Bava Mezia page 76.

Bava Mezia 76 Tosphot I have two questions that are the kind of things that David Bronson would bring up if I would be learning with him. [Questions that adhere to the idea of calculating the subject as opposed to the larger types of global questions that you see in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri or the Hidushei Harambam of Rav Haim of Brisk.]

The first question is that you could turn the reasoning of Tosphot around to reach the opposite conclusion. The second question is why does the same reasoning not apply the previous case of the Gemara when the employer said 3 and the agent that hired the workers said 4.

To make this clearer let me state the basic structure of the subject.

The Gemara first has a question when an employer said to an agent to hire workers for 3 and the agent told them 4. In that case the Gemara completely ignores the reasoning that it uses later for the case when the employer said 4 and the agent said 3.

Then the Gemara brings the case that the employer said 4 and the agent said 3. The Gemara tries to answer this from Rav Nahman [in the name of Raba bar Abuha in the name of Rav]. Rav Nahman said if a wife says to an agent bring me my divorce document and the agent told the husband that he the agent was told receive my divorce document, the the divorce is invalid. This shows that when you have three people-- 1,2 and 3; then #3 depends on #2--that is he believes the person talking with him and does not depend on the possibility that #1 said something different.
Then the Gemara brings that Rav Ashi asked on this. Rav Ashi said that in the case the wife said "receive" and the agent said "bring" that the divorce is valid.

[Background: A wife can make an agent to receive her divorce and if she does so then when the husband gives the document to the agent she is automatically divorced from that moment on. But if she says bring, then only when she gets the document is she divorced.]

Tosphot says "to receive" is better for the husband. And even though that does not seem to correspond to the case that the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for still it is better for the husband that there should be a divorce at all--otherwise why bother sending he a divorce?

Then Tosphot says that you can not say to receive is better for her because then what would be the proof of Rav Ashi to the case the employer says 4 which is better for party #3 not for party #1.

I am having trouble understanding Tosphot. The logic I think can be reversed. You could say the why does she say receive? Because it is better for her. But by the same logic Tosphot used before she also wants a divorce. Otherwise why send anyone to get it for her? So It is also good for her that the agent should be an agent to bring [not receive]. So that applies to the employer who said 4.

A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog.

In the Musar book the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות you can see that both Metaphysics and physics come under the category of learning Torah [This is common to see in the sages of Spain staring from the period of the Geonim]. But if so then the Gemara Yerushalmi applies that every word of learning Torah is worth all the other commandments of Torah [Beginning of Peah.]

So it does not depend on how smart you are. Everyone is obligated to learn the Law --Oral written Metaphyscs and Physics. So then how can you do it if you are not Einsten? Answer you say the words and go on. As the Gemara in Shabat page 63 says and as is well know from Rav Nahman of Breslov in Sicha 76.
 A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog. 

Ketuboth 78 side a and b.

The library here is usually closed during Sukot so I will not be writing. I just wanted to introduce a subject that i hope to be thinking about during the coming festivals.

The Ran in the start of the next chapter [ perek 9] [HaKotev = "he who writes"] brings this idea. In Hakotev [perek 9] it says the property of the wife belongs to the husband. In perek 8 we see the opposite. property that comes to her when sh is engaged and then she is married belongs to he. [She can sell it].
The Ran [on the Rif] say this is not a question. Perek 8 is the property falls to he when she is engaged. Perek 9 is it falls to her after she is married. Then he asks from the Gemara Yerushalmi that we see just writing "I do not own something" does not make it so that one does not own it. There needs to be some act. [The question here is based on the idea in perek 9 that the husband can write to his wife I do not have any portion in your property and  so she can sell it. But if he does not write that, she can not sell it.

The Ran [R. Nisim,] says the case in perek 9 is he writes it when she is engaged and has not been fully married yet.

Some important background: When an wife works or finds something the property belongs to the husband. מציאת האישה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה פרק ששי של כתובות. But property that comes to her before she is married belongs to her. So the husband can not sell it. But he can eat from its fruits. If it is written in the ketuba it is property of iron sheep  That is if there is heaven forbid a divorce the amount of the property has to go back to the woman. If it was not written in the ketuba [marriage contract] then she still owns it but if it goes down in value he does not have to make up the difference.

