בבא קמא דף כ''ב ע''א . עלו לי שלוש שאלות. אחת על ריש לקיש. אחת על איך רש''י מסביר ריש לקיש, ואחרת על איך ר' חננאל מסביר ריש לקיש. הסוגיא הבסיסית היא זו. ריש לקיש אמר ששריפה חייבת בנזק מלא בגלל נזק שנגרם לרכוש. בעוד ר' יוחנן אוחז שאש חייבת כי זו כמו חיצים. לרי''ף ורש''י, הרעיון של ר' יוחנן הוא שהאש חייבת כאילו אחד בעצמו גרם נזק, לא רכושו) כפי שהיה קורה אם השור שלו גרם נזק. (הגמרא שואל שאלה על ריש לקיש מהמשנה. לכלב יש כיכר עם פחם בתוכו והולך וגורם לערימה להישרף. את תשלום של הלחם הוא נזק שלם, ובגלל הערימה חצי נזק. השאלה מהמשנה הזו על ריש לקיש היא שהפחם לא שייך לבעלים של הכלב. ריש לקיש עונה שהמקרה של המשנה הוא שהכלב זרק את הלחם עם הפחם בתוכו על הערימה, ומחויב או בגלל שזהו שינוי מהדרך הרגילה ובכך אחראי בחצי נזק כמו קרן התם או בגלל צרורות. (אם הכלב היה מניח אותו על הערימה, הבעלים של הכלב היה אחראי במלוא הנזק.) השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהשאלה והתשובה אינן מתאימות זו לזו. השאלה הייתה מדוע הבעלים של הכלב צריך להיות אחראי בכלל? אחרי הכל, זה לא הפחם שלו. תשובה: בעל הכלב אחראי בגלל שינוי או צרורות? איך זה עונה על השאלה? הפחם עדיין לא שייך לו. תשובה לכך יכולה להיות שהגמרא בשלב זה חושב שבעל הפחם יישא באחריות אם לא ישמור על גחלתו. אבל כדי למצוא כיצד הבעלים של הכלב עלול להיות אחראי גם, ריש לקיש מוצא את התרחיש הזה שבו הכלב זרק אותו. כך אפשר להסביר את המשנה שהתשלום הוא חצי נזק. (מאוחר יותר, הגמרא למעשה, גורסת שבעל הפחם אכן שמר על הפחם שלו.) עכשיו, רבינו חננאל אמר שהתשובה של ריש לקיש היא שהכלב זרק את הפחם, ואז הפחם לא עזב את תחום בעל הפחם. זה בהתייחסות למסכת שבת שבה (אני חושב שאני זוכר אולי) יש דעה שנחיתה לא אותו דבר כמו להרים ולהניח. בדרך כלל צריך להרים ולהניח ארבע אמות, או מתחום אחד לשני, אבל איך זה עונה על השאלה על ריש לקיש? למה בעלים של הכלב חייב?ויש לשאול שאלה נוספת. ר' יוחנן אמר שהחובה לאש היא בגלל חיציו, וריש לקיש לא הסכים לזה כי חיציו נעים מכוח האדם, ואילו האש נעה מעצמה. מכיוון שכך, אני שואל לפי ריש לקיש מדוע הבעלים של הכלב לא יצטרך לשלם עבור כל הערימה? הרי לריש לקיש אין צורך שחובת האש תהיה נעה רק מכוחו הישיר של האדם שהדליק. מספיק שהוא הדליק אותו, והוא נע ברוח רגילה

