Why do the righteous suffer? Is a question asked in the prophets Havakook, not just in the book of Job. But in the book of Job you get what to me looks like the answer. The three friends of Job were all rebuked by God himself there.

Why do the righteous suffer? Is a question asked in the prophets Havakook, not just in the book of Job. But in the book of Job you get what to me looks like the answer. The three friends of Job were all rebuked by God himself there. Job himself is not exactly rebuked, but God "tells him off". He asks "Who are you to judge?" But one person in the whole book gets off the hook,-- Elyihu. So what did Elyihu say different from the other three?
That one good deed outweighs a thousand sins.  Add to that sincere repentance and that seems to be enough to get a person into the Divine Light.[ Job 33]



Schopenhauer seems to have an approach in terms of the Will. Though he generally delights in the fact that we do not understand the workings of the Will, still in a late letter he indicates that there is a dimension of the Will's workings in the world that it all goes towards the good. That seems to be the approach of King David in psalms around #73


[Schopenhauer provides the metaphysics for Kelley Ross's  Kant Fries School of thought. That is largely based on Leonard Nelson for the part that is meant to answer how do we know stuff? It is known as the Friesian School or Critical school but Dr Ross really has made it into a larger structure. He uses the bricks to build his own structure.]

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב. The רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א' ה''ו in that case of the שוכר animal and then משאיל it goes like ר' יוסי that the שואל pays the owner. So that goes well with the general rule of ריש לקיש possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object itself. קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף And that goes well with what רב שך writes in laws of hire ו' ה''ה. So then why does  רב שך not say that that in itself is the debate with the sages and ר' יוסי? Because of a few good reasons. The most obvious one is this. When רב אידי בר אבין asks on the sages and אביי answers him they do not say the reason for the sages is because the possession of the fruit is like possession of the object. Neither do they say that the fact that שוכר the animal gets possession by the fact of hiring. Instead רב אידי  asks when does possession start? From the oath. He then asks why does the owner not say he does not need the oath of the שוכר and instead wants to talk with the שואל. And אביי answers him possession does not start from the oath. Rather it starts from the time the animal dies. But both are talking only according to the sages, and they are both agreeing that possession did not start from the time of hiring. Also we do not want a debate among sages of the משנה to depend on a debate among sages of the Talmud. So now  רב שך is crystal clear. He knows the reason for the רמב''ם is that the possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object. But then he is wondering then what is the reason for the sages that hold the שואל pays the שוכר? And then he comes with this idea the argument between אביי and רב אידי depends on whether a plea of accident is a strong plea. [I still think that Rav Shach should have mentioned this aspect of things openly, even though it is clear that he was thinking along these lines.]


link to Ideas in Shas

בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב. רמב''ם הלכות שכירות א' ה''ו במקרה של שוכר חיה, ואז משאיל אותה (ואז קרה אונס שהחיה מתה) הולך כמו ר' יוסי כי שואל משלם לבעלים. אז זה הולך טוב עם הכלל של ריש לקיש קנין של הפרי הוא לא כמו קנין של האובייקט עצמו. קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף וזה הולך טוב עם מה רב שך כותב ה' שכירות ו" ה''ה. אז מדוע רב שך לא לומר כי זה בעצמו הוויכוח של החכמים עם ר' יוסי? בגלל כמה סיבות טובות. התוצאה הברורה ביותר היא זו. כאשר רב אידי בר אבין שואל על החכמים אביי עונה לו שהם לא אומרים שסיבת החכמים משום קנין של הפרי כמו קנין של האובייקט. גם הם לא אומרים כי העובדה של השכירות של החיה גורמת קנין.  רב אידי שואל מתי הקניין מתחיל? מן השבועה. ואז הוא שואל מדוע הבעלים לא אומרים שהם לא צריכים את השבועה של השוכר ובמקום זה רוצים לדבר עם השואל. וזה אביי עונה לו קנין אינו מתחיל מן השבועה. במקום זאת הוא מתחיל מרגע החיה מתה. אבל שניהם מדברים לפי דעת החכמים, ושניהם מסכימים כי קניין לא התחיל מהרגע של השכירות. כמו כן אנחנו לא רוצים ויכוח בין חכמי המשנה תסמוך על ויכוח בין חכמי התלמוד. אז עכשיו דעת  רב שך היא ברורה כשמש. הוא יודע את הסיבת הרמב''ם היא כי קנייןו של הפרי הוא לא קניין של האובייקט. אבל אז הוא תוהה אז מהי הסיבה שחכמים שמחזיקים שהשואל משלם לשוכר? ואז הוא מגיע עם רעיון זה הטיעון בין אביי ואת רב אידי תלוי אם לא  טענת התאונה היא טיעון חזק.

Rav Shach in Laws of Hire I: 6, Bava Metzia 35:b

Bava Metzia 35:b
I am grateful to God that I found a way to explain Rav Shach and also that I can write it on the internet with the computer of a friend.[I still can not write music but still I am happy that God has grated to me to writes a new idea in Torah.]
This is in reference to what I asked yesterday about Rav Shach in laws of hire I: 6
Because I never know how much time I have I will write the idea that I had today in short.

The Rambam in that case of the one that hires the animal and then lends it goes like R. Yose that the borrower pays the owner. So that goes well with the general rule of Reish Lakish possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object itself. And that goes well with what Rav Shach writes in laws of hire VI:5

So then as I asked yesterday does Rav Shach not say that that in itself is the debate with the sages and R Yose? Because of a few good reasons. The most obvious one is this. When Rav Aidi bar Abin asks on the sages and Abyee answers him they do not say the reason for the sages is because the possession of the fruit is like possession of the object. Neither do they say that the fact that one that hired the animal gets possession by the fact of hiring. Instead Rav Aidi asks when does possession start? From the oath. He then asks why does the owner not say he does not need the oath of the one that hires and instead wants to talk with the one that borrowed. And Abyee answers him Do not think possession starts from the oath. Rather it starts from the time the animal dies. But both are talking only according to the sages and they are both agreeing that possession did not start from the time of hiring.

Also we do not want a debate among sages of the mishna to depend on a debate among sages of the Talmud.
So now Rav Shach is crystal clear. He knows the reason for the Rambam is that the possession of the fruit is not like possession of the object. But then he is wondering then what is the reason for the sages that hold the borrower pays the one that hired? And then he comes with this idea the argument between Abyee and Rav Idi depends on whether a plea of accident is a strong plea.

talks by Rav Shach.

I saw in the Litvak study hall a book that has excerpts of talks by Rav Shach. Sometimes they seem very insightful but it seems a little much on the religious side. And the religious side can be for me confusing. After all Kant said that when one tries to apply reason to the realm of the thing in itself, contradictions are inevitable,

So my approach is to try to learn Gemara and to live according to the laws of Moses, but to avoid the religious world which is contrary to that ideal--though they certainly imagine that they are in accord with it.

 Involvement with the religious world is usually disastrous. The reason is though they believe they are keeping Torah, they are in fact doing the opposite.

But to try to understand the reason for this just gets one involved in a realm where reason can not go. (But I venture to say  to the religious, their emphasis on ritual makes them superior in their own minds) The best thing to do is to be  a mensch -a decent human being.

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?