Here is a few older music files [After writing them, it is common that I forget about them and do not share them. But yesterday I looked at a few and it seems they are worth sharing]

 r32  w39 x19 x77 x78 x98 x100

[r32 in midi]  [w39 in midi]  [x19 midi] [x77 in midi]  [x98 in midi]  [x100 midi]

za13midi  za13 nwc

Bava Metzia 16. בבא מציעא דף ט''ז. Rav Shach brings this subject in Laws of Sale 22:1 The argument between Tosphot and the Ramban about R. Meir holds that a person can buy and cause to by owned by another person something that has not yet come into the world,

חזרתי הבוקר מהים ועלה בדעתי שיש שאלה אם רב מחזיק מר' מאיר לגמרי או רק בחצי הדרך ושהשאלה הזו היא באמת מקור הוויכוח בין תוספות לרמב''ן. (רב משה בן נחמן). כוונתי לומר זאת: ר' מאיר מחזיק אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ורב אמר אם כותב שטר לחברו "כשאקנה את השדה הזה, הוא יהיה בבעלותך מעתה (מעכשיו)". והגמרא אמרה,"זה מראה שרב הסכים עם ר' מאיר." ואז תוספות שואלים, למה רב מוסיף "מעכשיו?" תוספות עונה כי אם המסמך נשרף לפני הקנייה, המכירה יוצאת לפועל רק אם אמר "מעכשיו". אבל בכל מקרה (אם מוסיף "מעכשיו" או לא,) הוא יכול לשנות את דעתו. הרמב''ן מחזיק בהיפך. הוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו אם הוא אמר "מעכשיו". אבל אם המסמך נשרף לפני המכירה, המכירה אינה תקפה בין אם אמר מעכשיו  ובין לאו.

 אז לתוספות, רב לא מסכים עם ר' מאיר במלואו, כי לר' מאיר בין אם המסמך עדיין קיים או לא, החבר יהיה בעל השדה, אבל זה לא יהיה כך לרב. לרב השדה לא מועבר לחבר אלא אם המסמך עדיין קיים. אבל לתוספות, לרב הוא יכול לשנות את דעתו, ואולי ר' מאיר חולק על כך או אולי לא. אנחנו לא יודעים. כי לא אחד, לא רב ולא ר' מאיר, עושים כל הבחנה במקרה של שינוי דעת אם אמר "מעכשיו". 

לרמב''ן יוצא שרב מסכים עם ר' מאיר גם רק בחצי הדרך, אבל בחצי אחר. אז הוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו אם אמר "מעתה", אבל המכירה לא תקפה אם אין מסמך בזמן שהוא קונה את השדה. הרשב''א מביא הר''י (רבינו יצחק הזקן[קידושין ס''ג]) שמחזיק שאם אמר מעכשיו הקניין תקף והוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו וגם אם אמר מעכשיו הקניין תקף גם אם המסמך לא קיים אז. זה מראה שהר''י סבור שרב  מסכים עם ר' מאיר רק באפן חלקי. יכול להיו שהקניין תקף גם בלי שאמר מעכשיו אבל רק בתנאי שלא יבוא איזה עיכוב 

כמובן שאני רק עוסק כאן ברמת פני השטח של הנושא הזה. עדיין ייקח לי זמן להבין איך רב שך מבין את הוויכוח בין תוספות, הר''י והרמב''ן. ואז בנקודה הזאת אולי יהיה לי רעיון איך זה יהיה שונה מר' מאיר. אני מתכוון לומר שבפשטות זה נראה כאילו ר' מאיר מחזיק אדם יכול לקנות או למכור את מה שעדיין לא הגיע לרשותו. לא צריך "מעכשיו" בכלל. אבל תלוי איך אתה מבין את רב באיזה תחום צריך "מעכשיו", אתה יכול להגיד שר' מאיר פשוט לא מסכים עם זה באותו תחום, אבל באחר אולי לא. אז ברור שהנושא הזה ייקח הרבה יותר חשיבה עד שאוכל להגיע למסקנות ברורות כלשהן.

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how Rav Shach is understanding the argument between  Tosphot, the Ri, and the Ramban.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how thi would differ from R. Meir. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like R Meir holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "from now " at all. But depending on how you understand Rav in what area one needs "from now", you might say that R Meir just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

_____________________________________________________________________________

I was walking back from the sea this morning and it occurred to me that there is a question if רב holds from ר' מאיר completely or only half way and that this question is really the source of the argument between תוספות and the רמב''ן (רב משה בן נחמן).