i was at a litvak beit midrash which is different than a yeshiva. A yeshiva is built for a certain age group 18-24; while a beit midrash is for all ages -who ever wants to come and learn Torah. so I my area there is such a place and I was there thinking about Reish Lakish in Bava Kama page 22a and three questions occurred to me. One on reish lakish. one on how Rashi explains Reish Lakish, and another on how Rabbainu Chananel explains Reish Lakish, but later on the way to the seashore an answer for Rashi occurred to me. the basic idea is this Reish Lakish said that fire is obligated in full damage because of nizkei mamon damage due to one’s property. While R Yochanan holds fire is obligated because it is like one’s arrows. To the Rif and Rashi, the idea of R Yochanan is that fire is obligated as if one himself caused damage, not hi property a would be the case if hi ox caused damage. The gemara asks a question on Reish Lakish the from the mishna. A dog has a loaf with a coal in it and goes and causes a stack to get burnt up. the damage for the loaf i full damage and payment for the stack is half damage. the question from this mishna on reish lakish is that the coal does not belong to the owner of the dog. Reish Lakish answers the case of the mishna is where the dog threw the loaf with the coal inside it on the stack. Thus, the payment for the loaf is full damage, for the place the coal landed is half damage, and he is not obligated at all for the rest of the stack. Rashi explains this statement thus. If throwing the loaf and coal is obligated either because it i a change from the normal way and thus liable in half damage like horn of a tame animal or because of pebbles. If he would have put it down on the stack, the owner of the dog would be liable in full damage. the question I have here is that the question and answer to not fit together. The question was, why should the owner of the dog be liable at all? After all, it is not his coal. Answer: The owner of the dog is liable because of change or pebbles? How does that answer the question? The coal still does not belong to him. An answer to this might be that the gemara at this point is thinking that the owner of the coal would be liable if he did not guard his coal. But to find how the owner of the dog might also be liable Reish Lakish find this scenario i where the dog threw it. In that way it is possible to explain the mishna that the payment is half damage. Later the gemara in fact holds that the owner of the coal did in fact guard his coal. Now Rabbainu Chananel said the answer of Reish Lakish is that the dog threw the coal, so the coal has not left the domain of the owner of the coal. This is in reference to Tracate shabat where (I think I recall) there is an opinion (or maybe all opinions? I forget!) is that throwing and landing are not the same thing as picking up and putting down. Normally to be obligated for carrying on shabat one needs to pick up and put down four cubits away or from one domain to another by which the domain is changed. how ever how does this answer the question on Reish Lakish? The question was why is the owner of the dog liable anything and we answer that there is a reason to make the owner of the coal liable. This does not follow. A third question is this. R Yochanan said that the obligation for fire is because of his arrows. Reish Lakih disagreed with this because his arrows move from the force of the person while fire moves on its own accord. This being so, I ask according to Reish Lakish why should the owner of the dog not have to pay for the whole stack? After all, to Reish Lakis there is no need for the obligation of force to be moving only from the direct force of the person that lite it. It is enough that he lite it, and the it moves by a common wind. ___________________________________________________________________ קמא page כ''ב ע''א . three questions occurred to me. One on ריש לקיש. one on how רש''י explains ריש לקיש, and another on how ר' חננאל explains ריש לקיש _______ the basic סוגיא is this. ריש לקיש said that fire is obligated in full damage because of damage due to one’s property. While ר’ יוחנן holds fire is obligated because it is like one’s arrows. To the רי''ף and רש''י, the idea of ר’ יוחנן is that fire is obligated as if one himself caused damage, not his property) as would be the case if his ox caused damage (. The גמרא asks a question on ריש לקיש the from the משנה. A dog has a loaf with a coal in it and goes and causes a stack to get burnt up. The damage for the loaf is full damage, and payment for the stack is half damage. The question from this משנה on ריש לקיש is that the coal does not belong to the owner of the dog. ריש לקיש answers the case of the משנה is where the dog threw the loaf with the coal inside it on the stack. Thus, the payment for the loaf is full damage, for the place the coal landed is half damage, and he is not obligated at all for the rest of the stack. רש''י explains this statement thus. If throwing the loaf and coal is obligated either because it is a change from the normal way and thus liable in half damage like horn of a קרן התם or because of צרורות. If הכלב would have put it down on the stack, the owner of the dog would be liable in full damage. The question I have here is that the question and answer Do not fit together WELL. The question was, why should the owner of the dog be liable at all? After all, it is not his coal. Answer: The owner of the dog is liable because of change or צרורות? How does that answer the question? The coal still does not belong to him. An answer to this might be that the גמרא at this point is thinking that the owner of the coal would be liable if he did not guard his coal. But to find how the owner of the dog might also be liable ריש לקיש finds this scenario where the dog threw it. In that way, it is possible to explain the משנה that the payment is half damage. )Later the גמרא, in fact, holds that the owner of the coal did, in fact, guard his coal.( Now, רבינו חננאלsaid the answer of ריש לקיש is that the dog threw the coal, so the coal has not left the domain of the owner of the coal. This is in reference to מסכת שבת where (I think I recall) there is an opinion (or maybe all opinions? I forget!) is that throwing and landing are not the same thing as picking up and putting down. Normally to be obligated for carrying on שבת one needs to pick up and put down four cubits away, or from one domain to another by which the domain is changed. However how does this answer the question on ריש לקיש? The question was why is the owner of the dog liable anything? and we answer that there is a reason to make the owner of the coal liable. This does not follow. A third question is this. ר’ יוחנן said that the obligation for fire is because of his arrows. ריש לקיש disagreed with this because his arrows move from the force of the person, while fire moves on its own accord. This being so, I ask according to ריש לקיש why should the owner of the dog not have to pay for the whole stack? After all, to ריש לקישthere is no need for the obligation of force to be moving only from the direct force of the person that lit it. It is enough that he lite it, and the it moves by a common wind.

