Ideas in Talmud updated R38 G major I think this piece is OK but I am not really sure.
Ideas in Bava Metzia
Ideas in Bava Metzia
Showing posts with label Bava Metzia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bava Metzia. Show all posts
5.4.16
Bava Metzia
Bava Metzia page 14b. ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9
On the way to the bank it occurred to that there is one significant difference between Rashi and Tosphot concerning Shmuel and that that difference may very well indicate some serious revising of how to understand the Tosphot. The difference between Rashi and Tosphot is in area of Shmuel. To Rashi when Shmuel says the buyer gets the price he paid for the field but not improvements it means he does not get the improvement from the owner nor the thief. (I have a remarkable proof for this but I can't write it this minute.)
There is no difference between Rashi and Tosphot that is true as far as the opinion of Rav is concerned.
But now this reflects on Tosphot also. For Tosphot says the law on page 14 is the same as the law on page 101. So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of Tosphot the owner would pay the buyer the lesser amount, improvement or expense. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of Tosphot concerning Rav. If the thief did no work why would the owner pay anything to the thief? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as Tosphot in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the owner pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the owner pays the buyer the full amount of the improvement is when the buyer was the one to do the work.
Bli'neder if I get a chance I will try to present the whole subject in more detail.
_______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב
There is one significant difference between רש''י and תוספות concerning שמואל. The difference between רש''י and תוספות is in area of שמואל. To רש''י when שמואל says the לוקח gets the price he paid for the field קרן but not שבח it means he does not get the שבח from the בעל השדה nor the thief.
So when I wrote there is no difference between רש''י and תוספות that is true as far as the opinion of רב is concerned.
But now this reflects on תוספות also. For תוספות says the law on page י''ד ע''ב is the same as the law on page ק''א ע''א So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of תוספות the בעל השדה would pay the buyer the lesser amount, שבח or יציאה. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of תוספות concerning רב. If the גנב did no work why would the בעל השדה pay anything to the גנב? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as תוספות in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the בעל השדה pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the בעל השדה pays the לוקח the full amount of the שבח is when the לוקח was the one to do the work.
בבא מציעא י '' ד ע''ב יש הבדל משמעותי אחד בין רש''י ותוספות בנוגע לשמואל. ההבדל בין רש''י ואת התוספות הוא בתחום של שמואל. לרש''י כאשר שמואל אמר שהלוקח מקבל את המחיר ששילם עבור השדה, קרן אבל לא שבח, זה אומר שהוא אינו מקבל את שבח מן בעל השדה ולא את הגנב. אין הבדל בין רש ''י ותוספות בנוגע לדעת רב. אבל עכשיו זה משקף על תוספות גם. לתוספות החוק על דף י''ד ע''ב זהה לחוק בעמוד ק''א ע''א.
שלדעת תוספות בעל השדה ימשלם לקונה הסכום הפחות, שבח או יציאה. אבל בואו נראה אז על דעתו של תוספות בנוגע רב. אם הגנב לא עשה שום עבודה מדוע בעל השדה ישלם כלום לגנב? החיצים כתבתי צדקו אבל הנקודה שלי היא שהמקרים שונים. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם את הגנב את הכמות הפחותה זה כאשר הגנב עשה את העבודה על המגרש. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם לוקח את הסכום המלא של השבח הוא כאשר הלוקח היה זה שעשה את העבודה.
On the way to the bank it occurred to that there is one significant difference between Rashi and Tosphot concerning Shmuel and that that difference may very well indicate some serious revising of how to understand the Tosphot. The difference between Rashi and Tosphot is in area of Shmuel. To Rashi when Shmuel says the buyer gets the price he paid for the field but not improvements it means he does not get the improvement from the owner nor the thief. (I have a remarkable proof for this but I can't write it this minute.)
There is no difference between Rashi and Tosphot that is true as far as the opinion of Rav is concerned.
