Bava Mezia 43 side a. If an officer of the court who is appointed to take care of money or objects that are dedicated to the temple (a gizbar) gives a bundle of money that is not tied up to a money changer, the officer is liable to the law of trespassing. That is the law that states that one must not use objects dedicated to the Temple for any use other than that which they were intended for. The Rambam writes (laws of trespassing chapter 7 law 10) "If one gives over a bundle of money that is not tied to a money changer or storeowner, neither he nor the money changer are liable." This seems in direct contradiction to the Gemara. My answer is based on Tosphot (Bava Mezzia page 98 side A). In Tosphot, Rabainu Izhak said the only time there can be trespassing after trespassing is when one officer gives to another and that other to another and so on. Each is liable because the object never left to domain of the Temple even though it was used for personal use by each one of the officers. So, the Rambam never says he is talking about a officer. Rather he writes that a person that has money of that is dedicated to the Temple in a bundle that is not tied gives it to another, neither is liable. That first one because he did not tell the other to use the money, and he never took it out of the domain of the Temple, since the money has not yet gotten into the hands of a officer. [I would like to add here that in Tosphot there are two ways to be liable for trespassing, either taking out of the domain or possession of the Temple, or using the object even while it is still in the possession of the Temple. But taking out of the domain of the Temple on purpose or by accident makes no difference.]A possible problem with my answer here is that the רמב''ם brings that same תוספתאthat תוספות זbrings that says that if one person uses hekdesh (an object that belongs to the Temple), and then hands it over to another and he uses it and so on and so forth, each one is liable for trespassing. Now, תוספותsays this refers to officers of the court(גזברים) , and the רמב''ם writes this plainly with no indication of any distinctions like תוספות makes. But the rambam says it refers to an animal of hedesh and so there is no question on my answer in our case where we are talking about money. In that there is no trespass after trespass and neither intends to take the object out of the domain of the temple. --------------------------------------------בבא מציעא דף מ''ג ע''א. If an officer of the court who is appointed to take care of money or objects that are dedicated to the temple (a גיזבר) gives a bundle of money that is not tied up to a money changer, the officer is liable to the law of מעילה. That is the law that states that one must not use objects dedicated to the Temple for any use other than that which they were intended for. The רמב''ם writes laws of מעילה chapter 7 law 10. if one gives over a bundle of money that is not tied to a money changer or storeowner neither he nor the money changer are liable. This seems in direct contradiction to the Gemara. My answer is based on תוספות . In תוספות , רבינו יצחק said the only time there can be מעילה after מעילה is when one officer gives to another and that other to another and so on. Each is liable because the object never left to domain of the Temple even though it was used for personal use by each one of the officers. So, the רמב''ם never says he is talking about a officer. Rather, he writes that a person that has money of that is dedicated to the Temple in a bundle that is not tied gives it to another, neither is liable. That first one because he did not tell the other to use the money, and he never took it out of the domain of the Temple, since the money has not yet gotten into the hands of a officer. I would like to add here that in תוספות there are two ways to be liable for מעילה, either taking out of the domain or possession of the הקדש, or using the object even while it is still in the possession of the הקדש. But, taking out of the domain of the הקדש on purpose or by accident makes no difference.---------A possible problem with my answer here is that the רמב''ם brings that same תוספתאthat תוספות brings that says that if one person uses הקדש (an object that belongs to the Temple), and then hands it over to another and he uses it and so on and so forth, each one is liable for trespassing. Now, תוספותsays this refers to officers of the court(גזברים) , and the רמב''ם writes this plainly with no indication of any distinctions like תוספות makes. But the רמב''ם says it refers to an animal of הקדש ,and so there is no question on my answer in our case where we are talking about money. In that there is no מעילה after מעילה and neither intends to take the object out of the domain of the temple.

za82 midi music file. F major za82 nwc file za82 orchestra version za 82 orchestra version nwc file

בשלב מסוים הגמרא שואלת כיצד רב נחמן יסביר את המשנה בקידושין כ"ח. הסיבה לכך היא שאנו אומרים שתחילת המשנה מתייחסת למטבע, וסופה להחלפה באמצעות פירות. הגמרא עונה תשובה לפי ר' יוחנן, אבל אז מה יענה ריש לקיש? אני שואל מדוע לא לומר שריש לקיש שמחזיק מטבע אינו גורם להחלפה, בדיוק כפי שהוא אומר לגבי קניין כסף, מטבע אינו גורם לרכישה, אלא הרמה או משיכה של החפץ הנרכש. אני שואל מדוע לא לומר שריש לקיש חולק על כל ההנחה. אלא, רק הרמה או משיכה. אפילו לרכוש באמצעות החלפה---------------------------אני חושב שכדאי להוסיף כאן שרב נחמן לומד את סוף המשנה כהחלפת שור בפרה, ולא בשר שור בפרה. רק ב"אולי הייתי חושב" הגמרא צריכה לומר שהמשנה מתייחסת לבשר. ואנחנו שואלים לפי הנחה זו כיצד רב נחמן היה מסביר את המשנה. אבל, למעשה, רב נחמן לא מקיים הנחת ה"אולי חשבתי" אבל סבור שהמשנה אומרת "החלפת שור בפרה", לא בשר

