za76 B Minor Midi File za76 nwc file

balance between the rights of the people and the elite.

In the USA that things have been difficult. Dating has become a money game. Not to mention the other recent and not so recent insanities with woke agendas. Yet the Constitution of the USA (based on John Locke) is a system that is about as workable as one could hope for. Perhaps I might suggest, that the was something that Rome saw that has never been achieved since then: the need for a balance between the rights of the people and the patricians. After all a ruling senate was not unique to Rome. Carthage had the same thing. On the other hand, full democratic Athens turned out to be short lived aggressive and became the murderer of Socrates. What happened in Rome that was different was the patricians had all the power until one day the people of Rome left, literally left.. But instead of the senate declaring war, instead they sent a messenger to the people proposing a balance. The people would have a protector [tribune] whose person was inviolable they would have their own legislative body. and last but not least --no one would hold any public position in Rome without the vote of the people -patrician and plebian. There would be two people at the top, not one; two consuls who would hold office for one year only. There was a time all the top scientists and engineers were Jewish and German. Now they are Russian

הרמב"ן על בבא קמא דף כ"ט. אני חושב שאני יכול לתת תשובה לשאלה ששאלתי על הרמב''ן לפני מספר ימים. השאלה היא שהוא תמיד מחזיק אדם כאחראי לגרימת נזק. מבחינתו, לא משנה אם זה נזק שנגרם על ידי גופו או על ידי רכושו. השאלה היא מאביי בדף כ"ח ע"ב. שם אביי אומר בגלוי שנזק שהוא גורם באונס אינו חייב. הרי"ף כתב שבמקרה של נפילה ברשלנות והוא מחליט לנטוש את רכושו לפני שהוא גורם נזק, שר' יהודה מסכים עם ר' מאיר שהוא אחראי. הרמב"ן מוסיף לכך ואומר שגם ר' יהודה וגם ר' מאיר מסכימים שבמקרה של נפילה בשוגג [לא באשמתו] והוא לא נוטש את רכושו שהוא אחראי. זוהי בבירור תשובה לרמב"ן שקובע שאדם תמיד אחראי לגרום נזק, בין אם בכוונה ובין אם בשוגג, בין אם על ידי גופו ובין אם באמצעות רכושו. כי כאן אנו רואים שגרימת נזק בשוגג אינה פוטרת אותו מאחריות. עם זאת, הם יסכימו גם במקרה של נפילה בשוגג והוא נוטש את רכושו, שהוא אינו אחראי. אז אפשר לשאול, "אם כך באילו דרכים ר' יהודה ור' מאיר חלוקים ביניהם?" תשובה, הם חלוקים ביניהם לגבי מקרה רגיל של מעידה. ר' מאיר סבור שזה נחשב כרשלנות (נתקל פושע) ור' יהודה סבור שזה נחשב כתאונה (אונס). אבל עדיין יכולים להיות מקרים אחרים שבהם ר' מאיר מסכים שהנפילה הייתה בטעות (אונס), ור' יהודה מסכים במקרים אחרים שנפילה עשויה להיות ברשלנות, ובמקרים אלה ר' יהודה ור' מאיר מסכימים יש תמיכה לגישה זו בגמרא שגם התוספת וגם הרמב"ן מביאים, שאומרת שאם שור פורץ לחצר וחופר בור, בעל החצר צריך למלא אותו למרות שהוא לא אחראי לחפירתו. הרעיון המרכזי של המשנה והגמרא הוא שאם אדם נושא חבית. והוא מועד והחבית נשברת וגורמת נזק. ר' מאיר אומר שהוא אחראי, והר' יהודה סבור שהוא אחראי אם זה היה בכוונה. אביי מביא ברייתא שאומר שאם אדם מועד ומה שהוא נושא גורם נזק, יש מחלוקת בין ר' מאיר שמחזיק שהוא אחראי לבין החכמים שאומרים שלא. אבל אם שם אבן, צרור או סכין על גג, ונפלו ברוח רגילה, וגרמו נזק, הוא אחראי. אפילו החכמים מסכימים על כך. אבל אם שם את כדיו על גג, ונפלו בגלל רוח שאינה רגילה, כולם מסכימים שהוא אינו אחראי. אביי אמר שהם חלוקים בשני דברים, גם במהלך הנפילה וגם אחרי הנפילה. לפי איך שהמהרש"א מסביר את התוספות, כוונת אביי היא שר' יהודה קובע כי נפילה בשוגג או נטישת חפצו פוטרים אותו מחובת התשלום, ור' מאיר קובע כי מקרה של מעידה ברשלנות או אי נטישת חפצו יגרום לו להיות מחויב לשלם, [אבל כפי שאמרתי קודם, הר''ף קובע שר' יהודה מסכים עם ר' מאיר במקרה של נפילה בשוגג ואי נטישת חפצו]. התפארת שמואל קובע אחרת, והוא אומר שבמהלך הנפילה המשתנה היחיד שחשוב הוא אם הנפילה הייתה ברשלנות או לא. לאחר הנפילה, המשתנה היחיד שמשפיע הוא אם הוא נטש את רכושו לפני שגרם נזק

