Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.

I just wanted to share two thoughts I had about Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27A.
One thought is about the "Other path" that Tosphot brings in the middle. The way that "other path" is understanding Ula is this: When Ula say a tree needs 16 yards around it and the Gemra then add that means as a square  is a fourth larger than a circle and that Ula meant 16 2/3, the way Tosphot understands that is that Ula was describing a square with one side being 33 1/3. Thus the whole square is 33.3^2 and a fourth is the size of the ground around the tree that the Mishna gives which is 33.3* 25.
That is the opposite of the way Tosphot was thinking up until  that point that Ula was describing a circle with radius 16.6 

The other thought I had was about the very first way that Tosphot understands Ula which is his winding a string method. The idea I had was that even without looking up the geometric formulas what Tosphot says makes a lot of sense. That is if you have a circle around the tree with radius 16 and wrap a string around it for 2/3 a yard you get the length of the inner string to be 2*r*pi=32*pi and the length of the outer circle 2*r*pi=33.3*pi.
So then if you flatten the whole thing out you get a rectangle pi*2r1*2/3=64 with a triangle at the top. And that from what I recall the area of a triangle is 1/2 base*height,- which is exactly what Tosphot says there 1/2*4*2/3. And all that brings up from the  768 square yards of Ula up until the 833.3 of the Mishna.[difference of 65].

Does all that work?--you might ask. I mean what would be the regular way of figuring it out? Normally you would take the area of the large circle (pi*r^2=pi* 16.67^2)=[833]-the area of the small circle (pi*r^2=pi*16^2). [827-768] Does that come out the same as Tosphot?There is a slight discrepancy. But in any case Tosphot is making an approximation as I mentioned before.

[The Gemara in this section is using an approximation of 3 for pi and the difference between a aquare and a circle to be 4/3]

In any case what looks important here is that in fact the Tosphot string method is not exact.

the path of the Gra as the right path

Repentance I think can encompass a "path" as much as individual deeds.  I myself  used to concentrate on the issue of daily schedule. And in fact I think that is important. That is to get one's daily schedule to include the right kinds of learning sessions and physical exercise etc. So I do not minimize the importance of finding the proper daily schedule. But I think one's "path" is just as much an issue of repentance. In my own case while at the Mir yeshiva in NY  I more or less accepted the path of the Gra as the right path -but it did not take long until I gave that up for what I thought were greener pastures. Though at first, my daily schedule did not change,- but eventually it did,-- and with disastrous consequences for my family. So I think the issue of "path" is just as much an issue of repentance as much [and more so] as any individual actions.

[Just for background information: the path of the Gra is more or less described simply as learning Torah and trust in God. But in more detail it is basically the path of Litvak [Lithuanian kinds of Yeshivas.]


I admit however not everything is so grand in actual Litvak yeshivas. There is a large discrepancy between the ideal and what is actually the situation on the ground. However, I refer above more towards the idea of striving for a certain kind of goal-- though one might fall from the ideal. Getting to the ideal of the Gra might very well mean in practical terms to learn Torah at home and work for a living,-- rather than having to do with any institutions. You might say simply: "Litvak yeshivas ain't what they used to be."

comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a

 I do not really have a question but rather a kind of comment on Tosphot in Bava Batra page 27a concerning the value of pi. This was noticed by my learning partner David Bronson in a different context where Tosphot was giving his winding a string or rope method where the Maharshal has a diagram showing what Tosphot meant.

My comment is this. That Tosphot is going with an approximation that Pi is 3. And so he defends the idea that a tree really would need 16 2/3 to get up to the value of the Mishna. [That how he explains one Girsa in the Gemara which says "there is lacking 2/3"] On the other hand the Rashbam defends the idea of a tree needing 16.5. But with a more accurate value of pi to be about 3.141 the actual radius around the tree would have to be 16.288. [I.e., (833.3/pi)^1/2. ]
Still it makes no difference in terms of the Gemara which says that Ula was simply being a drop strict in saying a tree with less than 16 amot from a neighbors's field is not allowed to bring Bikurim.


The background information here is this: Ula says a tree needs 16 amot [yards] radius of area areound it. The Gemara asks from where does he get this law? It suggests from the Mishna that gives three trees a space of 2500 square amot/yards. Thus each tree is getting 833.33 square amot.

[Tosphot has around five different ways of explaining the Gemara, but as far as I have gotten so far, it seems Tosphot is using  a rough approximation for pi.]

[The winding method of Tosphot is to wind a string around a circle of 32 diameter and to keep winding until the diameter is 33.33. So the low circumference is 32*pi. The big one is 33.3*pi. Then you take the area which is 65 and that brings from the area of Ula up to the  area of the Mishna. That works fine. See Tosphot for the exact calculations. But still Tosphot is using a very rough approximation for pi.