The things I want to think about are this and also one side one on page 78. But the library is closing here so I do not have time to write about this subject.

a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter

One of the third generation of Musar was Nathan Zvi Finkel. He learned in Kelm by Rav Simha Zisel who was a major disciple of Rav Israel Salanter. In his first lesson in the אור צפון he says that one can be keeping Torah that by all outer appearances seems to be perfect. Yet internally to be the opposite.

This he brings from the gemara in Nedarim 81. That it was asked to all the prophets and sages why was the land destroyed. and no one could answer until God himself said the answer: because they abandoned my teaching [Torah]. Thus we see that in external appearance it seemed everyone was doing things so well than no prophet could see what had gone wrong. It looked on the outside that everyone was keeping Torah. But in the interior of their souls they were not. As God sees the heart and from his perspective they had abandoned him and his teachings.

You can see a hint to this idea from the NT that brings what looks to me to be the same idea. "Do not murder." But I say that even one who gets angry with hi brother has already transgressed this.  It is not saying that now it is OK to murder. rather that it is not enough to keep the Torah in the external physical aspect. But rather one also must keep it in the internal part of one's soul.

Gemara Bava Kama page 2 side a

The mishna says the ox is not like the tooth. The same aspect of them is what makes them obligated in damages [I am going with Shmuel.] Tosphot says the explanation is not like the usual case in the gemara where there is a question if to learn a third thing from two other cases. Here the mishna means the leniency of this is not like the leniency of that. The Maharam [on the bottom of the page of the Maharsha] and the Tiferet Shmuel [in the back of the Gemara] understand this seems to be that the ox has something that makes it lenient in comparison to tooth and tooth has something lenient about it as compared to ox.

This seems to me to be hard to understand because it is essentially the same thing as saying what makes this strict is not the same thing as what would make the other strict and also visa verse. And yet Tosphot insists that that is not what he is saying.

I think what Tosphot means is that the ox has some leniency about it that makes it necessary to be written . That is opposed to everything else that causes damages that would not need to be written. And the tooth has something else that would make it seem lenient and so it is needed to write it. Then the Mishna says since these are two different things the things that makes them obliged in damages are thus and thus.

President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a crime. Is that wrong?

Presidents usually use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things that are legal. For example president Roosevelt asked Churchill to help him with the invasion of Normandy. Churchill wanted to go up from the Mediterranean sea.
In fact all presidents do is to use their influence to ask foreign governments to do things for them. That is most of what they are involved with.

Asking a foreign government to investigate a crime does not seem illegal.

the religious world is polytheistic Torah.

The religious world seems to me to be not exactly like the holy Torah. That is to say My basic idea of what Tora is about is monotheism.  What the religious world is polytheistic Torah. That is they believe in other kinds of deities, i.e. "tzadikim"(saints). And the main concentration of effort is on these other deities.So if in outer appearance they go through regular rituals that seem to be in accord with Torah. But in their focus and energy on the major goal  to bring people to their false deities.

This is not however to imply one should ignore true tzadiks. Often true saints have important advice and ideas that help to focus ones attention and faith on God. Or other good advice.  But there is a bright line (not a thin line) between faith in sages on one hand and worship of tzadikm on the other.


I named this blog by the Gra and the Rav Israel Salanter disciple of Navardok and Rav Shach because I feel they are the closest to advocating Torah with no "Shtick". It seems everyone else tries to fudge the variables to get the Torah to say what they want it to say.

How do you show that the approach of the Gra Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach is the closest thing to straight Torah. The way to do this is based on the idea of prima facie evidence. That is the way things seem before investigating them further. Then after an investigation you find a reason to modify your original positions you do so. Bayesian Probability. So they way Torah seems at first glance is that it does not require worship of tzadikim. There would have to be strong evidence against this conclusion to show that it does require one to worship tzadikm. So the prima facie position holds true and strong.