24.8.17
תוספות says the argument between רב and שמואל on בבא מציעא י''ד is the same as their argument on page ק''א.
The גמרא on page ק''א there is no argument. One is talking about a field that usually planted and the other is a field that is not usually planted.
Though the simple way to understand this is that רב that say the לוקח gets back both the קרן ושבח that means for a field that is usually planted.
However it could be that תוספות means to take this even further. That is he might mean that רב and שמואל do not disagree even about the fundamental law. They both agree when the לוקח is the one that did the work and the improvements , then the owner pays him. And that is the law of רב. And when the גנב did the improvements the owner pays the גנב and not the buyer. The לוקח in any case is getting back what he paid for the property because the improvements the גנב did are included in קרן and that he gets back from the גנב.
תוספות אומר הטיעון בין רב לבין שמואל בבבא מציעא י''ד זהה הטיעון שלהם בעמוד ק''א. הגמרא בעמוד ק''א אומרת אין ויכוח. אחד מדבר על שדה שבדרך כלל נוטעים והשני הוא שדה אשר בדרך כלל לא נטוע. למרות הדרך הפשוטה ביותר להבין זאת היא כי רב כי אומר ללוקח חוזר הן הקרן והשבח זה עבור שדה נטוע בדרך כלל. עם זאת זה יכול להיות כי תוספות רוצה לקחת את זה עוד יותר. כלומר הוא מכווין לכך שרב ושמואל מסכימים אפילו על החוק הבסיסי. שניהם מסכימים כאשר לוקח הוא זה עשה את העבודה ואת השיפורים, אז הבעלים משלמים לו. וזה החוק של רב. וכאשר הגנב עשה השיפור, הבעלים משלמים לגנב ולא לקונה. לוקח בכל מקרה הוא מקבל בחזרה את מה שהוא שילם עבור הנכס משום שהשיפורים שעשה הגנב כלולים בקרן והקרן חוזר מן ללוקח.
I broke my leg last night going to the mikve. On the way there and now as I lay in the hospital waiting for an operation the doctor here says I need I am wondering about this last new idea. I would not have said anything before and I think just to leave it, but still I think it is important to take note that this does not seem like the simple explanation of the argument on page 14 and furthermore it is not how I explained it before! up until yesterday I was saying the argument is exactly like that on page 101 where the entire difference between Rav and Shmuel is what kind of field it is עשוי לנטוע or not. And before that I was saying it depends on who did the work the thief or the buyer from the thief. Right now I have to admit that Tosphot here is hard to firgure out.
The גמרא on page ק''א there is no argument. One is talking about a field that usually planted and the other is a field that is not usually planted.
Though the simple way to understand this is that רב that say the לוקח gets back both the קרן ושבח that means for a field that is usually planted.
However it could be that תוספות means to take this even further. That is he might mean that רב and שמואל do not disagree even about the fundamental law. They both agree when the לוקח is the one that did the work and the improvements , then the owner pays him. And that is the law of רב. And when the גנב did the improvements the owner pays the גנב and not the buyer. The לוקח in any case is getting back what he paid for the property because the improvements the גנב did are included in קרן and that he gets back from the גנב.
תוספות אומר הטיעון בין רב לבין שמואל בבבא מציעא י''ד זהה הטיעון שלהם בעמוד ק''א. הגמרא בעמוד ק''א אומרת אין ויכוח. אחד מדבר על שדה שבדרך כלל נוטעים והשני הוא שדה אשר בדרך כלל לא נטוע. למרות הדרך הפשוטה ביותר להבין זאת היא כי רב כי אומר ללוקח חוזר הן הקרן והשבח זה עבור שדה נטוע בדרך כלל. עם זאת זה יכול להיות כי תוספות רוצה לקחת את זה עוד יותר. כלומר הוא מכווין לכך שרב ושמואל מסכימים אפילו על החוק הבסיסי. שניהם מסכימים כאשר לוקח הוא זה עשה את העבודה ואת השיפורים, אז הבעלים משלמים לו. וזה החוק של רב. וכאשר הגנב עשה השיפור, הבעלים משלמים לגנב ולא לקונה. לוקח בכל מקרה הוא מקבל בחזרה את מה שהוא שילם עבור הנכס משום שהשיפורים שעשה הגנב כלולים בקרן והקרן חוזר מן ללוקח.