There is a Litvak beit midrah in this area and I was able to get over to there and look at the Ramban on Bava Kama pg 29 and I think I can share what I think is an answer to the question that I asked on him a few days ago. The question is that he holds a man always liable to cause damage. To him, it does not matter if it is damage caused by his own body or by his property. The question is from Abaye on page 28 b where he says openly that damage that he causes by accident is not liable. The Rif wrote that in a case of a fall by negligence and yet he decides to abandon his property before it causes damage that R. Judah agree with R. Meir that he is liable. The Ramban [Moshe ben Nachman] add to this and say that both R. Judah and R. Meir agree in a case of a fall by accident [not by his own fault] and he does not abandon his property that he is liable. This clearly is an answer for the Ramban that holds man is always liable to cause damage whether on purpose or by accident whether by his body or by means of his property. For here we see causing damage by accident does not relive him of liability. However, they would also agree in case of a fall by accident and he abandons his property, that he is not liable. Then you might ask, “Then in what ways do R Judah and R. Meir disagree?” Answer, they disagree about a normal case of tripping or stumbling. R. Meir holds that it is considered to be by negligence and R. Judah holds it is considered to be by accident. But in you can still have other kinds of cases where R Meir agrees that a fall was by accident and R Judah agrees in other kinds of cases that a fall might be by negligence and it is in these cases that R. Judah and R. Meir agree. There is support for this approach in a Gemara that both Tosphot and the Ramban bring that says if an ox brakes into a courtyard and digs a hole, the owner of the courtyard has to fill it up even though he is not responsible for digging it. The main idea of the Mishna and Gemara is that if one is carrying a barrel and he trips and the barrel broken and causes damage R. Meir says he is liable and the R. Judah holds he is liable if it was with intention. Abaye brings a braita that says if one trips and what he is carrying causes damage there is the argument between R. Meir who holds him accountable and the sages who do not. But if he put his stone, bundle, or knife on a roof, and they fall in a common wind, and they cause damage, he is liable. Even the sages agrees with that. But if he put his jars on a roof, and they fell due to an uncommon wind, everyone agrees he is not liable. Abaye said they disagree in two things. both during the fall and after the fall. According to how the Maharsha explains Tosphot, this means that R Judah holds either falling by accident or abandoning hi object with relieve him of the obligation to pay and R. Meir holds either a case of tripping by negligence or not abandoning one’s object will cause him to be required to pay, [but as I said before, according to the Rif, R Judah agrees with R. Meir in a case of falling by accident and not abandoning one’s object.] The Tiferet Shmuel holds differently he says that during the fall the only variable that matters is if the fall was by negligence or not. After the fall, the only variable that makes difference is if he abandons his property before it caused damage. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The רמב’’ן on Bava Kama pg כ''ט and I think I can share what I think is an answer to the question that I asked on him a few days ago. The question is that he holds a man always liable to cause damage. To him, it does not matter if it is damage caused by his own body or by his property. The question is from אבייon page כ''ח ע''ב where he says openly that damage that he causes by accident is not liable. The רי''ף wrote that in a case of a fall by negligence and yet he decides to abandon his property before it causes damage that ר' יהודה agrees with ר' מאיר that he is liable. The רמב''ן add to this and says that both ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר agree in a case of a fall by accident [not by his own fault] and he does not abandon his property that he is liable. This clearly is an answer for the רמב''ן that holds man is always liable to cause damage whether on purpose or by accident whether by his body or by means of his property. For here we see causing damage by accident does not relive him of liability. However, they would also agree in case of a fall by accident and he abandons his property, that he is not liable. Then you might ask, “Then in what ways do ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר disagree?” Answer, they disagree about a normal case of tripping or stumbling. ר' מאיר holds that it is considered to be by negligence and ר' יהודה holds it is considered to be by accident. But in you can still have other kinds of cases where ר' מאיר agrees that a fall was by accident and ר' יהודה agrees in other kinds of cases that a fall might be by negligence and it is in these cases that ר' יהודה and ר' מאיר agree. There is support for this approach in a גמרא that both תוספות and the רמב’’ן bring that says if an ox brakes into a courtyard and digs a hole, the owner of the courtyard has to fill it up even though he is not responsible for digging it. The main idea of the משנה and גמרא is that if one is carrying a barrel. and he trips and the barrel broken and causes damage ר' מאיר says he is liable and the ר’ יהודה holds he is liable if it was with intention.אביי brings a ברייתא that says if one trips and what he is carrying causes damage there is the argument between ר' מאיר who holds him accountable and the sages who do not. But if he put his stone, bundle, or knife on a roof, and they fall in a common wind, and they cause damage, he is liable. Even the חכמין agree with that. But if he put his jars on a roof, and they fell due to an uncommon wind, everyone agrees he is not liable. אביי said they disagree in two things. both during the fall and after the fall. According to how the מהרש''א explains תוספות, this means that ר' יהודה holds either falling by accident or abandoning his object with relieve him of the obligation to pay and לר' מאיר holds either a case of tripping by negligence or not abandoning one’s object will cause him to be required to pay, [but as I said before, the רי''ף holds ר' יהודה agrees with ר' מאיר in a case of falling by accident and not abandoning one’s object.] The תפארת שמואל holds differently, he says that during the fall the only variable that matters is if the fall was by negligence or not. After the fall, the only variable that makes difference is if he abandons his property before it caused damage.

