On the way back from the sea it occurred to me to ask what I think should be simple to answer but I really do not know what could be the answer. in Bava Batra page 17 Abaye says the Mishna should read: “One must keep his pit three handbreadths from the wall of the pit of his neighbor,” not "from the pit of his neighbor." This seems like a direct proof of Rava that one should keep an object that can cause damage three handbreadths from the border line, even when there is nothing yet on the other side. How could Abaye understand his own statement according to his ruling that one can put that which causes damage next to the border of his neighbor until the neighbor put there something that can be damaged? (Rava said that one must keep one's object three handbreadths from the border, and this statement of Abayee help him directly.) However, later in the gemara, Rava explains the Mishna according to R. Jose to mean that the digging itself causes damage. I do not how that helps Abayee. If he means the wall itself is considered part of the pit that causes damage then he should say he can put it next to the border, and the other neighbor then has to keep his pit 6 handbreadths from the border. If on the other hand, he means only the hollow of the pit is what causes damage, then the way he reads the Mishna is his direct refutation. He said he can put something that causes damage next to the border. Not three handbreadths from the border. Furthermore, how can any of this relate to the Gemara later in the approach of Rabainu Ihzhak that holds if one did something slightly wrong by putting his object next to the border, then the other can do the same. Does that mean the wall does the damage? Then that is like what he said. But if he means the hollow of the pit, then the two pits would be joined into one pit. But this was already answered by Rava that it is the digging that causes the damage. But still, I do not see how that helps Abayee. Later note. After writing the above I saw that Tosphot asks this question and answers it. But let me state the actual Mishna and Gemara at this point to be clear. The Mishna says, “One must not dig a pit near the wall of his neighbor nor other type of thing that causes damage unless he moves away three handbreadths.” The Gemara asks “Why does the Mishna change from ‘pit’ to ‘wall’?” Abaye answered, “It means ‘the wall of the pit’”. The Gemara then asks, “If so, it should say, ‘One must not dig a pit near the pit of his neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths’”. The Gemara answered, “It comes to tell us the wall of a pit is three handbreadths.” Tosphot says,” If it would say ‘the wall of the pit’ that would be proof to Rava and that is what the Gemara intends to ask. And then it answers for Abaye, “It means the normal wall of a pit is three handbreadths.” This answers the question to some degree. It means that all the other kind of objects that cause damage have to be three handbreadths from the object that can be damaged. But here both pits cause damage. Thus, it cannot say, “You cannot dig a pit three handbreadths from the other pit” because each pit is required to be moved three handbreadths totaling six in all. So, it says, “You cannot dig a pit (that is the hollow space of the pit) within three handbreadths of the wall of the other pit”, and thus the separation will be six handbreadths. The problem I still have on this is the point in the discussion “The Gemara then asks, “If so, it should say, ‘One must not dig a pit near the pit of his neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths’ “That means if abaye right it should say a pit three handbreadths from the other pit. That is, one hollow of a pit is at the boundary and the other must be away three. But if Abayee is right, the other would have to be six away, not three, since each kind of damage must be three from that which can be damaged. The Mishna would have to be read, "One must move his pit six handbreadths from the pit of his neigbor" if Abyee would be right.I would like to answer this question but with some reservation. First let me say that in the approach of R. Jose there is first come first served (permission of who comes first) and if Abaye is going according to R. Jose then it is easy to see that if the Mishna would say one cannot dig a pit next to the pit of hi neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths then that would mean there is permission of who came first. The first pit does not have to move and the second pit only has an obligation of moving three handbreadths away. If he de not want to be damaged by the first pit then it is his prerogative to move away further. However, this answer would only work if Abaye and r Jose agree. However, in Abaye himself, we do not see any kind of permission of first come first served. Only we ee if nothing else is next to the border, then he can put his thing there. But after something comes, we do not know what Abaye would say ______________________________________________________________________________________ On the way back from the sea it occurred to me to ask what I think should be simple to answer but I really do not know what could be the answer. In בבא בתרא י''ז אביי says the משנה should read: “One must keep his pit three טפחים from the wall of the pit of his neighbor,” not "from the pit of his neighbor." This seems like a direct proof of רבא that one should keep an object that can cause damage three טפחים