I broke my leg last night going to the mikve. On the way there and now as I lay in the hospital waiting for an operation the doctor here says I need I am wondering about this last new idea. I would not have said anything before and I think just to leave it, but still I think it is important to take note that this does not seem like the simple explanation of the argument on page 14 and furthermore it is not how I explained it before! up until yesterday I was saying the argument is exactly like that on page 101 where the entire difference between Rav and Shmuel is what kind of field it is עשוי לנטוע or not. And before that I was saying it depends on who did the work the thief or the buyer from the thief. Right now I have to admit that Tosphot here is hard to firgure out.
the argument between Rav and Shmuel on Bava Metzia 14b
Tosphot says the argument between Rav and Shmuel on Bava Metzia 14b is the same as their argument on page 101.
The gemara on page 101 there is no argument. One is talking about a field that usually planted and the other is a field that is not usually planted.
Though the simple way to understand this is that Rav that say the buyer gets back both the קרן ושבח that means for a field that is usually planted.
However it could be that Tosphot mean to take this even further. That is he might mean that Rav and Shmuel do not disagree even about the fundamental law. They both agree when the buyer is the one that did the work and the improvements , then the owner pays him. And that is the law of Rav. And when the thief did the improvements the owner pays the thief and not the buyer. The buyer in any case is getting back what he paid for the property because the improvements the thief did are included in the price that he paid for the field and that he gets back from the thief.
But who did the work on the field can not be the difference between the higher or lower price on page 101 (ידו על העליונה) That was a thought I had that I put into the my little book on Shas but I realized while sitting here in the hospital that that can not be right because the gemara itself states the difference is only dependent on one thing,-if the field is usually planted or not.
The gemara on page 101 there is no argument. One is talking about a field that usually planted and the other is a field that is not usually planted.
Though the simple way to understand this is that Rav that say the buyer gets back both the קרן ושבח that means for a field that is usually planted.
However it could be that Tosphot mean to take this even further. That is he might mean that Rav and Shmuel do not disagree even about the fundamental law. They both agree when the buyer is the one that did the work and the improvements , then the owner pays him. And that is the law of Rav. And when the thief did the improvements the owner pays the thief and not the buyer. The buyer in any case is getting back what he paid for the property because the improvements the thief did are included in the price that he paid for the field and that he gets back from the thief.
But who did the work on the field can not be the difference between the higher or lower price on page 101 (ידו על העליונה) That was a thought I had that I put into the my little book on Shas but I realized while sitting here in the hospital that that can not be right because the gemara itself states the difference is only dependent on one thing,-if the field is usually planted or not.
Trust without effort
Trust without effort is my conclusion of the right approach. That is to say I do not want to leave this question as being simply a debate between the Obligations of the Heart as opposed to the Ramban and the Gra. Rather drawing upon my own experience I believe that the Gra an the Ramban were right. That is there is no need to learn a vocation or to do a vocation until that very day when it I needed. Until then it is best to sit and learn Torah.
Though I do not claim the ability to decide between the rishonim that argued on this question, still I see the point of the Ramban and the Gra.
First I should mention that this was also more or less manifested in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. There it was the rule that the students would learn Torah all day and going to university was not an option.
I was in Safed for seven years and did not do much learning, but still I was doing some learning, and God provided. It was when I decided to go out and find work everything fell apart. Without going into the gory details, it ought to be clear that as long as I could manage to sit and learn Torah I ought to have done so.
