עכשיו הסתכלתי ברב שך בהלכות ניזקי ממון י''ג הלכה י''ט והוא מצביע על הגמרא בבא קמא דף ו' ע''א. משם מצאתי תשובה לשאלה שהרב שך מביא על הרמב''ם. שם רואים פעמיים שיכולה להיות סיבה לחשוב שאם עדיין יש ברשותו אבן, סכין או חבילה או עץ או קיר שנפלו לרשות הרבים וגרמו לנזק, שיש יותר סיבה לעשותו פטור. וחוץ מזה אני יכול לראות את הסיבה מאחורי זה. אם בכל זאת יש את הסכין או אבן, אזי הוא מתכוון לאסוף, ואם הם גורמים נזק לפני שהספיק לאסוף אותם, אזי אין הוא חייב באחריות שכן אין זו אשמתו. הסיבה הזו אנו מוצאים בדף כ''ב בבא קמא שם היה קיר שנפל ונמלט אש וגרם נזק, ולבעל האש לא היה אפשרות עדיין לתקן את הקיר. הוא אינו אחראי כי זו לא אשמתו (שכן לא הייתה לו הזדמנות לתקן זאת עדיין). אבל אם הפקיר את הרסיסים ברשות הרבים יש יותר סיבה להטיל עליו אחריות שכן הוא מתכוון להשאיר שם את החפצים המזיקים, ולעולם אין בדעתו להסירם. בְּסֵדֶר. עכשיו אחרי שאמרתי את זה תן לי להביא את הגמרא. כתוב שאביי אמר שהמשנה בוא לכלול את האבן, הסכין או החבילה שלו שהוא שם על הגג, והם נפלו בגלל רוח רגילה. ביקשה הגמרא על זה שאם הפקיר אותם ברשות הרבים, זה מקרה רגיל של חפירת בור ברשות הרבים. אז במקום זאת הגמרא מציעה שמכיוון שזה ברור מדי, אז זה חייב להיות שהמשנה באה לכלול כאשר הוא לא נטש אותם. בשלב זה בגמרא, אנו רואים שיש יותר סיבה להפוך אותו לפטור כאשר הוא עדיין בעל האבן או הסכין כי אנו צריכים לכלול אותם. אותו רעיון חוזר בעמוד ו' ע''א שרבינא אמר שהמשנה באה לספר לנו על קיר או עץ שנפלו לרשות הרבים, שהם חייבים. אם הוא נטש אותם, אז זה ברור, ואין שום סיבה שהמשנה תגיד לנו את זה. אז דווקא המקרה הוא כאשר הוא לא נטש אותם, ושם נוכל לחשוב שהוא לא חייב. אז אנחנו צריכים שהמשנה תגיד לנו שהוא אחראי. לכן, גם כאן אנו רואים שיש יותר סיבה לגרום לו להיות פטור כאשר הוא עדיין בעל העץ והחומה. לכן אתה צריך שהמשנה תבוא ותכלול אותה. כל זה בא לענות על השאלה הזו. ר''מ כותב שאם נפל קיר או עץ לרשות הרבים, אין הוא חייב באחריות למרות שנטש אותם. בדרך כלל, אתה אומר שככה זה המצב למרות שיש סיבה כזו או אחרת שמתנגדת לזה. אז הנה ר''מ אומר שהוא לא אחראי למרות שיש סיבה זו שמתנגדת לזה. הסיבה היא שהוא נטש אותם. אבל אם הוא נטש אותם, זה נראה יותר סיבה לגרום לו לא להיות אחראי. אז התשובה היא מה שכתבתי למעלה. אם נטש אותם, הוא צריך להיות ______________________________ עם זאת, אני רוצה להביא כאן כיצד רב שך עונה על שאלה זו על ר''מ. הוא אומר שהכוונה היא שבעל הבור נטש את תחום הבור שלו, וכך השטח הזה הופך לרשות הרבים וכבר אנו יודעים שבור חייב רק ברשות הרבים, ולכן למרות שנטש את הבור ואת השטח ההוא, עדיין אינו חייב אלא אם כן הייתה אזהרה מטעם בית הדין. אם הייתה אזהרה של בית המשפט להסיר את החומה והעץ וחלפו יותר משלושים יום, אזי הוא חייב. התשובה הזו ברורה. אולם, עדיין יש לי שאלה בסוף הפרק ההוא ברב שך שם הוא אומר שהסיבה שהר''מ לא הביא את דין אביי שאם הביא את אבנו, סכינו או חבילתו לגג ונפלו ברוח רגילה, הוא חייב באחריות כי זה על אחת כמה וכמה שניתן בקלות להסיק ממקרה הקיר והעץ שנפלו. לי זה נראה קשה להבין כי הר"מ אומר שהחומה והעץ אינם אחראים. לכן, אינך יכול ללמוד מהם אחריות למצב אחר, אלא אם כן במקרה האחר הזהיר אותו בית המשפט ועברו יותר משלושים יום. אבל מעולם לא שמענו על התנאים הללו במקרה של אבייאחראי שכן בכוונתו להשאירם ברשות הרבים. אך למרות זאת, הוא אינו אחראי. --יתר על כן, יש לי שאלה נוספת על התשובה הזו של רב שך. {תשובתו היא שברגע שנדע את הדין על החומה והעץ שנפלו, אז נוכל לדעת על האבן שעל הגג. השאלה שיש לי היא זו. אביי אומר שאנחנו לומדים את האחריות של האבן על הגג מהמכנה המשותף בין בור ואש. כי אולי הייתם אומרים שאין אחריות על סכין האבן והאריזה שעל הגג כי יש כוח אחר שפועל עליהם מלבד כוח הבעלים, זה הרוח. ובכן, אנחנו יכולים לענות על ההתנגדות הזאת מאש. כי כשם שהאש חייבת למרות שכוח אחר פועל עליה, כך גם האבן והסכין שעל הגג אחראים. עכשיו, איך נוכל לדעת את זה מהמקרה של החומה והעץ שנפלו? כי במקרה זה אמר רבינא שאנו יודעים שהם חייבים בגלל בור ושור. שהרי אולי היית אומר שאולי אין הם צריכים להיות אחראים כי לא נעשו מלכתחילה לעשות נזק, ובכן נוכל לענות כי גם שור לא נעשה מלכתחילה לעשות נזק, ובכל זאת הוא אחראי. כך גם העץ והחומה שנפלו צריכים להיות אחראים. אבל אם היינו יודעים את כל זה, איך נוכל ללמוד למקרה שבו כוח אחר פועל על הדבר הגורם לנזק? אולי זה לא יהיה אחראי עד שנלמד את זה מאיפשהו. אז אני מתקשה להבין את התשובה הזו של רב שך