from the border line, even when there is nothing yet on the other side. How could אביי understand his own statement according to his ruling that one can put that which causes damage next to the border of his neighbor until the neighbor put there something that can be damaged? However, later in the ,גמרא רבא explains the משנה according to ר' יוסי to mean that the digging itself causes damage. I do not how that helps אביי. If he means the wall itself is considered part of the pit that causes damage then he should say he can put it next to the border, and the other neighbor then has to keep his pit 6 handbreadths from the border. If on the other hand, he means only the hollow of the pit is what causes damage, then the way he reads the משנה is his direct refutation. He said he can put something that causes damage next to the border. Not three handbreadths from the border. Furthermore, how can any of this relate to the גמרא later in the approach of רבינו יצחקthat holds if one did something slightly wrong by putting his object next to the border, then the other can do the same. Does that mean the wall does the damage? Then that is like what he said. But if he means the hollow of the pit, then the two pits would be joined into one pit. But this was already answered by רבא that it is the digging that causes the damage. But still, I do not see how that helps אביי. Later note. After writing the above I saw that תוספות asks this question and answers it. But let me state the actual משנהand גמרא at this point to be clear. The משנהsays, “One must not dig a pit near the wall of his neighbor nor other type of thing that causes damage unless he moves away three handbreadths.” The גמרא asks “Why does the משנה change from ‘pit’ to ‘wall’?” אביי answered, “It means ‘the wall of the pit’”. The גמרא then asks, “If so, it should say, ‘One must not dig a pit near the pit of his neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths’”. The גמראanswered, “It comes to tell us the wall of a pit is three handbreadths.” תוספות says,” If it would say ‘the wall of the pit’ that would be proof to רבא and that is what the גמרא intends to ask. And then it answers for אביי, “It means the normal wall of a pit is three handbreadths.” This answers the question to some degree. It means that all the other kind of objects that cause damage have to be three handbreadths from the object that can be damaged. But here both pits cause damage. Thus, it cannot say, “You cannot dig a pit three handbreadths from the other pit” because each pit is required to be moved three handbreadths totaling six in all. So, it says, “You cannot dig a pit (that is the hollow space of the pit) within three handbreadths of the wall of the other pit”, and thus the separation will be six handbreadths. The problem I still have on this is the point in the discussion גמרא then asks, “If so, it should say, ‘One must not dig a pit near the pit of his neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths’ “That mean if אביי right it should say a pit three handbreadths from the other pit. That is, one hollow of a pit is at the boundary and the other mut be away three. But if אביי is right the other would have to be six away not three since each kind of damage must be three from that which can be damaged. The משנהwould have to be read one must move his pit six handbreadths from the pit of his neigbor if אביי would be right I would like to answer this question but with some reservation. First let me say that in the approach of ר' יוסי there is first come first served (permission of who comes first) and if אביי is going according to ר' יוסי then it is easy to see that if the משנה would say one cannot dig a pit next to the pit of his neighbor unless he moved away three handbreadths, then that would mean there is permission of who came first. The first pit does not have to move, and the second pit only has an obligation of moving three handbreadths away. If he does not want to be damaged by the first pit, then it is his prerogative to move away further. However, this answer would only work if אבייand ר' יוסי agree. However, in אביי himself, we do not see any kind of permission of first come first served. Only we ee if nothing else is next to the border, then he can put his thing there. But after something comes, we do not know what אביי would say

יש לי שתי שאלות על גישתו של רבינו יצחק בבא בתרא דף י''ח. שתיהן מתייחסות לתשובת רב פפא שהמשנה הוא מקרה של מכירה. בגישת הר''י המצב שלפני תשובת רב פפא הוא שהדבורים נמצאות בגבול, והן עושות נזק. השאלה היא על רבא, "אם כן איך מוצאים את זה?" אבל לאביי, אין שאלה כי בעל הדבורים עשה משהו מעט לא בסדר בכך ששם את הדבורים ליד הגבול שבו התכוון בעל החרדל לשים את החרדל שלו. למרות שמותר לעשות זאת לאביי, עדיין זה היה מעט שגוי. ואז רב פפא אומר שזה מקרה של מכירה. זה אומר להר''י שעכשיו החרדל בגבול והחכמים מחזיקים שהדבורים לא עושות נזק, אבל ר' יוסי שומר על ההנחה המקורית שהם עושות נזק, אבל מסכים שעכשיו החרדל בגבול. השאלה היא אם אתה מניח שהבעלים של הדבורים עשה משהו מעט לא בסדר בכך ששם את הדבורים שלו ליד הגבול, אז למה שלא יגיד את אותו הדבר עכשיו לגבי החרדל? ר' יוסי יכול לומר שהבעלים של החרדל עשה משהו מעט לא בסדר, ולכן בעל הדבורים יכול לשים את הדבורים ליד הגבול. עם זאת, ניתן לענות על שאלה זו כך. שינוי העמדה הוא גם לרבנן. אומרים שעכשיו הדבורים לא גורמות נזק אז איפה שהן נמצאות, יש להרחיק את החרדל ששה טפחים. על כך משיב ר' יוסי שהייתי אומר שאם הדבורים בגבול, בעל החרדל יכול לשים שם את החרדל בגלל שהדבורים עושות משהו רע, וגם אם החרדל בגבול גם בגלל עשיית עוולה, אז בעל הדבורים יכול לשים שם גם את הדבורה. אולם במקרה הראשון לא הייתי אומר לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים שכן מדובר במכירה. התכוונתי רק שאם החרדל כבר שם, אז הוא יכול להישאר. [כלומר שהוא מסכים שהחרדל עושה יותר נזק מהדבורים. לכן, הוא לא היה אומר לשים אותו ליד הדבורים במקרה שהדבורים כבר שם. אבל אם החרדל נמצא שם קודם הוא יכול להישאר ויש להניח שאפשר לשים את הדבורים לידו את החרדל.] (כוונתי היא שר' יוסי רק עונה את החכמים הם אומרים להרחיק את החרדל, והוא עונה לא צריך. "ר' יוסי מתיר.") שאלה נוספת היא שר' יוסי צריך לומר את אותו הדבר על שני הבורות. אבל תוספות כבר עונים על זה שבכל מקרה החפירה גורמת נזק, אז אף אחת מהן לא יכולה להיות ליד הגבול ואם כבר, צריך להזיז אותה