[I recall that there are places like in tracate סוכה where the Gemara gives a much more accurate approximation for pi, but I guess here it was thinking that that degree of accuracy was not necessary.]

I should mention that the winding method of Tosphot is quite ingenious. It does not require measuring the all the string but merely the inner string and the outermost string.

political authority.

Danny Fredrick  has a critique on Michael Huemer's idea of political authority. He does go with the Consequential approach. And he as others are critical of contract theories. But I wonder based on historical events. In Herodotus we do find the subject of people getting together and having to decide what type of rules do they want to live under.  This is describe in detail concerning Persia in Herodotus. And it clearly applied to the city states in Greece. And besides that it obviously was a great interest to Herodotus himself. So the fact that the founding fathers had to deal with this kind of situation is not all that easy to dismiss. [I am not disagreeing with Danny Fredrick about the source of political obligation. Just pointing out that the idea of political contract is in order to get to good consequences. ]


[My own impression of this is thus: I have great respect for Dr. Huemer and I think he is  a great thinker. But that does not mean he gets everything right. My own feeling about politics and philosophy is that Dr. Kelley Ross is closer to the mark.]

If you are in a place that needs a Constitution my advice is to learn the Federalist Papers which gives an in depth idea of what the USA Constitution is all about. Though I realize the USA Constitution depends a lot on the kind of people it was written for [WASPs, i.e. White Anglo Saxon Protestants.] The reason is that in the background of WASPs there is a kind of recognition of what constitutes right  and wrong, and based on that kind of foundation the USA Constitution works well. But with a more criminally minded kind of population it can not work. [This is in fact the reason why in the USA itself constitutional government has not been working due to a large influx of criminal populations into the USA.]
That leaves us with the question of what can other peoples do? That is not an easy question to answer and I myself have not thought about it much. But the principles seems clear enough. Strong central government, division of Church and State, etc. See the Federalist papers for more details.

A lot depends on religion.  A major flaw is most political thinking is the assumption that everyone is a WASP at heart. The Golden Rule and  basic standards of compassion and decency. No political system made for WASPs can possibly work for anyone else. The USSR having to deal with a large percent of the populations under the Czar that were mainly criminally minded had to institute  a different kind of system.

u46 u51 music files

u46 mp3   u46 midi format


U-51mp3   u51 in midi

The evil inclination does not come to a person saying to do a sin. Rather it comes saying "Let's go and do some good deed."

Reb Nahman had a whole set of lessons that he said over on the statements of Raba in Bava Batra. The very first lesson of his book deals with the events that Raba said over about how he was once on a sea voyage and the sailors told him about the nature of the kind of wave that sinks ships. "They seem," they said "like a streak of white lightening at the top. But if one hits them with a stick on which the names of God are written,  that causes them to calm down."

From this Reb Nahman derived the idea that the evil inclination usually does not come to a person saying to do a sin. Rather it comes saying "Let's go and do some good deed." That is the evil inclination wants to seem white and pure.

The first time I saw this idea was in the commentary of the Gra on Mishlei on the verse זבחי שלמים עלי היום שילמתי נדרי "Today I sacrificed peace offerings. I fulfilled my vows." That is: the evil inclination starts out asking one to do a good deed.

The exact details however are not clear to me--that is how to go about evaluating the situation. As a general rule, I think the best idea is that of Rav Israel Salanter--to learn the basic set of Musar books to get a clear idea of what the Torah actually requires of one--in a practical day to day sense.

My father [Philip Rosten (Rosenbloom)]

My father [Philip Rosten (Rosenbloom)] was a hard act to follow. As his sister put it, "He was the 'Golden Boy.'" No matter what he did, he was great at it. It did not matter what it was. Being a father, a husband, a scientist working to put satellites with laser communications into orbit, violinist, etc.--Even business and the stock market.
My own interests were more in music and philosophy. But I still had an unconscious desire to do as well as him and/or better.
Now I realize that he had specific talents--not just over-all talents. I mean to say he had two kinds of talent. One kind was a general ability to excel at anything. The other kind was talent in specific areas.

[I realize also that people have made intelligence tests more sophisticated in that they do seem to be able to measure general intelligence better than they used to.]
[So it is likely that they can measure intelligence, but not specific areas of intelligence very well.]


What I mean to bring here is the idea of walking in the path of one's parents is a good idea unless the parents were on a prima facie (obviously)  evil path.


I my own case,following his footsteps  going to Cal Tech did not seem much of a possibility. But there were other areas where he had excelled in that I think I might have tried.

[You however do not see this idea mentioned much in the Gemara I think because the Gemara is thinking that many times one's parents are not very worthy of emulation..]