I saw a small booklet with a picture of Yaakov Abuchatzeira on it. [You know the one. It is all over the place.] I have to admit whenever I see a picture of Yaakov Abuchatzeira or his grandson Bava Sali  I get the shivers. The Fear of God gets into me. You might ask well then why not go for it? Find some descendant of that family? The reason for my hesitation is several fold.

First of all I am trying to combine for myself several aspects of the service of God. That is I try to divide my day into small sessions so that I can accomplish a small amount in every field that I feel is important. That means learning Torah and prayer and also involvement in the natural sciences.

In any case the Abuchatzaira thing I should say is for Sephardi people mainly. There is a great deal of tension when an Ashkenazic Jew shows up in a Sephardi neighborhood. Inevitably there is some hot head who makes it his business to get rid of the Ashkenazic guy no matter how nice he tries to be.
But the actual family of  Abuchatzaira tend to be pretty holy people. So to go to them for  a blessing certainly makes sense.

In fact if you are near Netivot I recommend going to Shimon Buso for a blessing. He is a grandson of Bava Sali from the side of one of Bava Sali's daughters.

Also I have to say the basic path of Bava Sali was straight forward. What he did and what he recommended to others was nothing more that learn and keep Torah in the most basic and simple fashion possible with no side dishes.


Each group of Sephardi and Ashkenazim seems to have its pluses and minuses. But for an Ashkenazi fellow to meander into a Sephardi areas is a guaranteed invitation for disaster. On the other hand whenever there is some Ashkenazic Rav that wants a following around him, and lacks the right amount of talent for that, he goes to some Sephardic community and recruits them and he gets his own cult of followers.
In fact, almost every well known Ashkenazic group you can think of was made in exactly this way.

q41 in mp3 format   [q41 in midi]   q41 in nwc

insane religious "frum" world.

How to improve one's character?  Musar.


It might not be the best way to work on ones character. It might not even be that effective. But Israel Salanter thought learning books that were written to instill good character is the best type of way of going about thus that he saw. I mean you could ask what good does it do to learn about good character? Still compared to whatever else he saw this was the most effective means. You could say the Boy Scouts of the USA had the same purpose in mind. But you see where they have fallen to.


From what I can tell Musar has very limited effectiveness.


Musar  can lead to fanaticism. And today it seems to have in fact become associated with being extra frum. That seems like an aberration from its intended purpose.

The main problem I think there is with the way Musar is practiced today is the idea of social norms. People assume the message of Musar is to be frum (religious) as defined by the generally insane religious "frum" world.  Musar after all does say to keep all the commandments of the Oral and Written Law. But where they are wrong is they think Musar says to keep the social norms of the  religious world. I should say I am completely against being frum and against trying to get people to be frum. Being frum (religious) and keeping Torah are two exact opposites.
In what way can you see this? In the area of social norms. Torah itself has no concern or interest in any one's opinions or conventions.

Let me see if I can make this clear. The religious  world is accustomed to going off in certain directions crusading for one cause or the other. These are most often against the Torah. But they present their crusade as being a part and parcel of keeping Torah.

That is the most obvious area. But there are many others --more subtle things. How it comes out in the end is if you want to keep Torah, stay away from the frum as far as you can possibly get. However Lithuanian yeshivas do  make an effort in keeping the Torah like it says in the most basic and simple way. So even if they may seem frum their center of attention is in fact the Torah so that makes them OK. [But the kelipa of frumkeit does seems to have infiltrated them to some degree.]

In almost every major Torah principle that I can think of the frum are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Examples.
Learning Torah is one area for example. Their major concern is to make money off of the Torah.
Honor of one's parents.
Settling in Israel or at least support for Israel.
Monotheism.
Kindness for its own sake. I.e where do you go in a time of emergency? Who will help you in a time of emergency. Not the frum. If you find yourself out of luck they will do their best to push you down further.

Conservative or Reform are good places but the frum are a trap.

Though I can't compare myself to Rav Shach in any way, but I should mention that he was not afraid to voice criticisms in public. And when he was asked about it he quoted a Mishna: "Any argument that is for the sake of Heaven will be established."
Of course he did not exact win any popularity contests. But he certainly wrote the most important Torah book to come out in the last hundred years.

Bava Metzia page 14
 A field was stolen. The thief sold it and the buyer worked on it. Then the field goes back to the owner with the improvements. Rav said the buyer gets the amount of the improvements from the thief along with the money he paid for it. Shmuel said he does not get the improvements.
Tosphot says this is the same principle being applies as is applied on page 101 where someone goes into  a field and plants trees. There the owner pays either the improvement or the expense whichever is less.

I wanted today to say what is bothering Tosphot. I did not put that in my essay yesterday since I thought it was enough that at least I said what Tosphot was thinking. But today I wanted to say why he is thinking what he is thinking. He is bothered by several questions.  Lets say the case is the improvement is less. Then why does the owner not give the buyer the amount of the improvement directly to Rav? And it seems strange that on page 101 a  someone who directly walks into someone else field gets paid the amount he improved the field while the buyer on pg 14  gets nothing to Samuel. This I think is perhaps the main thing that is bothering Tosphot. Thus Tosphot comes up with an elegant solution.--He says it is the same principle at work in both places. I.e. he is thinking that the buyer from the thief also gets paid for the work he did--but that he gets the amount directly from the owner.

__________________________________________________________________


 A field was stolen. The thief sold it and the buyer worked on it. Then the field goes back to the owner with the שבח. The law is this.  רב said the buyer gets the amount of the שבח from the thief along with the money he paid for it. שמואל said he does not get the שבח.
On page 14 תוספות says this is the same principle being applies as is applied on page ק''א where someone goes into  a field and plants trees. There the owner pays either the improvement or the expense whichever is less.