I have two questions on the approach of Rabainu Izhak in Bava Batra page 18.

I have two questions on the approach of Rabainu Izhak in Bava Batra page 18. Both relate to the answer of Rav Papa that the Mishna is a case of a sale. In the approach of the R"I (Rabainu Izhak), the situation before the answer of Rava Papa is the bees are at the border, and they do damage. The question is on Rava, "If so, how do we find this?" But to Abaye there is no question because the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees near the border where the owner of the mustard was going to put his mustard. Even though it is allowed to do so to Abaye, still it was slightly wrong. Then Rav Papa says it is a case of a sale. That means to R"I that now the mustard is at the border, and the sages hold the bees do no damage, but R. Jose keeps the original assumption that they do damage. He agrees that now the mustard is at the border. The question is if you assume the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting his bees next to the boundary, then why not say the same thing now about the mustard? R. Jose could say owner of the mustard did something slightly wrong, and so the owner of the bees can put the bees next to the boundary. However, this question can be answered thus. The changing of the position is also to the sages. They say now the bees do no damage, so where ever they are, the mustard must be kept away 6 handbreadths. To that R. Jose replies that “I would have said if the bees are at the border, the owner of the mustard can put the mustard there because of the bees doing something wrong. Also if the mustard is at the border (also because of wrong doing), then the owner of the bees can put the bees there also. However, in the first case I would not say to put the mustard next to the bee since it is a case of a sale. I only meant if the mustard is already there then it can stay.” [That means that he agrees the mustard does more damage than the bees. so, he would not say, "Put it next to the bees" in the case they bees are already there. But, if the mustard is there first, it can stay, and presumably the bees can be put next it the mustard.] Another question is that R. Jose ought to say the same thing about the two pits. But Tosphot already answered this that in any case the digging causes damage so neither one can be right next to the border and if it already, it needs to be moved._______________________________________________I have two questions on the approach of רבינו יצחק in בבא בתרא page י''ח. Both relate to the answer of רב פפא that the משנה is a case of a sale. In the approach of the הר''י the situation before the answer of רב פפא is the bees are at the border and they do damage the question is on רבא, "If so, how do we find this?" But to אביי there is no question because the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting the bees near the border where the owner of the mustard was going to put his mustard. Even though it is allowed to do so to אביי, still it was slightly wrong. Then רב פפא says it is a case of a sale. That mean to הר''י that now the mustard is at the border and the חכמים hold the bees do no damage, but ר' יוסי keeps the original assumption that they do damage, but agrees that now the mustard is at the border. The question is if you assume the owner of the bees did something slightly wrong by putting his bees next to the boundary, then why not say the same thing now about the mustard? ר' יוסי could say owner of the mustard did something slightly wrong, and so the owner of the bees can put the bees next to the boundary. However, this question can be answered thus. The changing of the position is also to theרבנן . They say now the bees do no damage so where ever they are, the mustard must be kept away ששה טפחים. To that ר' יוסי replies that I would have said if the bees are at the border, the owner of the mustard can put the mustard there because of the bee doing something wrong an also if the mustard is at the border also because of wrong doing, then the owner of the bees can put the bee there also. However, in the first case I would not say to put the mustard next to the bee since it is a case of a sale. I only meant if the mustard is already there then it can stay. [that means that he agrees the mustard does more damage than the bees. so, he would not say put it next to the bees in the case they bee are already there. But if the mustard is there first it can stay and presumably the bees can be put next it the mustard.] Another question is that ר' יוסי ought to say the same thing about the two pits. But תוספות already answered this that in any case the digging causes damage so neither one can be right next to the border and if it already, it needs to be moved.

