I have been looking some interesting writing of Rav Jacob Emden. It is true that he allows a girlfriend type of relationship but not exactly in the way you might think, Rather the idea is that he comes and lives with her man in his home. It is not to be casual. [see Chronicles I chapter 2 verses from 45 46 and onward. He thinks that there is good reason for a zava to need to be tovel in a natural spring as Rashi and some geonim say. I might mention that this is not stated in Leviticus. In Leviticus a natural spring is only mentioned with a zav. However there is a hekish between zav and zava in the Gemara that would seem to mean that a zava needs a natural spring. If you count like the Rambam all women will be zavot. [No one sees blood exactly from day 19 to 25 every single month. But if you count like the Ramban, almost no women will ever be zavot. They do not usually see seven days and then again three more ] And where could you find a natural spring anyway? The sea does not count as a natural spring

Rasputin has gotten a terrible reputation for no reason. When nothing else could cure the son of the tzar, Rasputin did help. He rightly told the tzar not to get involved in WWI and not persecute the Jews. [The pogroms had started long before Nichols II.] And it was true what he told the tzar what if his death would be by him or anyone in extended family, that the tzar himself and his family would not survive after that more than one year

za63 midi B flat majorditto in nwc format

za61 F Major midi za61 nwc

I would like to suggest that the first mishna in Bava Batra is like sumchos and that this is in fact what the Gemara itself suggests when it asks if the wall falls, they divide the stones equally. Is not that obvious? And the Gemara answers "It is coming to tell us that this is the law even when the stones fall into the side of the courtyard of just one of them." That means: I might have thought the law is like the wise men that he who takes out of the domain of his friend has to bring proof, so now the mishna comes to tell us money that is in doubt they divide. I might mention that to have a stam mishna like sumchos is not unusual like the mishna in bava kama about an ox that gores a cow and the mishna in Bava Mezia page 100, and others that I do not recall this minute I might mention here that the tosphot understands the question of the gemara to be like sumchos, but say that the sages would agree to his approach here where no one has any more claim than the other and that it is a case of "he grabbed it after the doubt had arisen" in which case the sages would agree with sumchos". But then I think tosphot must mean that obviously the answer of the gemara is going like sumchos. Then Tosphot finds a way that the answer of the gemara would go also with the sages. and thus, they explain that when the gemara says the wall fell into the yard of just one of them, it means it stayed there for a long time. and thus, the one in whose domain it is has a migo, he could have said I bought it and he would be believed since it was so long in his domain and therefore both sumchos and the sages would say it would belong to that one except for the fact that both are required to build the wall and so the migo disappears and the wall is divided equally between them. Tosphot also mentions that Rashi holds a similar view that the question of the Gemara is like sumchos. However, Rashi is still different from Tosphot. Tosphot holds sumchus would say to divide because it is a case of deraraa demomona. But Rashi says they divide