רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח

רב שך  במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט''ו -י''ח and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling brings an argument between the רשב''ם, תוספות, and רמב''ם. The issue is that the רמב''ם seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the גמרא in ערכין would hold to be contradictory. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א says one who מקדיש a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the חמישים שקלים for a field of standard size. Background: One who sanctifies a field for the הקדש can redeem it himself if he gives to the הקדש 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects, then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4. [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.

The גמרא asks does that not disagree with the ברייתא that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. And the גמרא מתרצת that רב הונא was saying like ר' עקיבא that one who sanctifies, sanctifies with a good eye. The הקדש would get more. That ברייתא is like ר' שמעון that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the הקדש would get less if redeemed.

The גמרא here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the רמב''ם decides the law like both?

And in fact the ראב''ד says the law is not like רב הונא but rather like רב פפא on ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

There רב פפא says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The גמרא asks Let the קרקע go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer: this is where he said openly the קרקע does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together. רב שך answers that  גמראה on ערכין י''ד ע''ב clearly holds רב הונא and רב פפא disagree. But not that they in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone, even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The question is, then where did the רמב''ם see this? There does not seem to be any גמרא anywhere that indicates that רב פפא and רב הונא agree with each other.

The answer is that רב שך has a different גמרא. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The גמרא there agrees that to both the קרקע under between and around  them the width of 4 אמות is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the קרקע to the חכמים that is valid and to ר' עקיבא still the קרקע under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye. So in our case, the גמרא can hold like ר' עקיבא and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without  קרקע still the קרקע under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification, so they are redeemed together. That is the גמרא that sees a difference between רב פפא and רב הונא hold like the חכמים and ר' שמעון that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge, evil eye. But if a גמרא would hold like ר' עקיבא then the גמרא would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of הקדש. But the law of רב הונא is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו -י''ח

רב שך במשנה תורה ערכין פרק ד הלכה ט'ו-י''ח ובפרק 24 הלכה 9 הלכות מכירה מביא ויכוח בין הרשב’'ם, התוספות והרמב'’ם. העניין הוא כי הרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק בדרכים שלפחות הגמרא בערכין היה סותר. רב הונא בערכין דף י''ד ע''א אומר מי שקידש שדה מלא עצים פודה את העצים לפי ערכם והשדה לפי חמישים שקלים לשדה בגודל סטנדרטי. רקע: מי שמקדש שדה עבור הקדש יכול לפדות אותו בעצמו אם ייתן לקדש 50 שקל. אם סוגים אחרים של חפצים, אז הוא פודה אותם לפי ערכם אך מוסיף 1/4. [מה שנקרא 1/5 אבל פירושו 1/5 מבחוץ

הגמרא שואלת האם זה לא מסכים עם הברייתא שמי שמקדש עצים גואל אותם והשדה הולך איתם. והגמרא מתרצת שרב הונא אמר כמו ר' עקיבא שמי שמקדש, מקדש בעין טובה. הקדש היה מקבל יותר. שברייתא זה כמו ר' שמעון שאחד מקדש בעין לא נאה. כך שהקדש היה מקבל פחות אם ייפדה.

הגרמרה כאן מחזיקה בבירור את שתי הדעות הללו חולקות זו את זו.

אז איך זה שהרמב'’ם מחליט את החוק כמו שניהם?ולמעשה הראב''ד אומר שהחוק אינו כמו רב הונא אלא כמו רב פפא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב.

שם אומר רב פפא מי שמקדש עצים גואל את העצים לפי ערכם. הגמרא שואלת שהקרקע תלך איתם להתקדש ולצאת איתם להיגאל? תשובה: זה שהמקדש אמר בגלוי שהקרקע לא הולכת איתם. אז אנו רואים שאם זה היו מקדשים יחד. רב שך עונה שגמרא על ערכין י''ד ע''ב מחזיק בבירור את רב הונא ורב פפא חולקים על כך. אך לא שהם למעשה לא מסכימים. יכול להיות שקידוש שדה עם עצים גורם להכל להתקדם. אך קידוש העצים בלבד, אפילו אם השדה עובר איתם, עדיין אין מדובר בשתי פעולות קידוש נפרדות. אז הגאולה תהיה גם במעשה אחד בלבד.