First World Problems: Dating Michael Huemer Feb 18

First World Problems: Dating Michael Huemer Feb 18 “First world problems” are problems that only become salient when your basic physical needs are met. They’re not the worst problems; people in the third world regularly suffer from worse problems, such as malaria, malnutrition, and war, and they probably don’t think much about the sort of problems that we in the first world face. But since you probably live in the first world, first world problems are probably important to you. Among the biggest of these is the difficulty most people have with romantic and sexual relationships. So I’m going to talk about why this problem exists, why it’s bad, and how it might be addressed. 1. The Mating Problem If there is a God, He did not intend us for happiness. There are multiple fundamental aspects of life that are obvious recipes for pain and misery. For instance, there is the fact that all animals, to survive, must destroy other life. More broadly, there is the entropy law (the 2nd law of thermodynamics), which ensures that everything is destined for deterioration and requires a constant influx of energy to maintain. In spite of some huge problems like that, human beings have managed to do pretty well for ourselves. Technology solves for most of our physical needs. We can cure diseases and provide plentiful, nutritious foods through technology. We haven’t yet done that for everyone, but we’re getting there. But many of the first world problems appear to lie beyond the reach of technology, because the problem lies in our inherently incompatible desires. The mating problem is a collection of problems arising out of common human desires. (See my earlier posts, “Jerky Men and Crazy Women” and “Are Men and Women Different?”.) Most men desire multiple partners. However, there are not multiple times as many women as men, nor do many men want to share their partners with other men, so men’s desires are incompatible with each other. Nor do many women want to share their partners with other women, so men’s desires are also incompatible with women’s desires. Note: Among societies studied by anthropologists, 15% are strictly monogamous; 85% have polygamy. 0.3% have polyandry. Most men want women to be promiscuous with them, but they do not want women to be promiscuous with other men. Men want to have sex a lot more often than women do. (And, again, there are not multiple times more women than men in society.) Many, perhaps most people are unattractive. Unattractive people have just as strong desires for a mate as attractive people do, but people generally do not desire unattractive mates. Everyone wants to be with a highly attractive partner, but there are not enough of these. There is a particular shortage of attractive men (another way to put it: there is a shortage of female desire or feelings of attraction to typical males). While in a relationship, men and women have frequent problems due to their different desires and attitudes. They often have trouble understanding each other or relating to each other; hence the famous book title, “Men are from Mars; women are from Venus”. (I assume gay couples have an easier time.) To some extent, both sexes desire the sort of person who would make them unhappy. Women are often attracted to jerks (or attracted to traits that are positively correlated with jerkiness), which is an obvious recipe for unhappiness. Men, for their part, have traditionally wanted to get a woman with as few previous partners as possible, ideally a virgin. However, in a modern, free society, there are only two kinds of women who would be like this (after a certain age): (a) extremely unattractive women, and (b) women who do not like sex. Neither of these would make these men happy. Both sexes also greatly overemphasize appearance, which is not strongly correlated with ability to make a partner happy. 2. The Biggest First World Problem? This is among the biggest of the first world problems. a. It affects a huge number of people for a significant part of their lives. Maybe some super-attractive people are having an easy time, although I have even met super-attractive people who are still having a hard time. b. It affects us in one of the most important areas of our lives. Nature didn’t design us for making money, or just surviving, or being physically safe. Nature selects for reproduction. To Nature, everything else is instrumental to that. And the way we reproduce is through finding a mate. That is why Nature gave us very strong desires for a partner; the inability to find one, or to find a good one, is a source of huge dissatisfaction in life. The problem may be worsening. Increasing numbers of young people are not having sex. From 2000 to 2018, the portion of 18-24-year-old men who reported having no sex in the last year increased from 19% to 31% (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7293001/). This