bava mezia page 46 n and kidushin 28

The Gemara, at some point, asks how would Rav Nachman explain the Mishna in Kiddushin 28 . The reason is we say the beginning of the Mishna refers to coin, and the end to exchange by exchange. The gemara answers an answer that goes according to R. Yochanan, but then what would Reish Lakish answer. I ask, "Why not say that Reish Lakish holds coin does not cause exchange, just like he says by normal acquisition that coin does not cause acquisition, rather picking up or pulling the acquired object?" I ask why not say Reish Lakish disagrees with the entire assumption. Rather, only picking up or pulling causes acquisition Even by means of exchange? I think I might add here that Rav Nachman learns the end of the Mishna as exchange of ox for a cow, not meat of an ox for a cow. Only in the "I might have thought “does the Gemara have to say that the Mishna refers to meat. And we ask according to that assumption how would Rav Nachman explain the mMishna . But, in fact, Rav Nachman does not hold with that "I might have thought “ and holds the Mishna says “exchange of a ox for a cow”, not meat. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------The גמראat some point asks how would רב נחמן explain the משנה onקידושין כ''ח . the reason is we say the beginning of the משנה refers to coin and the end to exchange by exchange. The גמרא answers an answer that gores according to ר' יוחנןbut then what would ריש לקיש answer. I ask why not say that ריש לקיש holds coin does not cause exchange just like he says by acquisition that coin does not cause acquisition, rather picking up or pulling the acquired object. I ask why not say ריש לקיש disagrees with the entire assumption. Rather, only picking up or pulling. Even to acquire by means of exchange? I think I might add here that רב נחמןlearns the end of the משנה as exchange of ox for a cow, not meat of an ox for a cow. Only in the "I might have thought “does the גמרא have to say that the משנה refers to meat. And we ask according to that assumption how would רב נחמן explain the משנה. But, in fact, רב נחמן does not hold with that "I might have thought “ and holds the משנה says “exchange of a ox for a cow”, not meat.

Robert Hana has eexposed the fallacies of the so called analytic philosophy but the his idea of forward to Kant is hard to swallow. (See his books on The Rise and Fall of Analytic Philosophy.) If I could, I would gladly claim that Kant or Hegel or Schopenhauer had the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth, but so far i can not see any way to do so. Kant had some important points but also some things that seem off to me. Schopenhauer also seems to have gotten some very important points but other points seem no so well thought out. the universal trait of all people leaning towards Kant is that they despise Hegel and I can not see their point about that either. while it is true that Hegel is obscure and seems incapable of writing any sentence less than 100 words, still the points are powerful. It might be so that just one of the German idealists had the whole truth and none of the others had anything. but i can not see that at this point. Rather, I think philosophy in order to go forwards has to take into account all the German Idealists from Kant and Fries and Hegel up until Schopenhauer.