Kant, and Leonard Nelson

I have a natural inclination toward philosophy and thus it is a bias that I see it as important. But even if I am biased towards it, in Middle Ages it was also considered important in the important formulation of the Middle Ages, faith and reason. But in the period from the fall of Rome until about the time of the Rambam, it was Plato who was foremost. Then slowly, the emphasis changed toward Aristotle. That started with the fact that the Muslim world had always been more interested in Aristotle than Plato. But with the Rambam, that changed toward Aristotle and the with Aquinas that set the stage even for Europe. That of course puttered out with Bacon. Philosophy in itself began to deal with a new set of problems; the Mind body problem, and politics; until a kind of synthesis came about in Kant, and Leonard Nelson. so now, I think that if we would go with the Medieval authorities that saw philosophy as important like The Rambam, then we ought to study Kant. But clearly there are plenty of people who reject any learning of philosophy at all. still, I tend not to agree with that. evil.

za71 B Flat minor midiza71 nwc

בבא קמא דף כ'''ב הגמרא אומרת שהכלב עם הלחם והפחם גורם לשריפה של ערימה שזה "חיצי הכלב", ולכן חייב רק בחצי נזק. אבל באותו עמוד מובא מקרה אחר שבו נכנס גמל עמוס בפשתן לחנות והיה נר דולק בתוך החנות. הפשתן עלה באש, והחנות נשרפה. הגמרא קובע שחייבים בנזק מלא, אף על פי שהם גם "חיצי הגמל". מה ההבדל בין חיצי הכלב שעליהם משלם הבעלים חצי נזק, לבין חיצי הגמל שעליהם הוא משלם נזק מלא

Bava Kama pg 22

In Bava Kama pg 22 I am wondering why when the we say the dog with the loaf and coal cause a stack to get burnt up that is the “arrows of the dog” and so obligated only for half damage, but on the same page when the camel loaded with linen goes into a store, and the linen catches fire, and the store is burnt, that is obligated in full damage even though it also is the “arrows of the camel.”

"I don't need no man" school of feminism. By Dr Kelley Ross. My mom told me: “To marry a nice Jewish girl." "Nice" and "Jewish" are two separate conditions.