is a serious problem, since as discussed previously (“Are Men and Women Different”), evolution designed men (and this is especially true of young men) for general lust. I promise you that 31% of young men are not happy to be having no sex for over a year. For the benefit of female readers, the best way to explain it is to ask you to imagine that you wake up feeling hungry in the morning, and there’s no food. You remain hungry all day, and you go to bed hungry at night. The next day, the same thing happens. The next day, it happens again. And it’s just like that every day, all year. If this was your situation, that would be your biggest problem (unless you have malaria, or people are trying to kill you, or some crazy shit like that). Potential for violence Some people worry about the Young Male Syndrome, the phenomenon that young, single men are more prone to crime and violence. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-023-00219-w) There is a growing online community of “incels”, involuntarily celibate men, who are generally miserable, resentful, and have a very dark view of life. One article describes the incel community as a domestic terrorism threat and cites a whopping total of 50 incel murders in the U.S. (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/incels-americas-newest-domestic-terrorism-threat). In fact, the threat is surprisingly low. The above article didn’t specify the time period for the 50 murders, but it appears they included at least 2015-2019. For comparison, there were 72,781 total murders in the U.S. during that period. And there are tens to hundreds of thousands of members of the incel community (plus millions more who are involuntarily celibate but not members of an online community centered on such). So my guess is that the 50 murders make for a lower murder rate than the general male population, perhaps much lower. You might think that incels would be more prone to sexual violence, but there’s no indication of this. In surveys, incels are much less open to sexual violence than the general population of men. 20-30% of men report at least some willingness to commit rape if they could get away with it, compared to only 13% of incels. (https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2023/07/Whyisnttheremoreincelviolence.pdf) One hypothesis is that incels are generally more passive than average, which could explain both why they haven’t found a mate and why they are less prone to violence. Suicidality So the threat of external violence is overblown. But the threat of self-harm is not. The mating problem (the difficulty of finding mates) is part of the suicide problem, especially for men. Among males in general, suicide rates are four times higher than among women. Suicide rates in the U.S. have increased 30% in the last 20 years, with about 47,000 people killing themselves per year. This is much more than the number of homicides. Aside: You might ask: Why especially men? There are equal numbers of men and women, so if men are having trouble finding partners, then women must be having about as much trouble. (Unless we have a lot of polygyny in our society.) The answer, I believe, is that for men, finding a partner is a more urgent felt need. It’s not like the desire for a good career (a long-term concern, which you can spend years working on and still feel ok); it’s more like the desire to eat when you’re hungry. I am not just guessing at the celibacy-suicide link. In one poll, 67% of incels reported seriously considering suicide (https://www.adl.org/resources/article/online-poll-results-provide-new-insights-incel-community), compared to a rate of just 4% for the general population (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7101a1.htm). Previous work has shown a strong inverse relationship between reproductive prospects and suicidal ideation. For young men (age 18-30), lack of sex in the last month was the single strongest predictor of suicidality. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000550) For those who might be inclined to pooh-pooh the “sex shortage” problem, this should be something of a wake up call. To be clear, the problem is not just that tens of thousands of people are killing themselves each year. The problem is that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, are so miserable that the idea of killing themselves doesn’t sound unreasonable. Only a fraction of these people will actually kill themselves, but the suicidal ideation is just an indicator of how much suffering there is. Not being able to find a partner is not a trivial problem, like having too much dip for your chips; it is a life-ruining problem. Why is the incel problem underestimated? There is relatively little attention paid to the problem of involuntary celibacy in our society, and most discussion of the incel problem treats it purely as a problem of some bad men who have bad ideas and who might cause harm to others. (They’re misogynists! They’re terrorists!) I think this is partly because our society still has taboos around sex that prevent us from acknowledging that a shortage of sex is actually a serious problem; partly because neither women nor men care about the pain of unattractive men (these men are basically invisible); and partly because people who have romantic success either never knew or have forgotten the pain of not having it, and those people dominate our public conversations. 