because the courtyard belongs to both of them, and so it is like the case in the beginning of Bava Metzia where both are holding onto the object. And this approach of Rashi explains the Rambam who says in the case that the wall falls they divide equally. The reason is since the place belongs to both of them, therefore they divide the stones equally. () And this is like the Gemara in Bava Batra page 3 that says the case of the Mishna Is a courtyard that is too small to divide. In this Rashi it Is clear that even though they built the wall but that does not mean they divided ownership the courtyard. They both still own it jointly and so if the wall falls, they divide the stones equally. This however is only to Rashi and the Rambam. To Tosphot, they divide equally even if they divided ownership of the courtyard Now that we see the mishna is like sumchos , one can ask "Then why is it they divide only because of 'therefore'?" (The mishna says they build the wall whether because they have to or because they agree to do so) therefore if the wall falls the stones are divided equally between them. It is possible to answer this thus. If they would not have to build the wall jointly, there would be no doubt to the court whose property the wall is. The court could assume just one built it on his own. Therefore, it would not be derara demomona and sumhos says to divide only in a case of derara demomona _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I would like to suggest that the first משנה in בבא בתרא is like סומכוס and that this is in fact what the גמרא itself suggests when it asks if the wall falls, they divide the stones equally. Is not that obvious? and the גמרא answers it is coming to tell us that this is the law even when the stones fall into the side of the courtyard of just one of them. That means I might have thought the law is like the wise men that he who takes out of the domain of his friend has to bring proof. so now the משנה comes to tell us money that is in doubt they divide. I might mention that to have a סתם משנה like סומכוס is not unusual like the משנה in בבא קמא מ''ו ע''א about an ox that gores a cow and the משנה in בבא מציעא page ק', and others that I do not recall this minute I might mention here that the תוספותunderstands the question of the גמרא to be like סומכוס, but say that the חכמים would agree to his approach here where no one has any more claim than the other and that it is a case of "תפיסה אחר שנולד הספק" in which case the חכמים would agree with סומכוס ". But then I think תוספות must mean that obviously the answer of the גמרא is going like סומכוס. Then תוספות finds a way that the answer of the גמרא would go also with the חכמים. and thus, they explain that when the גמרא says the wall fell into the yard of just one of them, it means it stayed there for a long time. And thus, the one in whose domain it is has a מיגו, he could have said I bought it and he would be believed since it was so long in his domain. And therefore both סומכוס and the חכמים would say it would belong to that one except for the fact that both are required to build the wall and so the מיגו disappears and the wall is divided equally between them. ד תוספות also mentions that רש''י holds a similar view that the question of the גמרא is like סומכוס. However, רש''י is still different from תוספות. The reason is תוספות holds סומכוס would say to divide because it is a case of דררא דממונא. But רש''י says they divide because the courtyard belongs to both of them, and so it is like the case in the beginning of בבא מציעא where both