Rav Shach in laws of damage 13 law 19 ,Gemara Bava Kama page 6a.

Now I have been looking at Rav Shach in laws of damage 13 law 19 and he points to the Gemara Bava Kama page 6a. From there I found an answer to the question that many achronim including Rav Shach bring on the Rambam. There we see twice that there can be a reason to think that if he still owns the stone, knife or package or the tree or wall that fell into a public domain, there is more of a reason to make him not obligated. And beside that I can see the reason behind it. If he still owns it, then he intends to pick it up, and if it causes damage before he got a chance to pick it up, then he should be not liable since it is not his fault. This exact reason we find on page 22 Bava Kama where there was a wall that fell down and fire escaped and did damage, and the owner of the fire did not have a chance yet to repair the wall. He is not liable because it is not his fault (since he did not have a chance to repair it yet). But if he abandoned the piece or hard in the public domain there is more of a reason to make him liable since he intends to leave the damaging objects there, and he never intends to remove them. Okay. Now that I have said this let me bring the gemara. It says abaye said the mishna come include his stone, knife or package that he put on a roof, and they fell due to a common wind. The Gemara asked on this that if he abandoned them in the public domain that is a regular case of digging a pit in a public domain. so instead the gemara suggests that since that is too obvious, then it must be that the mishna is coming to include when he did not abandon them. At this point, in the Gemara we see that there is more of a reason to a make him not liable when still own the stone or knife because we need to mishna to include them. This same idea is repeated on page 6b where Ravina said the mishna is coming to tell us about a wall or tree that fell into a public domain, that they are liable. if he abandoned them, then it is obvious, and there is no reason for the mishna to tell us that. so rather the case is when he did not abandon them, and there we might think he is not obligated. so, we need the mishna to tell us that he is liable. Therefore, here also we see there is a more of a reason to make him not liable when he still owns the tree and wall. That is why you need to Mishna to come and include it. This is all coming to answer this question. The Rambam writes that if a wall or tree fell into a public domain, he is not liable even though he abandoned them. Usually, you say such and such is the case even though there is such and such a reason that militates against it. so here the Rambam is saying that he is not liable even though there is this reason that militates against it. That reason is he abandoned them. But if he abandoned them that would seem to be more of reason to make him not liable. So, the answer is what I wrote up above. If he abandoned them, he should be liable since he intends to leave them in the public domain. But even so, he is not liable. However, I want to bring here how Rav Shach answers this question on the Rambam. He says that the meaning is that the owner of the pit abandoned his domain where the pit is located, and thus that area becomes a public domain and we already know that a pit is liable only in a public domain, so even though he abandoned the pit and that area still he is not liable unless there was warning by the court. If there was warning by the court to remove the wall and tree and more than 30 days have passed, then he is liable. This answer is clear. However, I still have a question on the end of that chapter in Rav Shach H say at the end that the reason the Rambam did not bring the law of Abaye that if he brought his tone knife or package to a roof top and they fell, that he is liable because it is a “all the more so” that can easily be derived from the case of the wall and tree that fell. To me this seems hard to understand because the Rambam say that the wall and tree are not liable. So, you can not learn liability to another case from them unless that other case would also have the court warning him and there were more than thirty days have passed. But we never heard of these conditions in the case of Abaye Furthermore, there is another question I have on this answer of Rav Shach. {His answer is that once we know the law about the wall and tree that fell, then we can know about the stone on the rooftop. The question I have is this. Abaye says we learn liability of the stone on the rooftop from the common denominator between pit and fire. For you might have said that the stone knife and package on the roof should not be liable because there is another force acting on them beside the owner’s force, that is the wind. Well, we can answer that objection from fire. For just like fire is obligated even though another force is acting on it, so the stone and knife on the roof also are liable. Now ho could we know this from the case of the wall and tree that fell? For in that case, Ravina said we know they are liable because of pit and ox. For you might have said that maybe they should not be liable because they were not made from the beginning to do damage, well we can answer that because ox also was not made from the beginning to do damage, and yet it is liable. so too should the tree and wall that fell be liable. But if we would know all this, how could we learn to a case where another force is acting on the thing that causes damage? maybe that would be not liable until we learn it from somewhere. so, I have a hard time understanding this