I also found women in the USA to be difficult. The reason I think has to do with up bringing. In the "old days" women would try to find a good man and start a family together by working together. Nowadays some women see themselves in in opposition to men. Almost as enemies--or at least someone to use and then expel.

Job interview with the new generation.

 

Bava Metzia 100a. Ketuboth 15. Rambam 20. Halachot 14, 15

בבא מציעא ק' ע''א כתובות ט''ו. רמב''ם כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו.

אני חושב שאתה יכול להסביר את הרמב''ם באמצעות התוספות בנידה ב' ע''ב שחזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא (מצב נוכחי יחד עם סטטוס אחר יכול להביס סטטוס קודם). בנידה יש ​​לך סטטוס נוכחי ביחד עם סטטוס אחר מביס סטטוס קודם למרות שבאופן כללי סטטוס קודם חזק יותר מסטטוס נוכחי. זה יעזור לרמב''ם. שהרי יש ויכוח בין רוב ראשונים לרמב''ם על מקרה של אחד שמחליף את פרתו עם חמור. והפרה הייתה איתו באותה עת, אבל אז הוא הולך להביא את החמור ומגלה שהוא לא חי. לרוב ראשונים הבעלים של הפרה צריכים להביא הוכחה שהחמור לא היה בחיים בזמן ביצוע ההחלפה. אולם הרמב''ם מחזיק בעלים של החמור צריכים להביא הוכחה שהחמור היה בחיים. אז אתה רואה שהרמב''ם פה מחזיק כיוון שהחמור לא חי עכשיו, לכן אנחנו דוחפים את הזמן אחורה ואומרים שהוא לא היה חי כמה שיותר רחוק עד לזמן שאנחנו יודעים שהוא היה חי. האופן שבו רמב''ם הזה יכול להגיב (על שאלה של חזקה מעיקרא יותר תקפה מחזקת השתא) הוא באמצעות אותה תוספות בנידה ב' ע''ב. כלומר, בעלים של הפרה יש לו חזקת מרא קמא. רב שך מביא גם את הרמב''ם הזה ומציע סיבה אחרת לכך. כלומר, שהשלמת ההחלפה היא תנאי להחלפה. אבל זה לא סותר את ההצעה שלי. וחוץ מזה, קשה להבין למה בדיוק מתכוון רב שך. לדבריו, מדובר במכירה בתנאי שהנכס שהתקבל הוא הנכס שהיה במצב שבו נקנה. בדרך חזרה מהים עלה בדעתי שזה אותו דבר כמכירת טעות, מקח טעות רגילה. ושום מכירה בטעות אינה תקפה. אז מה שונה כאן מכל מכירה אחרת? ברור שעת ההחלפה. אבל אם כן, אין תנאי ישנה. אם החמור היה בחיים בזמן המכירה, אז המכירה תקפה. אז בכל מקרה, הנושא הוא שעת ההחלפה ולשם כך יש לנו את הסטטוס הנוכחי. אבל אפילו עם התשובה שלי, נראה שיש בעיה. כי "כאן נמצא כאן היה" לא אומר שום דבר על חזקה בהווה. זה לא אומר כלום על חזקה  עם חזקה אחרת. למשל, אותו עיקרון חל על חיה שנמצא מחט בבטנה. לא מוזכר שם שום דבר על חזקא.

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

 בבא מציעא ק' ע''א  כתובות ט''ו. רמב''ם כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו. 

I think you can explain the רמב''ם by means of the תוספות in נידה ב' ע''ב that חזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא A present situation together with some other status can defeat a prior status. In נידה you have a present status along with another status defeats a prior status even though in general a prior status is stronger than a present status.