3. Solutions A certain amount of unhappiness appears to be built into the structure of human desires. Nevertheless, how could the mating problem be mitigated? Some ideas: Does pornography help single people cope? I doubt it. This is sort of like suggesting that, to mitigate world hunger, we should give hungry people pictures of food. The hungry people might spend time looking at the pictures instead of trying to find real food, but I don’t think this would make them happy. And of course, pornography does little for women. Prostitution: This should of course be legalized. However, this wouldn’t be of interest to most women, and it isn’t a great solution even for men, since men need to develop real relationships with people who actually want to have sex with them. Robot partners: These are probably coming, and they will probably ease some of the suffering of single people. With AI, these robots will not just provide sex; they’ll also provide pseudo-relationships, for both male and female users. Problem: These robot partners may supplant real (conscious, human) partners. This may prevent people from learning how to, or being motivated to, develop real relationships, which will keep people in a second-best state. It would also exacerbate the problem of declining fertility, which may be a complete disaster for our society. Optimisitically, perhaps robot partners could help people by giving them practice in interacting with the opposite sex in a low-stakes situation (because the other “party” isn’t actually conscious). Perhaps the robots could provide feedback which would help people improve their interaction skills. That’s possible, but to be honest, the “supplanting real relationships” option seems more likely to actually occur. Attractiveness: We need more attractive people. Technology can help with that. Weight-loss drugs can help people be more attractive as well as healthier. We should make them available over the counter. We can develop food additives that make food delicious without being fattening. Perhaps we can develop easy ways of becoming healthy without having to do tedious or unpleasant exercises. What if there was a pill you could take to get jacked? Perhaps the world should follow South Korea’s lead in using cosmetic surgery to make everyone more beautiful. Perhaps we will use genetic engineering to create generations who are born attractive. Perhaps we could make it so that virtually all men are taller than virtually all women, we could engineer out social anxiety, etc. Perhaps we can change our own desires, either through drugs or through genetic engineering, so that our desires wouldn’t be so incompatible. E.g., maybe we could engineer less jealous people, men with lower sex drive, and women with higher sex drive, so that they would match each other. We can also try developing cultural norms with the same effect. But I sense that we’ve already done about as much in that direction as we can.

סיכום הגישה של הר''י בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב

אין סיבה לחבר אוטומטית את מושג "החצים שלו" בעמוד כ''ב עם הגישה של ר' יוסי בעמוד 18. יכול להיות שיש קשר, אבל זה לא אוטומטי. כאן ברצוני ללמוד את סוגיא בעמוד י''ח לפי רבינו יצחק (הר''י) ומה תהיה המסקנה הסופית. המסקנה הסופית היא שר' יוסי סבור שזה על החפץ שניתן להינזק שיועבר רק במקרה של מכירה. אבל במצב של שני שכנים בלבד, כל דבר שיכול לגרום נזק צריך להזיז שלושה טפחים מהגבול לפי החוק שקבע רבא. במשנה שלנו כאן של החרדל והדבורים וגיגית הפשתן והירקות, ר' יוסי מחזיק שלא צריך להזיז את החרדל ולא את הגיגית כי זה מקרה של מכירה. וכן, זה יהיה המקרה של דף כ''ה עם העץ והבור. אין צורך להזיז את העץ כי לר' יוסי זה גם מקרה של מכירה. כעת רבא ור' יוסי מסכימים שכל דבר שיכול לגרום נזק במצב שאינו מכירה צריך להזיז. אבל האם זה אומר שר' יוסי מסכים עם כל שאר הנזקים בפרק זה? יכול להיות שהוא מסכים במקרים האלה ולא בגלל "החצים שלו", אלא פשוט בגלל שהוא מסכים עם כל שאר המקרים שהם גורמים נזק. זה לא קשור לרעיון חיציו בעמוד 22. בעמ' 22 נאמר שר' יוסי מסכים עם החכמים במקרה של חיציו. זה אומר שגם במקרה של מכירה, ר' יוסי יסכים עם החכמים שיש להזיז את כל מיני החפצים שיכולים לגרום נזק אם הם החצים שלו. אבל זה לא בהכרח קשור לגמרא שלנו בעמוד י''ח. כאן ר' יוסי חולק על החכמים בכל מקרה של מכירה. בכל שאר המשניות כנראה שבמקרה של מכירה הוא גם לא יסכים. אם אתה הולך עם הרעיון שר' יוסי מסכים במקרה של החצים שלו בעמוד 22, אז רבינו חננאל מחזיק כל המשניות בפרק זה הם החצים שלו ורש''י לא מסכים. זה כנראה מבוסס על הגמרא שלנו כאן בעמוד 18 שאומר במסקנתו שר' יוסי ניסה לשכנע את החכמים בעניין החרדל והדבורים. אבל הוא חולק עליהם גם לגבי המקרה של הגיגית והירקות. זו עשויה להיות סיבה לומר שר' יוסי חולק על כל שאר המקרים בפרק זה