are holding onto the object. And this approach of רש''י explains the רמב''ם who says in the case that the wall falls they divide equally. The reason is since the place belongs to both of them, therefore they divide the stones equally. And this is like the גמרא in בבא בתרא דף ג' ע''א that says the case of the משנה Is a courtyard that is too small to divide. In this רש''י it Is clear that even though they built the wall, but that does not mean they divided ownership the courtyard. They both still own it jointly, and so if the wall falls, they divide the stones equally. This however is only to רש''י and theרמב''ם . To תוספות, they divide equally even if they divided ownership of the courtyard.Now that we see the משנה is like סומכוס , one can ask "Then why is it they divide only because of 'therefore'?" (The משנה says they build the wall whether because they have to or because they agree to do so) therefore if the wall falls the stones are divided equally between them. It is possible to answer this thus. If they would not have to build the wall jointly, there would be no doubt to the court whose property the wall is. The court could assume just one built it on his own. Therefore, it would not be דררא דממונא and סומכוס says to divide only in a case of דררא דממונא ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ אני רוצה להציע שהמשנה הראשונה בבא בתרא היא כמו סומכוס וזה בעצם מה שהגמרא עצמה מציעה כשהיא שואלת אם החומה נופלת, מחלקים את האבנים שווה בשווה. זה לא ברור מאליו? והגמרא עונה זה בא לומר לנו שזה הדין גם כשהאבנים נופלות לצד החצר של רק אחד מהם. כלומר אולי חשבת שהדין הוא כמו החכמים שמי שמוציא מתחום חברו צריך להביא הוכחה. אז עכשיו המשנה באה להגיד לנו כסף שיש בו ספק מחלקים. אני יכול להזכיר שיש סתם משניות כמו סומכוס. זה לא יוצא דופן כמו המשנה בבא קמא מ''ו ע''א על שור שנגח פרה והמשנה בבא מציעא עמוד ק'. אני יכול להזכיר כאן שהתוספות מבינים את שאלת הגמרא כמו סומכוס, אבל אומרים שהחכמים יסכימו לגישתו כאן במקום שאין לאף אחד טענה יותר מהשני ושמדובר ב"תפיסה אחר שנולד הספק". "במקרה זה החכמים יסכימו עם סומכוס". התשובה של הגמרא הייתה הולכת גם עם החכמים וכך, הם מסבירים שכאשר הגמרא אומר שהקיר נפל לחצר של רק אחד מהם, זה אומר שהוא נשאר שם זמן רב בתחום שלו הוא בעל מיגו, הוא היה יכול לומר שקניתי אותו והוא יאמין כי זה היה כל כך ארוך בתחום שלו ולכן גם סומכוס וגם החכמים היו אומרים שזה יהיה שייך לזה חוץ מהעובדה שנדרשים שניהם לבנות את החומה ולכן המיגו נעלם והקיר מתחלק שווה בשווה ביניהם. תוספות מזכירה גם שרש''י מחזיק בדעה דומה ששאלת הגמרא היא כמו סומכוס. אולם רש''י עדיין שונה מתוספות. הטעם שתוספות מחזיק הוא שסומכוס היה אומר לחלק כי מדובר בדרא דממונא. אבל רש''י אומר שהם מחלקים כי החצר שייכת לשניהם, וכך דומה הדבר בתחילת בבא מציעא ששניהם אוחזים בחפץ. וגישה זו של רש''י מסבירה את הרמב''ם שאומר במקרה שהכותל נופל מחלקים בשווה "הויאל שמקום הכותל משל שניהם". הסיבה היא בגלל שהמקום שייך לשניהם, ולכן הם מחלקים את האבנים שווה בשווה. וזהו כגמרא בבא בתרא דף ג' ע''א שאומר המשנה היא בחצר קטנה מדי לחלוקה. ברש''י זה מכוון שאף שבנו את החומה, אבל אין זה אומר שחילקו בעלות בחצר. שניהם עדיין מחזיקים בו במשותף, ולכן אם החומה נופלת, הם מחלקים את האבנים שווה בשווה. אולם זה רק לרש''י ותרמב''ם. לתוספות מחלקים שווה גם אם חילקו בעלות החצר עכשיו כשאנחנו רואים שהמשנה הוא כמו סומכוס, אפשר לשאול "אז למה הם מתחלקים רק בגלל 'לכן'?" (המשנה אומר שהם בונים את החומה אם בגלל שהם חייבים או בגלל שהם מסכימים לעשות את זה) לכן אם החומה נופלת, האבנים מחולקות ביניהם שווה בשווה. אפשר לענות על זה כך. אם לא יצטרכו לבנות את החומה במשותף, לא היה ספק לבית המשפט של מי החומה? בית המשפט יכול היה להניח שרק אחד בנה אותו בעצמו. ולכן לא יהיה דררא דממונא, וסומכוס אומר לחלק רק במקרה של דררא דממונא