השאלה היא אם כן איפה הרמב'ם ראה את זה? לא נראה שיש שום גמרא בשום מקום שמצביע על כך שרב פפא ורב הונא מסכימים זה עם זה.

התשובה היא שלרב שך יש גמרא אחרת. זה שיש בו הבדל בין ר עקיבא לחכמים לגבי המקרה שמוכרים שלושה עצים. הגמרא שם מסכים כי לקונה הקרקע מתחתם ולסביבתם ורווח של 4 אמות נמכר יחד עם העצים. אבל אם המוכר אומר שהוא שומר את הקרקע לעצמו לחכמים זה תקף. אבל לר 'עקיבא עדיין הקרקע מתחת וביניהם שייכים לבעלים החדשים של העצים. הסיבה היא שכל מי שמוכר מוכר בעין טובה. כך שבמקרה שלנו, הגמרא יכולה להחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, וכי אפילו כשהוא אומר שהוא מקדש את העצים בלי קרקה, עדיין הקרקע שתחתם באה איתם. אבל יש רק מעשה אחד של קידוש, ולכן הם נגאלים יחד. זה הגמרא הרואה הבדל בין רב פפא לרב הונא מחזיקה כמו חכמים ור' שמעון שמי שמקדש עושה זאת בעין רעה. אבל אם גמרא היה מחזיק כמו ר' עקיבא, הגמרא הייתה אומרת שקידוש שלושההעצים  ללא אזכור של האדמה האדמה באה ביחד הקדש. אבל החוק של רב הונא הוא שם הוא הזכיר גם שדה וגם עצים ולכן שניהם מתקדשים בנפרד

Three trees. Rav Shach in Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9 of selling)

Rav Shach in  Mishna Torah in Arachin 4: 15-18 (and in chapter 24 law 9  of selling) brings an argument between the Rashbam, Tosphot, and Rambam. Rav Shach as is the custom starting from Rav Haim of Brisk is spending most of his efforts to understand the Rambam.

The issue is that the Rambam seems to decide  the law in ways that at least the Gemara in Arachin would hold to be contradictory. 

Rav Huna Arachin page 14a says one who sanctifies a field full of trees redeemed the trees according to their value and the field according the 50 shekels for a field of standard size. [Background: One who sanctifies a field for the Temple can redeem it himself if he gives to the Temple 50 shekels. If other kinds of objects then he redeems them according to their value but adds a 1/4 [what is called 1/5 but means 1/5 from the outside.]  ]

The Gemara asks does that not disagree with the teaching that one who sanctifies trees redeems them and the field goes along with it. and the Gemara answer that Rav Huna was saying like R Akiva that one who sanctifies sanctifies with a good eye. [The Temple would get more]. That teaching is like R Shimon that one sanctifies with an unkind eye. So that the Temple would get less if redeemed.

The Gemara here clearly holds these two teachings disagree with each other.

So how is it the Rambam decides the law like both?

And in fact the Raavad says the law is not like Rav Huna but rather like Rav Papa on Arachin 14b.

There Rav Papa says one who sanctifies trees redeems the trees according to their value.

The Gemara asks Let the ground go with them to be sanctified and to go out with them to be  redeemed? Answer this is where he said openly the ground does not go with them. So we see that if it would they would be sanctified together.

Rav Shach answers that The gemara on Arachin 14b clearly holds Rav Huna and Rav Papa disagree. But not that the in fact disagree. It could be that the sanctifying a field with trees makes everything go together. But sanctifying the trees alone-even if the field goes along with them, still it is not two separate acts of sanctifying. So redeeming would also be in just one act.

The Question is then where did the Rambam see this? There does not seem to be any Gemara anywhere that indicates that Rav Papa and Rav Huna agree with each other.