American men get the drift that indoctrinated women are really all but hostile, with them finding it difficult to explain why they are open to dating at all. We also get a new ideology among men that women are not worth the trouble, to date or to marry, especially with family law weighted against men in divorce and custody disputes. "I don't need no man" school of feminism. So here, in response to the question, "No kids! What are you going to do when you're old?" we see an older woman relaxing with a drink in a chair by the pool, under an umbrella, with a stack of books to read and another person, perhaps a Black gentleman, in the adjacent chair. Of course, not everyone can afford this kind of retirement; the man is liable to die before her; and she is then left alone, perhaps without any family. That is the fate of many older women, who may die, as well as live, alone. Hopefully, days will not pass before her body is discovered. We are only missing the cats to complete the picture. We do get a kind of self-satisfied, smug smile, as though this is the best kind of life. All this reinforces the sort of feminist ideology of isolation and self-sufficiency that we often get now. In response, we also get a new ideology among men that women are not worth the trouble, to date or to marry, especially with family law weighted against men in divorce and custody disputes. Indeed, organizers have been discovering that "singles" events sometimes draw few, or no, men. This is a phenomenon, not just in the West, but in China, Korea, and Japan also, where marriage and even sex seem to be declining in popularity. American men get the drift that indoctrinated women are really all but hostile, with them finding it difficult to explain why they are open to dating at all. In March, 2025, a contestant on the Netflix show “Love Is Blind” broke off her engagement at the altar beause she suddenly decided that the groom was insufficiently political, with the "right" politics. He didn't even care about the fraudulent travesty, "Black Lives Matter." Truly, he is clearly better off. Next, at right, we get a purer version of "I don't need no man." What a man likes is irrelevant because a feminist is not in the business of pleasing anyone else. In fact, I don't know how often a man is liable to offer advice like this. It is more likely he will just check out if this woman represents something that "no man wants." Indeed, the "we don't care" may be a deal breaker all on its own. The "we" in this presumably means all women -- none of them are to care what a man thinks -- although it may just be the Royal We, which fits the attitude. The key thing, however, is that the woman here doesn't care what he likes or wants. She is not in the business of pleasing anyone but herself. I think this is called being "self-centered" or "narcissistic"; and I thought that it was only Ayn Rand who advocated the "virtue of selfishness." Isn't it only Capitalism that promotes the atomization of society? Would this feminist ever be able to buy this guy a Christmas or birthday present, if she never knows what he likes? Seems like she would just buy something that she likes, which will persuade the fellow that she really doesn't care about him. So we see the autism and isolation of this ideology. The accusation is always that the "patriarchy" wants women to live entirely for others, but here this is the polar opposite, to live with no concern for anyone else at all, headed towards the solitary old age and death as noted above. Or, after all, there are convents. Then, we might consider the cartoon at left. This at least concedes that a woman might be happy and fulfilled in a marriage with children. But, of course, it is balanced, at least, with the solitary and self-satisfied representative on the right. The terminology is also interesting, with each woman labelled as "complete." But we also might wonder if the implication here is that Black women marry because they are not capable of the self-sufficiency of the white woman. Sounds like a bit of racism, even as Molnar is trying to virtue-signal by showing an interracial marriage. Of course, some people are happy being alone; and there can be communities of people without children or even marriage. Which is why I mention convents. "Retirement" communities try to create little societies where people can be happy even while family and others are dying, or senile, around them. Perhaps the woman above is not by a pool at her own home but by the common pool of such a place. They play bingo or string beads for amusement. However, retirement communities are an "end of life" provision. The woman on the right, with her pizza and coffee, doesn't look ready for retirement. Instead, she is the ideal of solitary contentment. But, for most people, this is exceptional; yet it is the ideal promoted by this kind of feminism, and by Leiney Molnar. It is the sort of thing that is contrary, not only to most religious traditions, but to the principles of Darwinian Evolution. In other words, solitary self-satisfaction is not a good survival or reproductive strategy. Indeed, with some animals, like tigers, the females mate, conceive, and raise the young on their own. This is also a provision in feminist ideology, where "single motherhood" is just as "complete" as anything else. Unfortunately, human beings are not tigers; and we know that children raised by single mothers disproportionately suffer from a multitude of social and developmental problems, not the least of which is a greater incidence of criminal activity. Also, most single mothers are not professional white women but live at much lower income levels, say, from waitressing (where the IRS taxes tips, which are gifts, as income - which Trump has promised to stop), if not no income. Darwinian survival is no small consideration. Married women are the safest people in modern society, despite the Left wishing to portray marriage as hellscapes of domestic abuse. No, lowlife boyfriends are the threat of domestic violence, including against children, and Lesbian relationships can be just as violent as heterosexual ones. The former may be more common in low income circumstances, especiallly if the boyfriends are parasitic on