answer of Rav Shach ______________________________________________________________Now I have been looking at רב שך in הלכות ניזקי ממון י''ג הלכה י''טand he points to the גמרא בבא קמא page ו' ע''א. From there I found an answer to the question that רב שך bring on the רמב''ם. There we see twice that there can be a reason to think that if he still owns the stone, knife or package or the tree or wall that fell into a public domain AND CAUED DAMAGE, there is more of a reason to make him not obligated. And beside that I can see the reason behind it. If he still owns it, then he intends to pick it up, and if it causes damage before he got a chance to pick it up, then he should be not liable since it is not his fault. This exact reason we find on page כ''ב בבא קמא where there was a wall that fell down and fire escaped and did damage, and the owner of the fire did not have a chance yet to repair the wall. He is not liable because it is not his fault (since he did not have a chance to repair it yet). But if he abandoned the shards in the public domain there is more of a reason to make him liable since he intends to leave the damaging objects there, and he never intends to remove them. Okay. Now that I have said this let me bring the גמרא. It says אביי said theמשנה come include his stone, knife or package that he put on a roof, and they fell due to a common wind. The גמרא asked on this that if he abandoned them in the public domain that is a regular case of digging a pit in a public domain. so instead the גמרא suggests that since that is too obvious, then it must be that theמשנה is coming to include when he did not abandon them. At this point, in the גמרא we see that there is more of a reason to a make him not liable when still own the stone or knife because we need toמשנה to include them. This same idea is repeated on page ו' ע''א where רבינא said theמשנה is coming to tell us about a wall or tree that fell into a public domain, that they are liable. if he abandoned them, then it is obvious, and there is no reason for theמשנה to tell us that. so rather the case is when he did not abandon them, and there we might think he is not obligated. so, we need theמשנה to tell us that he is liable. Therefore, here also we see there is a more of a reason to make him not liable when he still owns the tree and wall. That is why you need toמשנה to come and include it. This is all coming to answer this question. ר''מ writes that if a wall or tree fell into a public domain, he is not liable even though he abandoned them. Usually, you say such and such is the case even though there is such and such a reason that militates against it. so here ר''מ is saying that he is not liable even though there is this reason that militates against it. That reason is he abandoned them. But if he abandoned them that would seem to be more of reason to make him not liable. So, the answer is what I wrote up above. If he abandoned them, he should be liable since he intends to leave them in the public domain. But even so, he is not liable________________________ However, I want to bring here how רב שך answers this question on the ר’’מ. He says that the meaning is that the owner of the pit abandoned his domain where the pit is located, and thus that area becomes a public domain and we already know that a pit is liable only in a public domain, so even though he abandoned the pit and that area still he is not liable unless there was warning by the court. If there was warning by the court to remove the wall and tree and more than thirty days have passed, then he is liable. This answer is clear. However, I still have a question on the end of that chapter in רב שךTHERE HE say that the reason the ר’’מ did not bring the law of אביי that if he brought his stone, knife or package to a roof top and they fell by a common wind, that he is liable because it is a “all the more so” that can easily be derived from the case of the wall and tree that fell. To me this seems hard to understand because the ר’’מ say that the wall and tree are not liable. So, you can not learn liability to another case from them unless that other case would also have the court warning him and there were more than thirty days have passed. But we never heard of these conditions in the case of אביי Furthermore, there is another question I have on this answer of רב שך . {His answer is that once we know the law about the wall and tree that fell, then we can know about the stone on the rooftop. The question I have is this. אביי says we learn liability of the stone on the rooftop from the common denominator between pit and fire. For you might have said that the stone knife and package on the roof should not be liable because there is another force acting on them beside the owner’s force, that is the wind. Well, we can answer that objection from fire. For just like fire is obligated even though another force is acting on it, so the stone and knife on the roof also are liable. Now ho could we know this from the case of the wall and tree that fell? For in that case, רבינא said we know they are liable because of pit and ox. For you might have said that maybe they should not be liable because they were not made from the beginning to do damage, well we can answer that because ox also was not made from the beginning to do damage, and yet it is liable. so too should the tree and wall that fell be liable. But if we would know all this, how could we learn to a case where another force is acting on the thing that causes damage? maybe that would be not liable until we learn it from somewhere. so, I have a hard time understanding this answer of רב שך

