za51 midi same piece in nwc format

the beginning of Bava Metzia [and the answer of Shmuel Rozovski, the rosh yeshiva of Ponovitch before Rav Shach.]

I have not been writing about the beginning of Bava Metzia because I see there are a few different approaches to solve the conundrum of why in the begining you have two people holding onto a garment that you divide, while in a case in Bava Metzia 37a you have cases of a deposit and theft where there is one case where you say the object being argued over should be left in neither’s possession, and in another case you say nothing and the parties decide it between themselves. The main approaches to solve this mystery are Rav Shach, Rav Isar Meltzer, Rav Chaim of Brisk and Rav Shmuel Rozovski. Reb Chaim and Rav Shmuel Rozovski are very similar in approach. Rav Shach has radical new approach in which he explains the position of the Rambam as being based on the idea that the case in the beginning of Bava Metzia is they divide because you say that "What is in one's possession is assumed to belong to him," without needing any further proof. Rav Isar Meltzar has a new approach to the idea of "derara demomona" by which he solves these problems. Some of the major problems come from the Rambam, but there are two arguments between Rashi and Tosphot conerning "derara demomona" and the reason in the first mishna you say divide. [I hope that i might gain some clarity into this subject, but for now I am just trying to get some idea of what the problems are and possible solutions] I might mention that I am limited by the fact that is do not have my learning partner, David Bronson, to learn with any more. His razor-sharp computer mind made getting to the depths of any subject highly accessible for me. I have just these great thinkers of the Litvack world, David Bronson was invaluable in his way of electron micro scoping a subject. But since I do not have him with me, I look to the great sages of the Litvak world that have a more global perspective In the meantime, I want to mention here that the answer of rav shmuel rozovski makes a lot of sense to me. he brings from the ran that there is a possibility that the law of the mishna of dividing is because of a doubt. The proof comes from Bava Metzia pg 6 where a braita continues the mishna and says if one grabs the vessel in from of us, we say we do not take it from him. Thus, if the law of the mishna would be for a certainly that the vessel belongs to both then why not take it from him after we already know and have decided the law of dividing. but if the law of the mishna came from a doubt then it makes sense to leave it in the possession of he who grabed it since now it is in his domain.[shmuel rozovski was the rosh yeshiva of ponovitch before rav shach.]But it seems to me that there is still an important question to ask here. it seems to me the reason you say the object stays in the hands of him who grabbed it is because silence is like admitting as the Gemara state openly. thus it is not because of doubt. And in the opposite case you take it away, that is because silence is not admitting and so we give it back to being divided, not because dividing is because of a certainty. I might mention that is can see what Rav Shach is saying. He is trying to give an answer to explain the Rambam why in some cases you say divide and in other cases you say it remains in its place until Eliyahu comes. He says if there is no doubt, then you divide like in the case both are holding. In a case where there is a doubt, you say it stays in its place until Eliyahu comes. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ why in the begining משנה you have two people holding onto a garment that you divide? רב שמואל רוזובסקי brings from the ר''ן that there is a possibility that the law of the משנה of dividing is because of a doubt. The proof comes from בבבא מציעא ף ו' ע''א where a ברייתא continues the משנה and says if one תופס the vessel in from of us, we say we do not take it from him. Thus, if the law of the משנה would be for a certainly that the vessel belongs to both, then why not take it from him after we already know and have decided the law of dividing. But if the law of the משנה came from a doubt, then it makes sense to leave it in the possession of he who grabed it since now it is in his domain. But it seems to me that there is still an important question to ask here. It seems to me the reason you say the object stays in the hands of him who grabbed it is because silence is like admitting as the גמרא states openly. Thus, it is not because of doubt. And in the opposite case you take it away, that is because silence is not admitting and so we give it back to being divided, not because dividing is because of a certainty. I might mention that is can see what רב שך is saying. He is trying to give an answer to explain the רמב''ם why in some cases you say "Divide!" and in other cases you say "It remains in its place until Eliyahu comes." He says if there is no doubt, then you divide like in the case both are holding. In a case where there is a doubt, you say it stays in its place until Eliyahu comes. למה במשנה ראשונה בבבא מציעא יש לך שני אנשים אוחזים בבגד שאתה מחלק? רב שמואל רוזובסקי מביא מהר''ן שיש אפשרות שדין משנה שהחלוקה היא מחמת ספק. ההוכחה באה מבבא מציעא דף ו' ע''א. שם ברייתא ממשיכה את המשנה, ואומרת אם אחד תופס את הכלי בתוכנו, אנו אומרים שאיננו לוקחים אותו ממנו. לפיכך, אם דין המשנה יהיה בוודאי שהכלי שייך לשניהם, אז למה לא ניקח אותו ממנו לאחר שכבר ידענו והכרענו דין חילוק. אבל אם דין המשנה בא מתוך ספק, אז הגיוני להשאירו ברשות מי שחטף אותו כיון שכעת הוא ברשותו. אבל נראה לי שעדיין יש כאן שאלה חשובה. נראה לי שהסיבה שאתה אומר שהחפץ נשאר בידיו של מי שתפס אותו היא בגלל שהשתיקה היא כמו להודות כפי שהגמרא קובעת בגלוי. לפיכך, זה לא בגלל ספק. ובמקרה הפוך אתה לוקח את זה, זה בגלל שהשתיקה היא לא הודאה, ולכן אנחנו מחזירים את זה להיות מחולק, לא בגלל שהחלוקה היא בגלל ודאות אני יכול להזכיר שזה יכול לראות מה רב שך אומר. הוא מנסה לתת תשובה להסביר את הרמב''ם מדוע במקרים מסוימים אתה אומר "תחלק!" ובמקרים אחרים אתה אומר "זה נשאר במקומו עד שיבוא אליהו". הוא אומר שאם אין ספק, אז אתה מחלק כמו במקרה שניהם מחזיקים. במקרה שיש ספק, אתה אומר שהוא נשאר במקומו עד שיבוא אליהו