יש סתירה לכאורה בטור (סימן ש''צ וסימן תי''ב). במקרה של אדם שנשכר לשאת חבית, והיא נופלת ונשברת, שאם הדרך הייתה בשיפוע, הוא אינו חייב בפיצויים, אך אם היא ישרה הוא כן. אבל במקרה של אנשים רגילים ההולכים ונושאים צרור שנפל וגורם נזק לאדם שמאחור, שם הדין הוא כמו ר' יהודה שמעידה נחשבת לתאונה, כלומר, תאונה בלתי נמנעת, והוא אינו אחראי. אין הבדל אם הדרך הייתה בקו ישרה או בשיפוע. רב שך מציע שיש דרגה גבוהה יותר של אחריות אם אדם נשכר לשאת צרור בניגוד לנשיאת הצרור שלו בלבד.(הלכות שכירות פרק ג' הלכה ב') אבל הרמב"ן מביא שהחוק שאדם אחראי בכל דרך לגרום נזק נראה כאילו אינו תואם לכך. הוא אומר שהפעם היחידה שאנחנו לא אומרים שאדם אחראי תמיד היא כאשר מדובר באדם העוסק בעבודתו שלו. זהו אדם שנשכר לעבוד על חפץ כלשהו. בזה אנו אומרים שאם מתרחשת תאונה, הוא אינו אחראי. אבל בדרך חשיבה זו לא צריכה להיות אחריות אפילו במקרה של תאונה. וזה בגלוי לא דומה למה שאנו אומרים בבבא קמא דף כ''ט שמעידה היא תאונה, ואם יש גם נטישת החפץ, אז האדם אינו חייב כלל

There is an apparent contradiction in the Tur ch. 390 and ch. 412. In the case of one who is carrying a barrel and it falls and is broken that if the path was at an incline, he is not obligated in damages, but if it is level he is. But in a case of just regular people walking and carrying some bundle that is dropped and causes damage to the person in back, there the law is like R Judah that tripping is considered to be an accident i.e., an unavoidable accident, and he is not liable. there is no difference if it was path was at an incline or level. Rav Shach [law of renting ch. 3 law 2] suggests that there is a higher degree of responsibility if one is hired to carry some bundle as opposed to just carrying one’s own bundle. But the Ramban brings that the law man is always liable to cause damage seems to not correlate to this. He says that the only time we do not say "a man is liable always" is when it is a case of a person that is involved in his own work, (that is a person that is hired to work on some object). Then we say that if an accident occurs, he is not liable. But in this way of thinking there should be no liability even in a case of accident, and that is openly not like what we are saying in Bava Kama page 29 that tripping is an accident and if there is also abandoning the object then one is not obligated at all. [later I saw the ramban himself answers this in two way on bava kama pg. 29 and so far i only saw his first answer] ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is an apparent contradiction in the טור. In the case of one who is hired to carry a barrel, and it falls and is broken, that if the path was at an incline, he is not obligated in damages, but if it is level he is. But in a case of just regular people walking and carrying some bundle that is dropped and causes damage to the person in back, there the law is like ר' יהודה that tripping is considered to be an accident i.e., an unavoidable accident, and he is not liable. There is no difference if it was path was at an inline or level. רב שך suggests that there is a higher degree of responsibility if one is hired to carry some bundle as opposed to just carrying one’s own bundle. But the רמב''ן brings that the law man is all ways liable to cause damage seem to not correlate to this. he says that the only time we do not say a man is liable always is when it is a case of a person that is involved in his own work. That is a person that is hired to work on some object Then we say that if an accident occurs, he is not liable. But in this way of thinking there should be no liability even in a case of accident. and that is openly not like what we are saying in בבא קמא page כ''ט that tripping is an accident, and if there is also abandoning the object, then one is not obligated at all.

za75 in G minor a midi file za75 in nwc format