קידושין כ''ח ע''א וע''ב. תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ז. ההבדלים הבסיסיים בין רש''י, תוספות והרמב''ם לגבי החלפה. לרש''י יש רק שתי קטגוריות: כלים או חפצים נעים [מטלטלים]. אין קטגוריה נפרדת של פירות. לפיכך, לרב נחמן רק כלים יכולים לגרום לרכישה על ידי חליפין או להירכש על ידי חליפין. לרב ששת כל המיטלטלין יכולים לגרום להחלפה, ולהירכש בהחלפה. לתוספות יש שלוש קטגוריות: כלים, מיטלטלין ופירות. כלים יכולים לגרום להחלפה ולהירכש באמצעות החלפה. ניתן לרכוש מיטלטלין בהחלפה, אך לא לגרום להחלפה. (זה דומה לאופן שבו רב שך מסביר את הראב''ד בהלכות אישות פרק א') הוא סבור שבהחלפה, אף אחד מהחפצים אינו גורם לרכישה. אלא, כאשר אדם אחד מרים את חפצו, אז הוא שלו. כאשר השני מרים את חפצו, אז הוא שלו.) עבור תוספות, פירות אינם ניתנים לרכישה וגם לא לגרום לרכישה על ידי החלפה, אולם כאשר הם מוחלפים שווים תחת שווים, אז הם יכולים להרכשה על ידי החלפה ולגרום להחלפה [תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ז]. כל זה שונה מאוד מהרמב''ם שסבור שיש שני סוגים של חליפין: שווה תחת שווה, או מטפחת. עבור הרמב''ם, אפילו פירות יכולים להרכש על ידי החלפה. כל המטלטלין יכולים לגרום להחלפה כאשר הם מוחלפים במטלטלין אחרים. אבל כלים לבדם יכולים לשמש כרכישה כבאמצעות מטפחת או נעל.------[פסיל שבבעלות גוי צריך רק ביטול. אבל פסיל שבבעלות ישראל צריך להישרף, לכן מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את העצים (עצים שהכנענים סגדו להם) כשנכנסו לארץ כנען. פסקה זו לעיל באה לענות על שאלה זו. גורם חשוב נוסף כאן הוא שגוי שנטע עץ (לאחר שארץ כנען ניתנה לאברהם) היה הבעלים של העץ. לכן, העצים היחידים שהיו בבעלות ישראל כשנכנסו לארץ ישראל היו אלה שנשתלו לפני שהארץ ניתנה לאברהם. שם התשובות היחידות האפשריות לחכמים לענות עליהן הן שהם סברו שאפילו עצים שנשתלו כדי לעבוד אותם לפני שהארץ ניתנה לאברהם היו למעשה בבעלות אברהם לאחר שכל הארץ ניתנה לו. וזו לדעתי התשובה הטובה ביותר לחכמים. עם זאת, הגמרא מתייחסת לעצים שנשתלו כדי שיעבדו אותם לפני שהארץ ניתנה לאברהם, אך לא עבדו אותם עד לאחר מכן. עצים אלה לא הפכו לאלילים גם לאחר שעבדו אותם, משום שאדם אינו יכול לגרום לאסור את מה שאינו שייך לו עד שישראל עבד את עגל הזהב. לאחר מכן, אם עצים אלה נעבדו, הם נאסרו והפכו לאלילי ישראל והיו צריכים להישרף]

Bava Mezia 46 and 47 Kidushin 28 The basic differences between Rashi , Tosphot, and the Rambam concerning exchange. To Rashi, there are only two categories: vessels or movable objects. There is no separate category of fruit. Thus, to Rav Nachman only vessels can cause acquisition by exchange or be acquired by exchange. To Rav Sheshet all movables can cause exchange, and be acquired by exchange. To Tosphot there are three categories: vessels, movables, and fruit. Vessels can cause exchange and be acquired by exchange. Movables can be acquired by exchange, but not cause exchange. (This is similar to how Rav Shach explains the Ravad) He holds that in exchange, neither object causes the acquisition. Rather, when one person picks up his object, then that is his.) When the other picks up his object, then that is his. To Tosphot fruit cannot be acquired nor cause acquisition by exchange, however when they are exchanged equal for equal, then they can be acquired by exchange and cause exchange [Tosphot Bava Mezia 47]. This is all very different from the Rambam who hold there a re two kinds of exchange: equal for equal, or handkerchief. To the Rambam even fruit can be acquired by exchange. All movables can cause exchange when exchanged for other movables. But vessels alone can be used as acquisition by means of a handkerchief.​-------------------------------------------------------------------Bava Mezia 46 and 47 Kidushin 28 The basic differences between Rashi , Tosphot, and the Rambam concerning exchange. To Rashi, there are only two categories: vessels or movable objects. There is no separate category of fruit. Thus, to Rav Nachman only vessels can cause acquisition by exchange or be acquired by exchange. To Rav Sheshet all movables can cause exchange, and be acquired by exchange. To Tosphot there are three categories: vessels, movables, and fruit. Vessels can cause exchange and be acquired by exchange. Movables can be acquired by exchange, but not cause exchange. (This is similar to how Rav Shach explains the Ravad) He holds that in exchange, neither object causes the acquisition. Rather, when one person picks up his object, then that is his.) When the other picks up his object, then that is his. To Tosphot fruit cannot be acquired nor cause acquisition by exchange, however when they are exchanged equal for equal, then they can be acquired by exchange and cause exchange [Tosphot Bava Mezia 47]. This is all very different from the Rambam who hold there are two kinds of exchange: equal for equal, or handkerchief. To the Rambam even fruit can be acquired by exchange. All movables can cause exchange when exchanged for other movables. But vessels alone can be used as acquisition by means of a handkerchief.