[Since I am tired and also worried about my problems.]
Rambam Laws of Hire I: 6 goes like R. Yose. The case is a person hired an animal to do work with and then loaned it to another person. On that person's time the animal dies.
To whom does the borrower pay?[Background: A borrower pays for everything and one that hires pays for small things but not for big accidents that he has no control over. The animal dying is considered a big accident but then he takes an oath that that is in fact what happened.

The Gemara itself brings this:
However the sages of the mishna say the borrower pays the one that hired the animal-if the one that hired the animal takes the required oath.

Rav Adi bar Abin says the owner ought to tell the one that  hired: can talk to the borrower directly. Abyee answered to Rav Adi: the obligation starts when the animal dies, not at the time of the oath.

To me the issue seems clearly based on the argument between R Yochanan and Reish Lakish about אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי-- if possession of the fruits is like possession of the object itself.
See Rav Shach himself later on in laws of hire where him goes into this in detail and I am thinking that later section must have been written long after this one because I think Rav Shach would have seen that he himself had a better answer than the one he gives, The explanation he gives  to the debate between Abyee and Rav Abin is if a plea of "accident" is a strong plea,

But from my point of view it seems simple that the question is does renting or hiring something give one possession in the physical object or not? If yes, the it is clear why the borrower would have to pay the one that hired. The reason is that for that period of time of the renting, he is in the place of the owner and so when an accident occurred in the possession of the borrower, the money would have to be paid to him, not the owner. And that is how Rav Shach himself explains the debate between R Yochanan and Riesh Lakish.

Sorry if this is not so clear but it is the best I can do right now.

I just added this to my little book on Shas

______________________________________________________________________________


רב שך in the רמב''ם הלכות שכירות  says an idea to answer the רמב''ם  over there. But I think that רב שך himself came up with a better idea a few pages later. 'רמב''ם  הלכות שכירות א הלכה ו goes like ר' יוסי. The case is a person hired an animal to do work with and then loaned it to another person. On that person's time the animal dies. To whom does the borrower pay? Background. A שואל pays for everything and שוכר pays for  גניבה ואבידה  ואונסים קטנים but not for אונסים גדולים כגון שוד מזוין או מיתת הבהמה that he has no control over. The animal dying is considered a big accident, but then השוכר takes an oath that that is in fact what happened. The גמרא itself brings this. However the חכמים of the משנה say the borrower pays to the שוכר, if the שוכר takes the required oath. רב אידי בר אבין  says the בעל הבית ought to tell the שוכר I can talk to the borrower directly. אביי answered to רב אידי בר אבין, the obligation starts when the animal dies, not at the time of the oath. I think the debate is based on the argument between ר' יוחנן and ריש לקיש about אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי. The explanation רב שך gives  to the debate between אביי and רב אידי בר אבין  is if a plea of "accident" is a strong plea. But from my point of view it seems simple that the question is this. Does hiring something give one possession in the physical object or not? If yes, then it is clear why the borrower would have to pay the שוכר. The reason is that for that period of time of the renting, he is in the place of the owner and so when an accident occurred in the possession of the borrower, the money would have to be paid to השוכר, not the owner.



רב שך ברמב''ם הלכות שכירות אומר רעיון לענות על רמב''ם שם. אבל אני חושב כי רב שך עצמו בא עם רעיון טוב יותר לאחר כמה דפים. רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א הלכה ו' הולך כמו ר' יוסי. המקרה הוא אדם שוכר חיה לעשות עבודה ולאחר מכן משאיל אותה לאדם אחר. על הזמן של השואל הבעל חי מת. למי השואל משלם? (רקע כללי. שואל משלם על הכל ועל שוכר לשלם עבור גניבה ואבידה ואונסים קטנים אך לא עבור אונסים גדולים כגון שוד מזוין או מיתת הבהמה שאין לו שליטה עליו). מיתת החיה נחשבת תאונה גדולה, אבל אז השוכר לוקח שבועה כי זה למעשה מה שקרה. הגמרא עצמה מביאה את זה.  לפי דעת החכמים של משנה השואל משלם לשוכר, אם השוכר לוקח את השבועה הנדרשת. רב אידי בר אבין אומר בעל הבית יכוללהגיד לשוכר אני יכול לדבר עם השואל ישירות. אביי ענה לרב אידי בר אבין, החובה מתחיל כאשר החיה מתה, לא בעת השבועה. אני חושב הדיון מתבסס על הטיעון בין ר' יוחנן לבין ריש לקיש על אם קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי. ההסבר רב שך נותן לדיון בין אביי ואת רב אידי בר אבין היא אם טענת "תאונה" הוא טיעון חזק. אבל מנקודת המבט שלי זה נראה פשוט כי השאלה היא זו. האם שכירת משהו נותנת בידי אחד האובייקט הפיזי או לא? אם כן, אז ברור מדוע השואל יצטרך לשלם את השוכר. הסיבה היא שבמשך פרק זמן של השכרה, הוא נמצא במקום של הבעלים ולכן כאשר תאונה התרחשה ברשותו של השוכר.