This would help the רמב''ם. For there is an argument between most ראשונים and the רמב''ם concerning the case where one exchanges his cow with a חמור. And he had the cow with him at the time. But then he goes to get the חמור and finds it is not alive. To most ראשונים the owner or the cow has to bring a proof that the ass was not alive at the time the exchange was made. However the רמב''ם holds the owner of the חמור has to bring a proof that the חמור was alive. So you see the רמב''ם here is holding since the חמור is not alive now, therefore we push the time backwards and say it was not alive as far back as possible until a time we know it was alive. The way this רמב''ם can make sense is by means of that תוספות in נידה ב' ע''ב.That is, the owner of the cow is the prior owner of the cow so he has חזקת מרא קמא 

רב שך also brings this רמב''ם and suggests a different reason for it. That is, that a completion of the exchange is a condition of the exchange.  But it does not contradict my suggestion. And besides that, it is hard to understand exactly what רב שך means.  He says this is sale on condition that the property received is the property that was in the condition that it was bought as. On the way back from the sea, it occurred to me that this is the same thing as a normal מקח טעות mistaken sale. And no mistaken sale is valid. So what is different here than any other sale? Obviously the time of the exchange. But if so the no condition would make  a difference. If the חמור was alive at the time of the sale, then the sale is valid. So in any case, the issue is the time of the exchange and for that we have the present status. But even with my answer, there seems to be an issue. For כאן נמצא כאן היה is not saying anything about a present חזקה. Not does it say anything about a present  חזקה with another  חזקה. For instance, the same principle applies to an animal that a needle was found in its stomach. There is not mentioned there anything about חזקא.

However I am thinking that Rav Shach must be getting at something other than a regular case of a mistaken sale.

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

 Bava Metzia 100a. Ketuboth 15. Rambam 20. Halachot 14, 15

I think you can explain the Rambam by means of the Tosphot in Nida page 2b that חזקת השתא ביחד עם עוד חזקה יכולה לנצח חזקה מעיקרא A present situation together with some other status can defeat a prior status. In Nida you have a present status along with another status defeats a prior status even though in general a prior status is stronger than a present status.

This would help the Rambam. For there is an argument between most Rishonim and the Rambam concerning the case where one exchanges his cow wth an ass. And he had the cow with him at the time. But then he goes to get the ass and finds it is not alive. To most Rishonim the owner or the cow has to bring a proof that the ass was not alive at the time the exchange was made. However the Rambam holds the owner of the ass has to bring a proof that the ass was alive. So you see the Rambam here is holding since the ass is not alive now, therefore we push the time backwards and say it was not alive as far back as possible until a time we know it was alive. The way this Rambam can make sense is by means of that Tosphot in Nida.  That is, the owner of the cow is the prior owner of the cow so he has חזקת מרא קמא 

Rav Shach also brings this Rambam and suggests a different reason for it. That is, that a completion of the exchange is a condition of the exchange.  But it does not contradict my suggestion. And besides that, it is hard to understand exactly what Rav Shach means.  He says this is sale on condition that the property received is the property that was in the condition that it was bought as. On the way back from the sea, it occurred to me that this is the same thing as a normal מקח טעות mistaken sale. And no mistaken sale is valid. So what is different here than any other sale? Obviously the time of the exchange. But if so the no condition would make  a difference. If the ass was alive at the time of the sale, then the sale is valid. So in any case, the issue is the time of the exchange and for that we have the present status. But even with my answer, there seems to be an issue. For כאן נמצא כאן היה is not saying anything about a present status. Not does it say anything about a present status with another status. For instance, the same principle applies to an animal that a needle was found in its stomach. There is not mentioned there anything about status.

  

 There is an argument to be made that the nature of Anglo American society in the 1950's was a result of DNA plus a Constitution that fit the nature of the people. For my grandparents (owned property in Newark NJ) but when it was clear that certain elements were moving in they gave away their property. They did not sell, but gave away since they realized that even owning property in such an area was a liability.  In a similar way I recall Camden NJ where the sister of my mother used to live. And we visited there every summer. It was wholesome and clean. Now it has become an extremely  violent city. Same reason.

The moral is clear. The South was right.