The problem is that the Ramban states this idea of trust without effort in only one place --where he says this in reference to doctors. And there are plenty of routine procedures that are well known.
[This issue I do not hope to resolve, but I have heard from people that left the kollel system regrets about doing so. When I left it and consciously went about trying to find work people consistently complained about me that I was not working. The very same people who never put in an honest day's work in their lives. So if you simply look at the facts-the truth is cloudy. Lots of unworthy and insincere people take advantage of the kollel system. But does that take away all its positive aspects? I guess not. Where is any system that can't be abused?
Though I do not claim the ability to decide between the rishonim that argued on this question, still I see the point of the Ramban and the Gra.
First I should mention that this was also more or less manifested in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. There it was the rule that the students would learn Torah all day and going to university was not an option.
I was in Safed for seven years and did not do much learning, but still I was doing some learning, and God provided. It was when I decided to go out and find work everything fell apart. Without going into the gory details, it ought to be clear that as long as I could manage to sit and learn Torah I ought to have done so.
The problem is that the Ramban states this idea of trust without effort in only one place --where he says this in reference to doctors. And there are plenty of routine procedures that are well known.
[This issue I do not hope to resolve, but I have heard from people that left the kollel system regrets about doing so. When I left it and consciously went about trying to find work people consistently complained about me that I was not working. The very same people who never put in an honest day's work in their lives. So if you simply look at the facts-the truth is cloudy. Lots of unworthy and insincere people take advantage of the kollel system. But does that take away all its positive aspects? I guess not. Where is any system that can't be abused?
The Ramban [Nachmanides ] Trust in God is without effort.
The Ramban [Nachmanides ] explains that though there is permission for the doctor to cure oneself, but people should not go to doctors. He writes one that goes to a doctor has no portion the next world. אין לו חלק בארץ החיים. My impression of this is it has to refer to non standard procedures.
[He brings this from the verse about the king of Israel that got sick and did not go ask God כי אם ברופאים rather he went to inquire from doctors.]
Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue. The point is we have found a source for Israel Salanter that says the trust in God is without effort [בטחון בלי השתדלות].
This has long been a mystery from where Israel Salanter got this from. It later formed the entire basis of Navardok [Joseph Jozel Horvitz]. But Navardok just quotes Israel Salanter from the Tvuna [a magazine he published ]article. The fact is Navardok quotes the Gra also and that is clearly what the Gra is saying. But the Rambam was a mystery. David Bronson discovered this fact. He was learning the Ramban and saw the whole treatment of the Rambam on the issue of כאן ניתן רשות לרופא לרפאת. Everyone just reads that first line and thinks the Ramban is saying to do effort is OK. Only if you read the whole piece in detail do you see otherwise.
[The Obligations of the Heart however does have trust with effort.]
Accepting the yoke of Torah and Trust in God were the two pillars of the Mir Yeshiva in NY when I was learning there. These two lessons I never absorbed very well but I hope to get back to them.
Litvak yeshiva represent Torah in it purest most unadulterated form. But they have to walk a fine thin line. They need to keep out bad influences. This leads often to too much caution on the side of error to throw out sincere good people. Often they let in people by mistake that are bad influences. They are human institutions that have plenty of failings. But at least in principle they are advocating a truth and important set of ideals--to learn and keep Torah and trust in God.
[He brings this from the verse about the king of Israel that got sick and did not go ask God כי אם ברופאים rather he went to inquire from doctors.]
Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue. The point is we have found a source for Israel Salanter that says the trust in God is without effort [בטחון בלי השתדלות].
This has long been a mystery from where Israel Salanter got this from. It later formed the entire basis of Navardok [Joseph Jozel Horvitz]. But Navardok just quotes Israel Salanter from the Tvuna [a magazine he published ]article. The fact is Navardok quotes the Gra also and that is clearly what the Gra is saying. But the Rambam was a mystery. David Bronson discovered this fact. He was learning the Ramban and saw the whole treatment of the Rambam on the issue of כאן ניתן רשות לרופא לרפאת. Everyone just reads that first line and thinks the Ramban is saying to do effort is OK. Only if you read the whole piece in detail do you see otherwise.