Rav Shach and the Gaon of Vilna were aware of the problem but were ignored.

There is a lot of effort to get the false messiah of the hasidim to be accepted as the true messiah. Even though he died still people are very active in Israel to try and get him to be accepted. His picture is put up where ever one goes. But if you ask them if he is the true messiah they deny that they believe that. It is the same kind of hypocrisy  that occurred after the events of the Shatz--Shabatai Tzvi where people continued in the faith that he was the messiah but denied it if you asked them.

The reason is that that group got to be accepted as legitimate authentic Judaism.

That is even secular Jews have his picture in their stores and homes and it is plastered across every single highway all throughout Israel.


I took down one sign and one of those hasidim came to attack me and was yelling that that picture is holy--but I escaped.

What I think about this is that there were plenty of times that idolatry was accepted in  Israel and the worship of the true God was forgotten. That is during the reign of the kings of Israel like Yeravam ben Navat [Jeroboam] and Achav [Ahab].

But even then there were a small group of people  that held onto the true faith like Eliyahu [Elijah]  the prophet. All the kings of Israel and some of the kings of Judah and Benjamin were idol worshipers. Go and check and you will see. Many of the kings of the two tribes worshiped the Baal and did so for long periods of their reign and authentic Torah itself was almost completely forgotten


Rav Shach and the Gaon of Vilna were aware of the problem but were ignored. Rav Nahman from Breslov also knew about the problem but all references to this were deleted from his books except in the excerpts of Rav Shmuel Horvitz which was published by the Na Nach group. \



The main reason for this problem I believe is that this was a blind spot for many gedolai Israel [great sages] For example Bava Sali became aware of the problem only at the end of his life.  And thought the whole thing was legitimate.  Many others also. Only Rav Shach realized the problem from the very beginning. [Even the Hafetz Haim brings from that source in the Mishna Brura. Did he not know of the signature of the Gra?] [The way the problem began in Litva  was Rav Haim from Voloshin accepted a young hasid  student into his yeshiva. But the reason was because he was not from the group that the Gra has put into Cherem. If you look at the actual letter it refers only to the disciples of the Magid of Mezritch.]

But as Bava Meir knew that Bava Sali became aware of the problem towards the end of his life. I -----wonder if  perhaps I am the only one that knows about this problem today.
In Uman, I began to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach in part because I was aware that he was the only one with the proper degree of insight to see what is true and what is fake in Judaism. That is why you can see that I started quoting him in the book on Shas. My learning partner and I at that time began simply to learn Rav Shach straight.--But then the hasidim there got rid of me and I had to go and live alone by myself for a few years.

Rav Shach [In the Rambam of Laws of Hiring]

There is an issue in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the problem comes from the one that hires an animal to do work and then he lends it to a third party and then the animal dies. There is an argument in the Mishna to whom the borrower pays. Rav Shach [Beginning of Laws of Hiring] brings the Gemara: The Sages said the borrower pays the one that hired the animal. Rav Idi bar Abin said the owner ought to be able to say to the one that hired the animal "I do not need you or your oath. I will talk directly to the borrower." Abyee answered:"Who says the ownership begins at the oath? Maybe it begins when the animal dies?

Rav Shach brings the idea that the argument is whether a plea of "It was an accident" is a good plea.

Because of all my problems I have not been able to think about this very much, but from the first time I saw this until now I still can not see the point of Rav Shach. It seems to me the issue is in a case of hiring an animal, where is the assumption of ownership in case it really is an accident?

To get out of "they".--Heidegger

Heidegger for some reason gets classified with the existentialists --and Kierkegaard also. But I think that is unfair. Neither deny that Reason perceives universals and moral values and laws of nature. Rather they both focused on the need of the individual to find his own way. To find the Dasein authentic Being inside of his and the bring that into reality. That is how Heidegger understands the call of conscious. To get out of "they" and to get Being itself to come into the light--from potential into actuality.

But how or why both got to be put together with post modern philosophy is beyond me.