I mean to say this: ר' מאיר holds אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם and רב said If one writes a שטר to his friend "When I buy this field, it will be owned by you from now." And הגמרא said "This shows that רב agreed with ר' מאיר.

THEN תוספות asks why does רב add "from now?" תוספות answers because if the doc is burned before the purchase, the sale goes through only if he said "from now". But in either case (if he adds "from now" or not,) he can change his mind.

The רמב''ן holds the opposite. He can not change his mind if he said "from now". But if the document is burned before the sale, the sale does not go through whether he said from now or not.

So to תוספות  it comes out that Rav is  not agreeing with ר' מאיר in full because to ר' מאיר whether the document still exists or not the friend would own the field, but this would not be so to רב.

To the רמב''ן, רב is agreeing with ר' מאיר also only half way, but in a different half. So he can not change his mind if he said from now, but the sale is not valid if there is no document at the time he buy the field.

The רשב''א brings ר''י (רבינו יצחק הזקן) that holds the קניין always goes through and he can not change his mind and it is valid even if the מסמך does not exist then. That shows ר''י hold that רב is agreeing with ר' מאיר רק במצב שאמר מעכשיו.

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how רב שך is understanding the argument between  תוספות, the ר''י, and the רמב''ן.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how this would differ from ר' מאיר. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like ר' מאיר holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "מעכשיו " at all. But depending on how you understand רב in what area one needs "מעכשיו", you might say that ר' מאיר just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

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

R. Meir holds that a person can buy and cause to by owned by another person something that has not yet come into the world,[note 1] and Rav said If one writes a doc to his friend "When I buy this field, it will be owned by you from now." And the Gemara said "This shows that Rav agreed with R Meir.

Tosphot asks why does Rav add "from now?" Tosphot answers because if the doc is burned before the purchase, the sale goes through only if he said "from now". But in either case (if he adds "from now" or not,) he can change his mind.

The Ramban [R Moshe ben Nahman] holds the opposite. He can not change his mind if he said "from now". But if the doc is burned before the sale, the sale does not go through whether he said from now or not.

So to Tosphot, Rav is  not agreeing with R Meir in full because to R Meir whether the doc still exists or not the friend would own the field, but this would not be so to Rav.

To the Ramban, Rav is agreeing with R Meir also only half way, but in a different half. So he can not change his mind if he said from now but the sale is not valid if there is no doc at the time he buy the field.

The Rashba [Kidushin page 63]brings Rabbainu Isaac that holds  if he said "from now" and he can not change his mind and it is valid even if the document does not exist then. That shows R Isaac hold that Rav is agreeing with R Meir also only partially. That is: it could be the sale is valid even if he did not say "from now", but only on condition that no obstacle   arises. 

Of course I am just dealing here with the surface level of this subject. It still will take time for me to understand how Rav Shach is understanding the argument between  Tosphot, the Ri, and the Ramban.  and then at that point I might have an an idea of how this would differ from R. Meir. I mean to say that simply speaking it looks like R Meir holds a person can buy or sell that which has not yet come into his possession. Not need for "from now " at all. But depending on how you understand Rav in what area one needs "from now", you might say that R Meir just disagrees with that in that one area, but in the other maybe not. So clearly this subject will take a lot more thinking until I can reach any clear conclusions.   

[note 1] For example I go to buy a field. But before I buy it I give a doc to my friend that says when i buy it  the filed will be owned by you. To R Meir this later doc is valid.

 

 I can see why a lot of companies exported their jobs to China. The situation in the US was such that unions were crushing business. They did not care how much money the actual business had. They would simply make demands and more and more and more. If the business owner tried to explain he did not have the money to pay for that , the unions did not care.  Go take a look at the history of the unions in the USA if you do not believe me. The end result certainly was to strengthen China, but what was a business owner supposed to do? 

 

Russia, China and Iran are forming an alliance against the USA. The New World Disorder.

 Russia, China and Iran are forming an alliance against the USA. This is a period of a new world disorder. I would not worry if not for the black element in the US which is determined on bring down the USA.  It would be hard for the USA to fight against three formidable opponents while at the same time having to deal with a enemies at home that are just waiting to stab the USA in the back. [And all the more so when those enemies are now in the White House and in control of Congress.]]

Other democracies might come to the aid of the USA, but that will not matter as long as you have an enemy within the gates. The black problem is the one most lethal problem that the USA has-mainly because it can not be acknowledged.  If the USA can not admit it has a problem, then finding a solution is impossible.

 The answer: Learn Torah.That is mainly Gemara with Tosphot and Rav Shach. But also with STEM..

You can not change a child's sex. That is simply called castration.  If one tries to drive out Nature, it comes back with a  vengeance.