This is the age of disappointment; the time when almost everyone experiences the same thing: the ideology or system that they point all their faith and might and energy into turned out to be a farce A good example of this I the book by Emma Goldman who had been a outspoken proponent of the Russian revolution until she came and saw it up close. But the same rule applies in all aspect of politic and belief systems. People jut don’t talk about it because their means of making money depend on that system continuing.

Destiny takes us only half way. The rest we have to do on our own. And that part is where we usually go wrong

Divine decree and free will are not compatible. By looking back on my life, I can see areas where there simply was divine decree that such and such had to happen, -- regardless of anyone’s free will. I think a good example, is my wife’s intense desire to get me to marry her in spite of my trying to get her off my tail for years. I think I can see this in the children that I eventually had with her that had to come into the world with this set of two parents. I would personally have given anything in the world instead to have been able to marry a daughter of a true Torah scholar so that I could continue to learn Torah. That option was not in the cards. Eventually when the Divine Decree was fulfilled, that when I was left to the fate of free will. Then my own free will got me off track. I am not the only one who gets distracted by free will. All of us go haywire left to our own devices. We all do better when God decrees things (or that in moment of divine grace, we manage to depend on Divine Grace in spite of our own free will pointing us elsewhere). Destiny takes us only half way. The rest we have to do on our own. And that part is where we usually go wrong

