בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב A question on and an answer for R. Tam.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב  The גמרא first brings the משנה that that the חכמים say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on רבא that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the משנה is just saying mustard can cause damage, but the law of רבא still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the גמרא asks from ר' יוסי. The גמרא says that ר' יוסי says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard. To ר' תם and ר' חננאל, the גמרא answers this thus "רבינא said the חכמים hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of רב פפא. The way ר' תם  explains it is thus. At first we thought the חכמים held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that רבא retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from ר' יוסי? In the גמרא we apparently took care of the first part of the משנה. It was from ר' יוסי that we were asking.




בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הגמרא מביאה את המשנה כי  החכמים אומרים להרחיק את החרדל מן הדבורים וזו שאלה על רבא שאומר משהו שגורם נזק חייב להיתרחק מן הגבול אפילו אם אין שום דבר בצד השני שיכול להינזק. אז היא עונה על השאלה שהמשנה אומרת לנו  שחרדל יכול לגרום נזק, אבל החוק של רבא עדיין עומד שגם כאשר אין דבורים עדיין אי אפשר לשים חרדל ליד הגבול. ואז הגמרא שואלת מר' יוסי. הגמרא אומרת כי ר' יוסי אומר שזה מותר, כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים להגיד לבעלים של הדבורים למה להגיד לי להרחיק את החרדל שלי משם? אתה צריך להרחיק את הדבורים שלך משום שהם גורמים נזק לחרדל שלי.  לדעת ר' תם ור' חננאל,  התשובת גמרא היא בכך "רבינא אומר חכמים מחזיקים שאחד שגורם נזק חייב להרחיק את האובייקט שגורם נזק מן הגבול." תשובה זו היא תשובה שונה מזו של רב פפא. הדרך שר' תם מסביר את זה היא בכך. בהתחלה חשבנו שחכמים מחזיקים  מה שגורם נזק חייב להתרחק משם. ועכשיו אחרי התשובה שאנחנו חושבים שהוא חייב לשמור האובייקט שלו משם רק כשיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק. כלומר, כי רבא חזר בו מדעתו. השאלה שלי היא אז מה זה שייך לשאלה שהם שאלו מן ר' יוסי? בגמרא  טיפלו כבר בחלק הראשון של משנה. עכשיו  מן ר' יוסי אנחנו שואלים.

____________________________________________________________________________

I think the answer is this. רב פפא is not coming to answer the question היכי משכחת ליה. Instead he is coming to answer the original question on רבא from the משנה on משרה וירק

Talmud Bava Batra 18b  The Gemara first brings the Mishna that that the sages say to keep the mustard away from the bees and that is  a question on Rava that says something that causes damage must be kept away from the boundary even if there is nothing on the other side that could be damaged.  Then it answers the question telling us that the Mishna is just saying mustard can cause damage but the law of Rava still stands that even when there are no bees still one can not put mustard next to the border.
Then the Gemara asks from R. Yose. R. Yose says it is permitted because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You should keep your bees away because they cause damage to my mustard.

To R. Tam (and R. Kananel), the gemara answers this thus "Ravina said the sages hold the one that causes damage must keep the object that cases damage away from the boundary." (I mean to say that this answer is a different answer than that of Rav Papa.)

The way R Tam explains it is thus. At first we thought the sages held the one that causes damage must keep his object away. and now after the answer we think he must keep his object away only when there s something on the other side of the boundary that could be damaged. That is, that Rava retracted his statement.  My question is then what does this have to do with the question they were asking from R Yose? In the Gemara we apparently took care of the first part of the Mishna. It was from R Yose that we were asking

trust in God along with effort or without effort

The argument about whether  בטחון עם השתדלות or בטחון בלי השתדלו one should trust in God along with  effort or without effort is between the Gra and Rav Ibn Pakuda (The Obligations of the Heart) and centers on King Asa. [King Asa was the King of Judah]. That is the verse that says he was punished because he went to the doctors instead of to God for a cure. Ibn Pakuka says it was OK to go to doctors, but that he also should have trusted in God. The Gra's statement is not focused on King Asa, but rather the verse in Proverbs בטח אל ה' בכול לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען.["Trust in God with all your heart and do not depend on your intellect."]  But still it looks like the Gra is frowning doing effort to get one's needs met. Rather one should trust in God. To the Gra it looks like an either this or that, but not both. Rav Ibn Pakuda suggests that trust in God can go along with effort.
My question is why does no one mention the fact that King Asa sent for help from the king of Syria to fight against Basha, the king of Israel,-- and that the prophet specifically criticizes him for the same exact reason that later he was criticized about the doctors?

The general approach towards "rishonim" medieval authorities is that it is impossible to decide between them because both are אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים "These and these are the words of the Living God." Thus in this case also [which is a מחלוקת ראשונים and argument between First Authorities] it is not possible to say which one is right. [Authorities after the rishonim can be wrong,-- and are wrong quite often.]

I was in the hospital in Uman with my foot and leg broken  with multiple fractures. Two guys saw I was in trouble and called an ambulance, and brought me to the hospital.  I am extremely grateful to God that he granted to me help and  a great doctor  and I can walk again. [I still can not jog.] But to me this seems like one case where going to the doctor was of great importance. Still other times it seems to me that all my efforts in almost any direction backfire to make things even worse than if I had just left things alone. Thus clearly the approach of Ibn Pakuda is the best idea and other times that of the Gra.

[The reason this was a big issue in the Mir is that it relates to the fact that almost everyone in the Mir in NY was learning Torah for its own sake [לשמה] and had no plans on using it for money.]

