The תוספתא ב''מ פרק ג'  says המוכר פרה לחבירו ונגנבה זה אומר ברשותך נגנבה וזה אומר ברשותך יחלוקו This is clearly like סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקים.  In the רמב''ם laws of מכירה כ:י''ד רב שך says clearly the argument is when the theft occurred before or after the קנין. This can not be they are arguing  in whose domain the animal was when it was stolen, because that would not be דררא דממונא. We need they should themselves be in doubt for there to be דררא דממונא
But then it should be a simple case of מי שנולד הספק ברשותו עליו להביא את הראיה. That is the question of Rav Shach
I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question based on the version of the גמרא in ב''מ page ק' that says אלא הא מני סומכוס. That is the גמרא there says that סומכוס says ממון המוטל בספק חולקים even when the animal there gave birth in the domain of the seller. Thus even when there is חזקת רשות we find that סומכוס still says his law.

התוספתא ב''מ פרק ג' אומרת המוכר פרה לחבירו ונגנבה זה אומר ברשותך נגנבה וזה אומר ברשותך יחלוקו. זהו בבירור כסומכוס, - ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. ברמב''ם הלכות מכירה כ:י''ד רב שך אומר בבירור הטענות הן בזמן הגניבה התרחשה לפני או אחרי קנין. זה לא יכול להיות שהם מתווכחים על התחום אשר החיה הייתה כשנגנבה משום שזה לא יהיה דררא דממונא. אנחנו צריכים שטוענים יהיו  בספק כדי שיהיה דררא דממונא. אבל אז רב שך שאול שזה צריך להיות שאלה פשוטה של מי שנולד ספק ברשותו עליו להביא את הראיה גם לבסומכוס. ברצוני להציע תשובה אפשרית לשאלה זו מבוססת על הגרסה של הגמרא בב''מ דף ק. שאומרת "אלא הא מני סומכוס". זוהי שגמרא שם אומרת כי סומכוס אומר ממון מוטל בספק חולקים גם כאשר החיה הולידה בתחום המוכר. לכן גם כאשר קיימת חזקת רשות אנו מוצאים כי סומכוס עדיין אומר החוק שלו.

I still am puzzled about some things here like the fact that the Tosephta seems to need to be explained as the question is when did the theft occur before or after the acquisition while in the Rambam Laws of Acquisition 20:14 and 20:15 the question is in whose domain did the problem occur.

The Tosephta (BM ch 3) says המוכר פרה לחבירו ונגנבה זה אומר ברשותך נגנבה וזה אומר ברשותך יחלוקו This is clearly like Sumchos ממון המוטל בספק חולקים.  Rav Shach says clearly the argument is when the theft occurred before or after the קנין. This can not be they are arguing  in whose domain the animal as when it was stolen because that would not be דררא דממונא. we need they should themselves be in doubt for there to be דררא דממונא
But then it should be a simple case of מי שנולד הספק ברשותו עליו להביא את הראיה
I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question based on the version of the Gemara in BM page 100 that says אלא הא מני סומכוס. That is the gemara there says that סומכוס says ממון המוטל בספק חולקים even when the animal there gave birth in the domain of the seller. Thus even when there is חזקת רשות we find that סומכוס still says his law.

Repentance involves the most simple level of what you are aware of and could be reasonably be expected to know better. But there is another level beyond the horizon of one's consciousness. Things that are so wrong that one is no even aware that they are wrong.

אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם.
One can not cause to acquire something that is not yet in one's possession. יבמות צ''ג.
ר. מאיר  says one can and this seems to depend on Aristotle's idea of the sea battle that will take place tomorrow.  Is it true now? Or is it true only when the sea battle takes place?


Though he can not cause it to be acquired now,  but it is true now that it will be acquired.
רב agrees with ר. מאיר if he says "מעכשיו". There is a three way argument between תוספות, the רשב''א and the רמב''ן what that means.

This way of mine seem to fit with how רב שך explains תוספות and the רשב''א.
See רמב''ם laws of מכירה כ''ב:ה''א

אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם.
One can not cause to acquire something that is not yet in one's possession. Yevamot 93.
R Meir says one can and this seems to depend on Aristotle's idea of the sea battle that will take place tomorrow. That is though he can not cause it to be acquired now but it is true now that it will be acquired.
Rav agrees with R. Meir if he says "from now." There is a three way argument between Tosphot, the Rashba and the Ramban what that means.


See Rambam laws of Acquisition 22:1

Serving in IDF (Israeli Defense Force)  is important from several angles. The major angle is the same reason why the Jewish community in Safed that was started by the disciples of the Gra organized a community protection force. It does not have to be any more profound than that. It also helps to know the important fact that both Reb Moshe Feinstein and Reb Aaron Kotler said in Israel "דינא דמלכותא דינא" (the law of the country is the law)
But it might be more profound that that.
But my claim is more simple. If all we had would be Reb Moshe and Reb Aaron Kotler that would be enough to establish the law.

My own feeling about this subject is mainly based on the little bit of reading I did about Jewish Communities during the Middle Ages. [That is in the Teshuvot of the teacher of the Rosh Rav Meir from Rotenberg]. Still there are troubles in Israel because of the Sephardim trying to get rid of the Ashkenazim. Not all but enough to make it worthwhile to be aware of this problem.

The issue of Christianity comes up from time to time.  The basic approach I have towards this is based on Rav Avraham Abulafia--a mystic from the Middle Ages who said about Jesus some pretty positive things.[The idea of Rav Abulafia seems to be that he was the messiah son of Joseph that is mentioned in the Gemara Suka.]  Not that that makes the basic approaches of Christianity right, but it does show a different side to the whole issue.  

In other words--the problems are well known--Paul certainly opened the gates to an approach which was not the approach of Jesus at all. But on the other the general attitude that I have encountered is that one has to say and believe that Jesus was a bad guy, and that is the one and only thing that makes one kosher--that also seems wrong. It does not seem to reflect on a commitment to truth but rather to ideology.

From my point of view, Jesus never said he was God nor claimed any kind of worship. It is hard to see from where that belief comes from the in New Testament. He did claim to be a son of God. But that is not different from what God said to Moses to tell Pharaoh, "My son my first born is Israel". Nor does it seem all that different from the verse in Deuteronomy; "You are the children of the Lord your God, Do not make a tattoo on your bodies." 

Nor did Jesus nullify any commandments at all,  even of the words of the scribes. "The scribes sit on teh seat of Moses and so all that they teach and command that you must do."

However it also seems that the issue is more important than what could be swept under the carpet. Certain people are sent into this world to bring some kind of great good into the world. Like Moses. And from my perspective there are certain positive things associated with Jesus that can not be gotten through any other channel. 

[So in so far as Christians learn and emulate Jesus they are right. But in so far as they worship him, that  is wrong. One should worship God alone.]