The conclusion of Rabbainu Izhak in Bava Batra page 18

There is no reason to automatically connect the concept of his arrows on page 22 with the approach of R Jose on page 18. There might be a connection, but it is not automatic. Here I would like to learn the sugia on page 18 according to Rabbainu Izhak, and what would be the ultimate conclusion. The ultimate conclusion is that R Jose holds it is upon the object that can be damaged to be moved only in a case of a sale. But in a situation of just two neighbors, anything that can cause damage has to move three handbreadths from the border a per the law stated by Rava. In our mishna here of the mustard and bees and the tub of linen and vegetables, R Jose holds nor the mustard nor the tub have to be moved because this is a case of a sale. And also, that would be the case of page 25 with the tree and pit. The tree does not have to be moved because to R Jose that is also a case of a sale. Now Rava and R Jose agree that anything that can cause damage in a situation that is not a sale has to be moved. But does that mean that R Jose agrees with all the other kinds of damage in this chapter? It might be that he agrees in these cases, and not because of his arrows, but simply because he agrees with all the other cases that they cause damage. This does not relate to the idea of his arrows on page 22 On page 22 it is stated that R Jose agrees with the sages in the case of his arrows. That would mean that even in a case of a sale, R. Jose would agree with the sages that all the kinds of objects that can cause damage have to be moved if they are his arrows. But that does not necessarily relate to our gemara on page 18. Here R Jose disagrees with the sages in any case of a sale. In all the other mishnayot presumably in the case of a sale he would also disagree. (If you go with the idea that R Jose agrees in a case of his of his arrows on page 22, then then Rabbainu Chnanel holds all the mishnayot in this chapter are his arrows and Rashi disagrees based on our gemara here on page 18 that says in its conclusion that R Jose was trying to convince the sages about the case of mustard and bees, but in fact he disagrees with them also about the tub and vegetables. That might be a reason to say that R Jose disagrees in all the other cases in this chapter.) ____________________________________________________________________________ There is no reason to automatically connect the concept of his arrows on page כ''ב with the approach of ר' יוסי on page 18. There might be a connection, but it is not automatic. Here I would like to learn the סוגיא on page י''ח according to רבינו יצחק (הר''י)and what would be the ultimate conclusion. The ultimate conclusion is that ר' יוסי holds it is upon the object that can be damaged to be moved only in a case of a sale. But in a situation of just two neighbors, anything that can cause damage has to move three handbreadths from the border as per the law stated by רבא. In our משנה here of the mustard and bees and the tub of linen and vegetables, ר' יוסי holds nor the mustard nor the tub have to be moved because this is a case of a sale. Also, that would be the case of page כ''ה with the tree and pit. The tree does not have to be moved because to ר' יוסי that is also a case of a sale. Now רבא and ר' יוסי agree that anything that can cause damage in a situation that is not a sale has to be moved. But does that mean that ר' יוסי agree with all the other kind of damage in this chapter? It might be that he agrees in these cases and not because of his arrows, but simply because he agrees with all the other cases that they cause damage. This does not relate to the idea of his arrows on page 22 On page 22 it is stated that ר'יוסי agrees with the חכמים in the case of his arrows. That would mean that even in a case of a sale ר' יוסי would agree with the חכמים that all the kinds of objects that can cause damage have to be moved if they are his arrows. But that does not necessarily relate to our גמרא on page 18. Here ר' יוסי disagrees with the חכמים in any case of a sale. in all the other משניות presumably in the case of a sale he would also disagree.(If you go with the idea that ר' יוסי agree in a case of his of his arrows on page 22 then then רבינו חננאל holds all the משניות in this chapter are his arrows and רש''י disagrees based on our גמרא here on page 18 that says in its conclusion that ר' יוסי was trying to convince the חכמים about the case of mustard and bees, but in fact he disagrees with them also about the tub and vegetables. That might be a reason to say that ר' יוסי disagrees in all the other cases in this chapter.) ________

za68 in F Minor a Midi File za68 a nwc file