za60 E Flat Major midi za60 nwc

Tractate Bava Batra page 2A and page four

Rambam laws of Neighbors chapter 2 law 18, he says "since the place of the wall belongs to both, if the wall fell, the place and the stones belong to both." And in chapter 3 law 3 he says "If a neighbor surrounds another neighbor, and put puts up a fence around his property in such a way that the land of his neighbor is automatically also fenced in, then that other neighbor has to pay half the expense. However, this applies only if that fence is partly on the land of the other neighbor." You see the Rambam holds the possession of the land is what determines the ownership. The case of the first law is that if two people share a courtyard and put up a wall, if it falls, the stones are divided equally between them. What I am getting at here is this is surprising. The Gemara in Bava Batra has a few approaches to the Mishna about one neighbor that surrounds another. The question is "Who has to pay for the fence?," and "How much?," but the question of "On who's land is the fence?" is never mentioned in Bava Batra nor in Bava Kama page 20 {There is a book of lectures of Rav Nachum of the Mir and a book by Rav shach that try to understand what the approach of the Rambam is. The reason the Rambam requires the wall to be partially on the land of the surrounded neighbor is I think because he holds this law to be from the law of one who goes into his neighbor’s field and plants trees. This is how the Ramban and Tosphot bava kama page 58 hold If the wall would not be on the neighbor’s land, then this law would not be relevant at all. But even if it comes from that law in Bava Mezia, it would still be not exactly parallel, for to the Rambam holds (according to the Kesef Mishna laws of theft and loss chapter 10, law 5) the neighbor can say take your trees away and I will not pay for them. But here if the wall I already on his property we assume it was ok to him for the other neighbor to put it there. And therefore it I a case where it is okay to him and so he has to okay a full half. Like the case in bava mezia page 101 where he pays the full amount, [ If he really does not want the trees there but still is not willing to force the other to take them away, then he pays the least amount __________________________________________________________________________ רמב''ם הלכות שכנים פרק ב' הלכה י' , he says since the place of the wall belongs to both, if the wall fell, the place and the stones belong to both. And in פרק ג' הלכה ג'he says if a neighbor surrounds another neighbor and put puts up a fence around his property in such a way that the land of his neighbor is automatically also fenced in then that other neighbor צריך to pay half the expense. However, this applies only if that fence Is partly on the land of the other neighbor. You see the רמב''ם hold the possession of the land what determines the ownership. the case of the first law is that if two people share a courtyard and put up a wall, if it falls the stones are divided equally between them/ what I am getting at here is this is surprising. The גמרא in בבא שתרא has a few approaches to the משנה about one neighbor that surrounds another. The question is who has to pay for the fence, and how much, but the question of on who's land is the fence is never mentioned in בבא בתרא nor in בבא קמא The reason the רמב''ם requires the wall to be partially on the land of the surrounded neighbor (ניקף) is I think because he holds this law to be from the law of one who goes into his neighbor’s field and plants trees. This is how the רמב''ן and תוספות בבא קמא page נ''ח hold If the wall would not be on the neighbor’s land, then this law would not be relevant at all. But even if it comes from that law in בבא מציעא ק''א, it would still be not exactly parallel, for to the רמב''ם holds (according to the כסף משנה laws of גזילה and אבידה chapter י', law ה') holds the neighbor can say "Take your trees away and I will not pay for them." But here if the wall already on his property, we assume it was ok to him for the other neighbor to put it there. And therefore it is a case where it is okay to him and so he has to okay a full half. Like the case in בבא מציעא ק''א page 101 where he pays the full amount, [ If he really does not want the trees there but still is not willing to force the other to take them away, then he pays the least amount ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ רמב''ם הלכות שכנים פרק ב' הלכה י' , הוא אומר כיון שמקום החומה שייך לשניהם, אם נפל החומה, המקום והאבנים שייכים לשניהם. בפרק ג' הלכה ג' הוא אומר אם שכן מקיף שכן אחר ומציב גדר מסביב לקרקע שלו כך שגם הקרקע של שכנו מגודרת אוטומטית, אז השכן השני צריך לשלם חצי מההוצאה. עם זאת, זה חל רק אם גדר זו נמצאת בחלקה על הקרקע של השכן השני. אתה רואה שהרמב''ם מחזיק שחזקה בקרקע היא מה שקובעת את הבעלות. המקרה של החוק הראשון הוא שאם שני אנשים חולקים חצר ומעמידים חומה, אם היא נופלת, האבנים מחולקות ביניהם שווה בשווה מה שאני מתכוון כאן זה שזה מפתיע. בגמרא בבא בתרא יש כמה גישות למשנה לגבי שכן אחד שמקיף אחר. השאלה היא מי צריך לשלם על הגדר, וכמה, אבל השאלה על אדמת מי נמצאת הגדר לא מוזכרת בבא בתרא ולא בבא קמא הסיבה שהרמב''ם מחייב שהחומה תהיה בחלקה על אדמת השכן המוקף (ניקף) היא לדעתי משום שהוא מחזיק בדין זה מדין מי שנכנס לשדה של חברו ונוטע עצים. כך מחזיקים הרמב''ן ותוספות בבא קמא דף נ''ח. אם החומה לא תהיה על אדמת השכן, אזי דין זה לא היה רלוונטי כלל. אבל גם אם זה בא מהחוק הזה בבא מציעא ק''א, זה עדיין לא יהיה מקביל בדיוק, כי הרמב''ם מחזיק (לפי הכסף משנה גזלה ואבדה פרק י', חוק ה') יכול השכן לומר "קח את העצים שלך ואני לא אשלם עליהם". אבל כאן אם הקיר כבר על הנכס שלו, אנחנו מניחים שזה בסדר מבחינתו שהשכן השני שם אותו שם. ולכן זה מקרה שזה בסדר מבחינתו (ניחא ליה) ולכן הוא צריך לשלם חצי הסכום. כמו המקרה בבא מציעא ק''א עמוד ק''א שבו הוא משלם את מלוא הסכום, [אבל אם הוא באמת לא רוצה את העצים שם, אבל עדיין לא מוכן להכריח את השני לקחת אותם, אז הוא משלם את הסכום הכי נמוך.