[The Obligations of the Heart however does have trust with effort.]
Accepting the yoke of Torah and Trust in God were the two pillars of the Mir Yeshiva in NY when I was learning there. These two lessons I never absorbed very well but I hope to get back to them.
Litvak yeshiva represent Torah in it purest most unadulterated form. But they have to walk a fine thin line. They need to keep out bad influences. This leads often to too much caution on the side of error to throw out sincere good people. Often they let in people by mistake that are bad influences. They are human institutions that have plenty of failings. But at least in principle they are advocating a truth and important set of ideals--to learn and keep Torah and trust in God.
23.8.17
Kelley Ross as a philosopher has a thoroughness that surprised me. I had been aware of problems in Torah for a long while. One major problem was: "The difference has to make a difference." If this one system is true and holy, and everything else is completely false and evil, then that ought to be seen in the traits and nature of people following the true system. If good and evil are simply divided along the normal bell curve, then that is a question. There were personal reasons also. I had encountered enough evil in many religious people, and their leaders in particular, to raise doubts.
There were also intellectual questions, but these did not seem as serious as the others.
It was right at that time I discovered Kelley Ross's essay on Spinoza.
That was a shock when I saw the depth. I never saw a modern writer on philosophy come anywhere near it.
But then I saw his major four essays on value, and that was enough to answer all my questions.
[There are other very good philosophers nowadays, but none that get anywhere near Kelley Ross.]
The only thing that bothers me is that he does not seem to have much of a liking for Hegel.
That never bothered me as long as I never really read Hegel. [I did a drop in NY, but I did not know then what Hegel was talking about. Later with a little more background, I could read Hegel, and see what he was getting at,- and then I started to realize he has a lot that is really amazing ideas. ]
In a nutshell, Kelley Ross is a continuation of Plato, and Hegel is a continuation and deepening of Aristotle.
Even very good philosophers like Edward Feser and Michael Huemer tend to have a certain weakness when it comes to Physics. And that makes a lot of difference.
The most simple way to justify Torah in two words is objective morality. Moral principles are universals that can be known by reason. The Torah simply reveals what objective morality is. It does not claim to make people moral. And Objective Morality has a lot to do with midot (-character). Though it goes into areas of service of God also. But the starting point is midot (-character). If people have bad midot/character, that is a question on them and on human nature. not on Torah.
There were also intellectual questions, but these did not seem as serious as the others.
It was right at that time I discovered Kelley Ross's essay on Spinoza.
That was a shock when I saw the depth. I never saw a modern writer on philosophy come anywhere near it.
But then I saw his major four essays on value, and that was enough to answer all my questions.
[There are other very good philosophers nowadays, but none that get anywhere near Kelley Ross.]
The only thing that bothers me is that he does not seem to have much of a liking for Hegel.
That never bothered me as long as I never really read Hegel. [I did a drop in NY, but I did not know then what Hegel was talking about. Later with a little more background, I could read Hegel, and see what he was getting at,- and then I started to realize he has a lot that is really amazing ideas. ]
In a nutshell, Kelley Ross is a continuation of Plato, and Hegel is a continuation and deepening of Aristotle.
Even very good philosophers like Edward Feser and Michael Huemer tend to have a certain weakness when it comes to Physics. And that makes a lot of difference.
The most simple way to justify Torah in two words is objective morality. Moral principles are universals that can be known by reason. The Torah simply reveals what objective morality is. It does not claim to make people moral. And Objective Morality has a lot to do with midot (-character). Though it goes into areas of service of God also. But the starting point is midot (-character). If people have bad midot/character, that is a question on them and on human nature. not on Torah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)