I can not really recall what I was thinking at the time I went to Shar Yashuv and the Mir Yeshiva in NY, but I think that what motivated me was this exact issue. the way of "being" in the world.

I mean I had a rational point of view so eastern religions did not grab me as much as others. Most people that were searching for the meaning of life went into eastern groups. But that did not appeal to me. My side reading in high school was Plato, Dante, etc. More of less things that held reason can penetrate into the truth of things, So to me a Lithuanian type of Yeshiva seemed to best idea how to get in touch with reality.
To answer the call of Being.
Though I admit that if I had known about the way of learning of Girsa [Rav Nahman's idea of just saying the words and going on]--I might anyway have gone into Physics as my original intention was.
For I recognized something great in my dad and his career in the aerospace industry. But without any kind of method of learning that would work for me, I had no way i knew of how to get into it..]

In laws of buying and selling 22: 15 and 22:16 the Rambam brings that a person that  a person who says a calf that will be born from his cow is sanctified for the Temple is required to fulfill his words even though holiness does not come on the calf since it is considered a thing that has not yet come into the world. Then he says about one dying that if he says the fruit that his tree will bring forth is to go to the poor that the people that inherit his money must fulfill his words. Rav Yoseph Karo asks on this that they are not required to fulfill his vow.
Rav Shach answers [based on a certain Tosphot] that obligations on one's body imply obligation on one's property. This was an issue that came up in my book on Bava Metzia but I was not aware at the time that Rav Shach had written anything on this.

I would try to add a note now but as I mentioned I can not do any writing of music nor ideas in Torah unless I get my old computer back or get a new one. Anyway I am very happy I am not in prison--because there also I think I would not be writing much music or ideas in Torah


The actual answer that David Bronson said in Bava Metzia was a little different than Rav Shach but it was related. The idea there was that there is a certain amount of obligation that is implied when one agrees to lend or to rent one's property to another. But David also there in Bava Metzia did not like the idea of the Netivot HaMishpat that the difference between lending and object and renting it is the difference between obligation on one's body and obligation on one's property. And that certain goes along with Rav Shach.

In any case Rav Shach was not coming to answer the problems in Bava Metzia so anyway I think we need to depend on the answer of David Bronson as I wrote over there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For some reason in the Litvak study hall my book on Bava Metzia is still around and being looked at but not the one on Shas. I gave both to the Rav there and he left one out on the table. So why not the one on Shas? I think because I might have gone into law issues too much for his taste. So I am thinking if I want to write about law, it ought to be in a separate book, not the one on Shas.

a nice answer that Rav Shach gives for the Rambam in laws of selling

I have not had time to go into this in detail but I wanted to mention a nice answer that Rav Shach gives for the Rambam in laws of selling. This question has some answer from R Akiva Eiger and a different one from R Haim Soloveitchik.
The question is one can not sell something that is not in one's domain even though he owns it. --That is if he can not get to it then he can not sell it. But in terms of the shemita [seventh] year the Rambam brings that people that had נטע רבעי a tree that had grown for only 4 years, left money in a private area and said "If the fruit of this tree is picked  then its holiness is put onto this money." In that way, the people that picked it by accident would not be doing anything wrong by eating it -- since its holiness was transferred elsewhere.

Rav Shach answers for the Rambam that there is a difference between transferring ownership and causing holiness to settle on something.

The Rashba wanted to say something similar in the Gemara but somehow that idea Rav Shach noted does not fit well with the Gemara in Bava Metzia where the Rashba wanted to use this idea. But it very well might help for the Rambam. I however have not been able to investigate this issue very thoroughly yet.

Does the very act of sex makes a woman a wife?

A Catholic blogger held that in the Torah the very act of sex makes a woman, the wife of the man.[That might have been the Zippy Catholic].

If you look at the verses in Deuteronomy it is hard to argue with him. But In Exodus we find that if one seduces a virgin and the father refuses to give her in marriage, then he simply has to pay the regular 200 zuz. This seems to go directly against what the Zippy Catholic was saying. So that is a good proof that marriage can only happen in front of two witnesses and with intention to marry as the Gemara says.

However there is a point about what he is saying in Deuteronomy that goes along with Rav Isaac Luria that אין אישה כורתת ברית אלא עם מי שעשהה כליץ A woman makes a covenant only with him that made her into a vessel. Or as the Ari explains the first act of sex leaves a spirit inside of her forever.
So not in a legal sense but in a spiritual sense what the Zippy Catholic said makes sense.