the women, and not the natural fathers of the children. Male lions who take over a pride, as we know, kill the cubs of the lionesses. Next, at right, we've got a woman complaining about birth control pills, while the man complains, in what we are expected to take as in a trivial and dismissive way, about condoms. Actually, the problem with condoms is that they blanket all the sexually sensitive parts of the male anatomy. This reduces sensation, which otherwise is the point of engaging is sex beyond reproductive purposes, in which condoms would be counterproductive anyway. The problem with the woman's complaint, in turn, is that she doesn't need to use the Pill for birth control. Yet the Pill was presented, and has been celebrated for years, as the easiest way to make women as casual about sex as men can be. Nevertheless, as she complains, there can be side effects, which may be serious enough that they counterindicate the use of the drug. On the other hand, some women use the Pill therapeutically, for instance to regularize their menses. Thus, the complaint here about the Pill may be valid, but it will only apply to a subset of women, while the cartoon gives us the impression that it is the general experience of all women on the Pill. So this is a misrepresentation. My first wife was suspicious of what the Pill did to her sexual libido, but she otherwise seemed to have no complaints about it. At the same time, this woman doesn't need to use the Pill. I had a girlfriend who only used a diaphram, and she seemed pleased enough with its use. There also used to be contraceptive sponges, but in 1994 these were no longer available because when the maker (Whitehall-Robins Healthcare) wanted to change factories, the FDA required that the devices be re-certified, which the maker did not want to pay for. Now I've seen that there was some contamination in the factory, and the maker didn't want to upgrade the equipment. That is not what I heard at the time. Sponges have been reintroduced, but also withdrawn again, at least three times. The loss of this device was even the subject of an episode of Seinfeld (The Sponge, S7:E9, December 7, 1995). There seemed to be little protest about the loss of the sponges from Establishment feminism. The FDA may have jerked women around, but, apparently, it is above accountability to the public. Typical for the Administrative State. The rest of the woman's complaint in the cartoon is about the horror of pregnancy. In that case, "I have to go through a traumatic abortion" (unlike Lena Dunham's infamous wish that she had had an abortion, since it sounded like a feminist sacrament), or she must tolerate destroying her life by actually having children, which, as we have seen, seems to be a fate worse than death. All this because the male is so selfish and insensitive that he doesn't want to inhibit his sexual response with a condom. Obviously, none of this will be beneficial for either of them. Finally, at left we see a celebration of divorce. But every divorce will be a failure of something, whether it is a failure of judgment, of maturity, or perhaps the moral failure of one of the partners. If the nature of the failure is not recognized, then the "new beginning" very likely will be the preparation for another failure. I know both men and women who've been through four marriages. The vibe we get from the cartoon, however, is more like that marriages are disposable and that now it is time to move on for some more fun. The moral failing in that case might well be of the woman pictured. The moral shallowness of all this is much like the advertisement we see here for a divorce lawyer: The implication is that the gentleman on the sign, unless he gets a divorce, is missing out on the busty woman standing in front of it. And perhaps she can tolerate using the Pill. This should be a clue that the problem here with feminism is part of a larger problem of which this kind of feminism is only one exemplar. The appeal about divorce is to hedonism. The dismissal of marriage and children is an expression of nihilism, whose only serious goal could be the extinction of life. None of that is possible without the rejection of the value of any religious tradition, which means that, in the West, it is fallout from atheism. The belief in ancient Greece, Rome, India, and China that reproduction is a duty to our ancestors is something that, naturally, no one believes now -- unless it is in India and China (where offerings to ancestors are still made at Ch'ing Ming). The rejection of hedonism and the diagnosis of nihilism following from atheism is, of course, characteristic of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's solution was to substitute the pursuit of power for any of the old features of religious belief. This did not improve matters. Those pursuing power murdered many millions of people in the 20th Century, although their program was often dressed up with a rhetoric of Marxist "liberation." Yet somehow "liberation" always involved luxury for the rulers and tyranny, slavery, and poverty for everyone else. Establishment feminism is, naturally, like all the political Left, mad for power. This is incompatible with hedonism, as we indeed see in the feminist anaesthesia and anhedonia that poison cultural discourse and even popular entertainment. Nevertheless, as examined above, there is a parallel appeal that offers pleasure and irresponsibility to vulnerable and gullible women. Blow off men, family, and children and you will be happy, like the Davos Supervillains telling people they will own nothing and will be happy, sitting in their corporate cubicles, in an office where there is no social life because the men expect that any interaction with the women beyond business necessities will result in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Unfortunately, many women may buy into this until youth and fertility are gone (called "hitting the wall") and they are left with the isolation that has been sold to them. Hedonism and nihilism take a toll, morally and physically. That is the end of the essay by Dr Ross. My own input to this is to mention that my Mom told me “To marry a nice Jewish girl" and that these are separate conditions.