I wanted today to say what is bothering תוספות.  He is bothered by several questions.  Let us say the case is the שבח is less. Then why does the owner not give the buyer the amount of the שבח directly in the opinion of רב? And it seems strange that on page ק''א a  someone who directly walks into someone else field gets paid the amount he improved the field while the buyer on page י''ד  gets nothing to שמואל. This I think is perhaps the main thing that is bothering תוספות. Thus תוספות comes up with an elegant solution. He says it is the same principle at work in both places. I.e. he is thinking that the buyer from the thief also gets paid for the work he did, but that he gets the amount directly from the owner.

פה אני מסביר למה תוספות אומר מה שהוא אומר. שדה נגנב. הגנב מכר אותו והקונה עבד עליו. אז השדה חוזר לבעלים עם השבח. החוק הוא זה. רב אמר הקונה מקבל את סכום השבח מהגנב יחד עם הכסף שהוא שילם על זה. שמואל אמר שהוא אינו מקבל את השבח. בעמוד י''ד תוספות אומר שזה אותו העיקרון שחל כמוחל על דף ק''א שבו מישהו נכנס לשדה של מי שהוא ונטע עצי שדה וצמחים. שם הבעלים משלמים או השבח או ההוצאה לפי הנמוך מביניהם. אני רוצה לומר היום מה מטריד את התוספות. תן לי לומר המקרה הוא השבח הוא פחות. אז מדוע הבעלים לא נותנים לקונה את סכום השבח ישירות בדעתו של רב? עוד שאלה: זה נראה מוזר שעל דף ק''א מישהו שהולך ישירות לתוך שדה מישהו  שהוא מקבל תשלום הסכום שהוא שיפר את השדה בעוד הקונה על י''ד הדף אינו מקבל שום דבר לשמואל. זה אולי הדבר העיקרי שמטריד את תוספות. כך תוספות מגיע עם פתרון אלגנטי. הוא אומר שזה אותו העיקרון בשני המקומות. כלומר הוא חושב שהקונה מהגנב גם מקבל תשלום עבור העבודה שהוא עשה, אלא שהוא מקבל את הסכום ישירות מהבעלים.

Music for the glory of the God of Israel.

q41 mp3   q41 midi   w41 nwc format

I should mention that Mozart sometimes takes a motif into 5 or three measures instead of what you would usually expect. I am not sure why he does this but I feel that if he thinks it is OK to do so --well that is good enough for me also.  Go and check and you will see that Mozart does this more often than people are aware of.

Bava Metzia 14b 101a

I wanted to preface my remarks with thanks to God for granting me even a little bit of learning Torah. I wish I could do it like it is supposed to be done but I don't have the merit for that. My sins block my way to Torah. But when God grants me to see the light from the deep dark places I have fallen to I am enormously grateful.

The case here is you have a thief. He took a field and he sold it. The field goes back to it original owner. The thief has to give back the money he took. But what happens if the buyer spend money and time planting trees? Or maybe he did other kinds of improvement? Now the field goes back to the original owner with the improvement who pays the buyer? Rav said logically enough the thief pays for the improvement. That makes abundant sense. So here is my essay on this



You have a thief and the owner and the buyer of a field. Rav said מעות יש לו שבח יש לו.(lit he gets money and improvement.) I.e. The buyer gets the price of the field and  שבח (improvement) from the thief. On page 101 you have a person that went into the field of his friend without permission and planted trees. The owner there  has to pay either the improvement or the expense which ever was less (ידי על התחתונה). Tosphot says this is the same case and the same law.

[note: the Rambam and Rashi have a different approach. I am only trying to deal with Tosphot here.]

It occurred to me what this Tosphot means. The question you have to think about to make this all clear is who pays whom?

To Rav the owner pays the thief for the improvement, and then the thief pays the buyer. But to Shmuel the thief does not pay the buyer for the improvement. But to Samuel the buyer goes to the owner and gets back the same amount that was fixed on page 101.



בבא מציעא יד: קא.
אני רוצה לפתוח את דבריי בתודה לאלוהים על שהעניק לי אפילו קצת לימוד תורה. הלוואי שהייתי יכול לעשות את זה כמו שהוא אמור לעשות, אבל אין לי את הזכות לזה. החטאים שלי חוסמים את הדרך לתורה. אבל כאשר אלוהים מעניק לי לראות את האור מהמקומות העמוקים והאפלים שנפלתי אני מאוד אסירת תודה.

יש לך גנב ובעל הבית ולוקח שדה. בעמוד יד: רב אמר קרן יש לו שבח יש לו. לוקח מקבל שבח מהגנב. בעמוד קא. יש לך אדם שנכנס לשדה של חברו ללא רשות ונטע עצים. הבעלים שם יש להם לשלם וידי הנוטע על התחתונה. בעמוד יד: תוספות אומר שזה אותו המקרה ואותו החוק.  לרב הבעלים משלמים לגנב השבח (או היציאה איזה שהוא פחות), ולאחר מכן הגנב משלם הקונה את כל השבח. (אם הבעלים נתנו לו רק היציאה בגלל שזה פחות אז הגנב צריך לשלם את היתר להגיע לסכום של כל השבח). אבל לשמואל הגנב אינו משלם הקונה לשיפור. אבל לשמואל הקונה הולך לבעלים ומקבל בחזרה את אותה כמות שהיה קבועה בעמוד קא., או השבח או היציאה

Ideas in Talmud

\Idea in Bava Metzia version C

The reason these are here again is I had to do editing and God granted to me an answer I had to a question on Tosphot on Bava Metzia page 14