A lot of the USA is based on the Magna Carta and Simon De Montfort (Provisions of Oxford) and John Locke and the two-tiered parliament system of England. Pluss a lot of the Bill of Right is based on issues that England had to deal with and resolve that were incorporated in the Bill of Rights. and I might mention that they never wanted to separate from England until the King refused intervene in favor of the colonies. The main grievance was toward Parliament. Besides that, there has to be a basic DNA structure in people for them to be able to accept such a system. Unless you have Anglo-Saxon DNA it is doubtful how well this system could work elsewhere. There is something in the Anglo saxon DNA which takes the written law as absolute and binding. While in the ussr, the only reason the ridiculous system worked at all was the tendency to ignore the written rule and just strive toward what worked

Abraham Isaac and Jacob were promised the land of Canaan

When Abraham Isaac and Jacob were promised the land of Canaan that actual name does not come up much. They were after all spending time in the land of the Philistines –mainly in Gerar which I think is drop above Netivot. But I might be wrong and in might be right at Netivot. But you also get a promise to Jacob that all these lands which you have been dwelling in will be an everlasting inheritance to your decedents. But interestingly enough the covenant between the Parts where Abraham was promised the ten nations, the philistines were not included. The main reason that the land of the philistines is included in Israel I that it is within the borders defined in Numbers 34. That area however was never conquered by Irael. The Philistines in fact were never conquered until Rome sent Scipio Africanus to finish them off at Carthage. (The Philistines were part of the same nation with the capitol at Carthage)

the land of the Philistines is Gaza

Before you get to the song on the Red sea the Book of Exodus explains that the reason God did not take Israel directly through the land of the Philistines is because there was a worry that Irael might see war and decide to return to Egypt. The reason I believe is that in fact, the Philistines were so powerful. Rome took them out in the last of the Punic Wars. [Rashi says that the Canaanites were weak, and that is why they had to have strong fortified walled cities. But the Phlistines were strong.] The reason I say this is that if you look in the Book of Numbers chapter 34 you will see where the people of Israel were commanded to conquer. That is where the borders of Israel were defined. The southern border goes from the salt sea until kadesh barnea and from there to the stream of Egypt and then towards the Mediterranean Sea. All that land is the state of israel today. And in fact, in the covenant between the pieces of Abraham the patriarch there was a promise to give to his descendants all the land from the Euphrates until the river of Egypt the Nile. {That is not the same as the stream of Egypt which is right below Gaza. so, this land was promised that in the end of days this would be part of Israel. But even in the time of Joshua, that land was not conquered. Even when the tribes dived up the land, they did not divid the land of the Philistines since they had not yet conquered it. [the tribe of Judah conquered that area in the time of the judges. see the book of Judges chapter 1.] Scipio Africanus (Rome) destroyed the entire nation of the Philistines [Phoenicians]in the last Punic war. [Philistines were all along the coast from the south of Israel until Carthage. Carthage was the capital city. Philistines were in general pirates. While Rome tried to do business in the Mediterranean Sea, and the Philistines kept getting in the way until war after war occurred. Rome was almost destroyed. Then Scipio Africanus decided to take the fight directly to the home base of the Philistines, Carthage. And that was that.] It occurred to me that even the patriarchs had trouble in Gaza. Abraham lived there many years until he had much trouble until left that land to go live in the land of Canaan in Beer sheva. Isaac I think I recall wanted to go live there until he was told by God to stay in the land of Canaan. The only reason this land is part of Israel is because it is within the borders that were defined by God to conquer even though Joshua and David and Solomon never in fact got around to finishing the business. I also think that Sidon (Zidon in Hebrew ) was originally a Canaanite city, but that at some point it was taken by the Phoenicians. [The Phoenician were not Canaanites]. Zidon [Sidon was the name of the first born of Canaan as it says in Genisis] I might mention that there were Canaanite that were outside the borders of the land designated by God for the children of Israel-as we see with sichon the king of the emori who ruled in the area beyond the Jordan river. Also the land of the plishtim was included, yet they were not Canaanites