The answer is that Rav Shach has a different Gemara. It is the one where there is a difference between R Akiva and the sages about the case one sells three trees. The Gemara there agrees that to both the ground under between and around  them the width of 4 yards is sold along with the trees.But if he says he is keeping the ground to the sages that is valid and to R akiva still the ground under them belongs to the new owner of the trees. The reason is all who sell sell with a good eye.


So in our case the Gemara can hold like R Akiva and that even when he says he is sanctifying the trees without teh land still the land under them comes along with them. But there is only one act of sanctification so the y are redeemed together. That is the Gemara that sees a difference between Rav papa and Rav huna hold like the sages and R Shimon that one who sanctifies does so with a grudge. evil eye. But if a Gemara would hold like R Akiva as is in fact teh law then the Gemara would say sanctifying three with no mention of ground the ground comes along both in and out of hekdesh. But the law of Rav Huna is where he mentioned both field and trees so both are redeemed separately 

Mark McCloskey protects his life and the lives of his family. So self defense is not longer a legal defense in the USA? Answer: No it is not. But even so, it does not matter. You defend your life anyway--at all cost.

 So a home owner protects his life and the lives of his family from a violent mob and the District attorney wants to indite him? So self defense is not longer a legal defense in the USA?

The homeowner who defended his St. Louis property from violent Black Lives Matter activists earlier this week slammed CNN’s Chris Cuomo for making assumptions about his case.

“A guy stands in front of me, pulls out two loaded pistol magazines, snaps them in front of my face and says, ‘You’re next.’ If you were there, Chris, I think you’d feel like you had a right to defend yourself, as well,” Mark McCloskey, joined by his legal counsel, explained on Tuesday.

The lesson to be learned is never go on the fake media. 

חכם עדיף מנביא a wise man is better than a prophet. And Rav Nahman brings in the Sefer HaMidot that a prophet only knows what is revealed to him. So there is no question why certain people with great spiritual insight might have been completely  unaware of what should have been obvious.
There is no reason to think that Isaiah the prophet would have known Quantum Physics. The reason is spiritual values are not the same as universals which are recognizable by reason. And if he would have known QM it would only have been through reason, not prophecy--for prophecy deals with a different area of value 

The area of value that the Middle Ages were good at was content with less form. Later in what was called the Ages of Reason, there was a forte of Reason that recognizes form. [Universals].

So it makes sense that the natural sciences would be what would have started from Galileo and Newton. But the deep thinkers of the Middle Ages had their specialty in the area of content.

[I mean to be bringing an idea of Dr Kelley Ross  that Logic is all form not content. If A implies B and B implies C then if A is true the C is true. But the sentences can stand for anything.
Math has more content than logic since it can not be reduced to logic as per Godel. Physics has more content since it already physical, not just universals. Music even more content since than reducible to math. People have been trying to figure of the formulas of Bach for ages with no success. Then Justice and Right even less form. There are no algorithms to figure out what is moral. Then the realm of spirit is more content and less form. Then God is all content and no form. כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה ביום עמדכם בהר סיני

Hitbodadut [private conversation with God]

 Rav Nahman says there are "Torah scholars that are demons" {LeM I:12}. That does not mean all. The problem is to know the difference.
The idea of Rav Nahman about private prayer I think works here. That is something that a disciple of Rav Nahman , Rav Natan, in fact says: Hitbodadut [private conversation with God] is a help for all things that one needs to come to in spiritual affairs.
Hitbodadut, Rav Nahman in fact said that one who wants to accept on himself the yoke of the service of God ought to spend the whole day in Hitbodadut. [Not just an hour as people think.]

  Rav Nahman did this all of his life. He would take a boat and row out into the middle of a river and spend the whole day praying and talking with God.

[The best approach to Hitbodadut I think is like Rav Nahman in fact emphasized that is to take a day off and go into a forest and spend the whole day talking and pleading with God for guidance and salvation.]]