za50 midi za50 nwc

za48 midi format same piece in nwc

za47 in midi format same piece in nwc format

My feeling about philosophy is that it kind of got side tracked during the 20th century. In the words of John Searle, "The last 50 years of 20th century philosophy is obviously false." That includes existentialism which was proven false by a 13-year-old eight grader listening to Sarte about how meaning is different for every person. You construct your own meaning. The eight grader asked him, "Then why are you talking?" Robert Hanna has shown that so-called "Analytic Philosophy" is of historical interest only. The case is, however, even more severe. It is all about truth and meaning of words, but is totally innocent of awareness that meaning is 100 percent subjective without the slightest bit of objectivity in it. For example, the word "Dog" has meaning only to me and to whom I am talking to. In itself, it has zero relation to the dog except in the minds of people talking. [I mean to say that it has zero relevance to objective reality. And after all, what is the point of philosophy but to have an idea of what objective reality is all about. Well, here you have about 100 years of supposed rigorous philosophy which has no relevance at all to objective reality.] If you want my suggestion about philosophy, I think that Leonard Nelson is what people ought to spend time learning. That is after first getting through Kant's three critiques. You might also look at the web site of Kelley Ross who does an excellent job of getting across the main points of this Kant/Nelson approach. I might mention here the complaint of Michael Huemer about this Kant/Nelson School of thought--that is immediate non intuitive knowledge. The complaint is why would we think that implanted knowledge is true? But that is the very point of Kelley Ross in defense of this school --the very reason he resorted to Karl Popper' idea that knowledge can’t be proven. It can only be falsified. You can never prove without a shadow of doubt about any proposition, but you can disprove false propositions.And that position is not all that different from Huemer's idea of using a kind of probability theory to come to knowledge. He agrees that you can only come to truth by a long series maybe infinite series of step each one known by a kind of probability theory] The flaw in Kant is idealism along the line of Berkely and Hume. But Hegel has flaw also like the master slave dialectic. It seem to me like Plato and Aristotle in which each had important point but a 1ynthesis happened only later in Plotinus.

za46 in midi formatdito in nwc