U-33 A Minor 6-8 time  [U-33 in midi ]  u-33 nwc

You can see the problem with false prophets even in the period of the First Temple in the Old Testament. Also with false leaders. This problem has not gone away.


To be it seems related to idolatry because I think it is possible that idolatry and the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side] are really the same thing in essence.
 The main issue is the problems with Torah scholars that are demons as brought down in the Zohar and the Ari.

The trouble is that you need to be around with people you can trust. The religious world makes this show of  "We are all one big family" when they want your money. But if, God forbid, you are ever in need --forget it. More so- demonic Torah scholars  try actively to cause damage to you because that is their inner essence.
This problem is however not in Reform or Conservative groups from what I can tell.  But it did get into the religious world.

Some people have found this kind of trouble even in the top Mount Everest-the Litvak Yeshivas-which one would normally expect to be immune. The reason seems to be that where holiness is to be found, that is where the Sita Achra tries the hardest to run interference.

My opinion about this is that the best approach is that of the Litvak yeshivas that go strictly with the Gra, like the Silverman Yeshivas in the Old City of Jerusalem.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב The actual way the גמרא however understands ר' יוסי is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then the other שכן can also put his object there. So the גמרא asks,  How could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place according to רבא? But perhaps that is exactly what ר' יוסי means? Each can put his thing by the border. The question I want to ask is this. Why does the גמרא insist on asking on ר' יוסי "How could this situation be found?" All ר' יוסי says in the משנה is "It is permitted." And even though the גמרא brings the full statement that says, It is permitted because the owner of the mustard can ask the owner of the bees: "Why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away.
Why not understand ר' יוסי simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.  How is it found? It is found because to ר' יוסי it is permitted.

What I mean to say is that the three תוספות on the page deal with the answer of the גמרא to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the ר''ת and ר''ח that say רבינא is  a different answer.  And in רבינא the understanding is that ר' יוסי means  the bees can be put Next to the boundary because the bees  are damaged but do not cause damage. That is at this point in the גמרא. The גמרא however does change this.

 I mean that my above question is only to the other תוספות because ר''ת can simply say that that is the very answer of רבינא, that the bees can be put there.
However R. Tam does not say that this idea that Ravina is a new answer makes the question on Rava dissolve. just the opposite. He says it makes the question on Rava all the more powerful to the degree that Rava has to retract his entire thesis --at least when it comes to the sages.

בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב הדרך בפועל שהגמרא מבינה ר' יוסי היא כי אם שכן אחד שם דבורים או החרדל שלו ליד הגבול, ואז שכן השני יכול גם לשים האובייקט שלו שם. אז הגמרא שואלת, איך יכול להיות המצב הזה?  מי יכול לשים דבר על ידי הגבול מלכתחילה על פי רבא? אבל אולי זה בדיוק מה ר' יוסי מכוון? היינו שכל אחד יכול לשים הדבר שלו ליד הגבול. השאלה שאני רוצה לשאול היא זו. למה הגמרא מתעקשת לשאול על ר' יוסי "איך יכול המצב הזה ניתן להימצא?" כל מה ר' יוסי אומר במשנה הוא "מותר". ואף על פי הגמרא מביאה את ההצהרה המלאה שאומרת, זה מותר כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים לשאול את הבעלים של הדבורים: "מדוע אתם אומרים לי לשמור החרדל שלי רחוק משם? תשים את הדבורים שלך הרחק משם?למה לא מבינים ר' יוסי פשוט? הן החרדל הן הדבורים ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. איך זה נמצא? זה נמצא כי לר' יוסי זה מותר.

 שלושת התוספות על הדף אינם משנים את השאלה עצמה. מלבד ר''ת ו ר''ח  שאומרים רבינא הוא תשובה אחרת מתשובת הלוקח. וגם להם לרבינא ההבנה היא כי ר' יוסי אומר הדבורים ניתנות לשים ליד הגבול כי הדבורים יכולות להינזק אך אינן גורמות נזק בשלב הזה של הגמרא. גמרא אולם משנה זו אחר כך

 אני מתכוון כי השאלה הנ"ל שלי היא רק לתוספות אחרות בגלל שר''ת פשוט יכול לומר כי זו היא התשובה של רבינא, כי הדבורים ניתנות לשים שם..

It occurs to  me to ask really a simple question on Bava Batra page 18-b.

The question I want to ask is this. Why does the Gemara insist on asking on R.Yose "How could this situation be found?" All R. Yose says in the Mishna is "It is permitted." And even though the Gemata brings the full statement that says It is permitted "because the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees why tell me to keep my mustard away? You keep your bees away."
Why not understand R. Yose simply to mean as it sounds? Both the mustard and the bees can be put next to the border.

The actual way the Gemara however understands R. Jose is that one person put his bees or mustard by the border and then he says the other can also put his object there. Soon that the Gemara asks according to Rava how could this situation arise that anyone put anything by the border in the first place? But perhaps that is exactly what R Jose means? Each can put his thing by the border.


[I do not think Tosphot answers this even though I could be wrong. What I mean to say is that the three Tosphots on the page deal with the answer of the Gemara to the question but as far as I recall they do not change  the question itself. Except the R.Tam and R. Kananel that say Ravina is  a different answer.  And in Ravina the understanding is that R. Jose means  the bees can be put there because they are damaged - but not damagers.]


 I mean that my above question is only to the other Tosphots because R. Tam can simply say that that is the very answer of Ravina--that the bees can be put there.