But now this reflects on Tosphot also. For Tosphot says the law on page 14 is the same as the law on page 101. So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of Tosphot the owner would pay the buyer the lesser amount, improvement or expense. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of Tosphot concerning Rav. If the thief did no work why would the owner pay anything to the thief? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as Tosphot in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the owner pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the owner pays the buyer the full amount of the improvement is when the buyer was the one to do the work.
Bli'neder if I get a chance I will try to present the whole subject in more detail.
_______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב
There is one significant difference between רש''י and תוספות concerning שמואל. The difference between רש''י and תוספות is in area of שמואל. To רש''י when שמואל says the לוקח gets the price he paid for the field קרן but not שבח it means he does not get the שבח from the בעל השדה nor the thief.
So when I wrote there is no difference between רש''י and תוספות that is true as far as the opinion of רב is concerned.
But now this reflects on תוספות also. For תוספות says the law on page י''ד ע''ב is the same as the law on page ק''א ע''א So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of תוספות the בעל השדה would pay the buyer the lesser amount, שבח or יציאה. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of תוספות concerning רב. If the גנב did no work why would the בעל השדה pay anything to the גנב? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as תוספות in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the בעל השדה pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the בעל השדה pays the לוקח the full amount of the שבח is when the לוקח was the one to do the work.
בבא מציעא י '' ד ע''ב יש הבדל משמעותי אחד בין רש''י ותוספות בנוגע לשמואל. ההבדל בין רש''י ואת התוספות הוא בתחום של שמואל. לרש''י כאשר שמואל אמר שהלוקח מקבל את המחיר ששילם עבור השדה, קרן אבל לא שבח, זה אומר שהוא אינו מקבל את שבח מן בעל השדה ולא את הגנב. אין הבדל בין רש ''י ותוספות בנוגע לדעת רב. אבל עכשיו זה משקף על תוספות גם. לתוספות החוק על דף י''ד ע''ב זהה לחוק בעמוד ק''א ע''א.
שלדעת תוספות בעל השדה ימשלם לקונה הסכום הפחות, שבח או יציאה. אבל בואו נראה אז על דעתו של תוספות בנוגע רב. אם הגנב לא עשה שום עבודה מדוע בעל השדה ישלם כלום לגנב? החיצים כתבתי צדקו אבל הנקודה שלי היא שהמקרים שונים. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם את הגנב את הכמות הפחותה זה כאשר הגנב עשה את העבודה על המגרש. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם לוקח את הסכום המלא של השבח הוא כאשר הלוקח היה זה שעשה את העבודה.
10.1.16
Bava Metzia
These are the two גמרות that my previous note was meant to be applied to.
Here I am taking the approach of תוספות according to the מהרש''א. I am giving up explaining these גמרות according to the מהרש''ל in בבא מציעא because even if I could get him to work in ב''מ I would still have to face the fact that is approach is absolutely contrary to the גמרא in שבועות point blank. That is because the מהרש''ל is saying we continue the approach of saying דורשיין לשון הדיוט even when it is not written. How much more opposite to the גמרא in שבועות could you get? There the גמרא says שמואל is only when he explains openly the משכון is for the הלוואה. Or change it to רש''י if you want that שמואל is only when he did not explain it openly. One way of the other, there is a difference.
The גמרא in שבועות מ''ד ע''א. The משנה says the משכון is against the הלוואה only according to its own monetary worth. The גמרא asks this seems not like שמואל who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole הלוואה. The גמרא answers שמואל is when he said so explicitly and the משנה is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of שמואל is the subject of an argument between two תנאים. The ברייתא says רבי אליעזר says if the מלווה lost the משכון he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole הלוואה. Then רבי עקיבא says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give a משכון in the first place but to be for the הלוואה? You lost the משכון, you lost the הלוואה.'"
The גמרא says that neither רבי אליעזר nor רבי עקיבא hold from שמואל and rather they disagree about the law of רבי יצחק. The גמרא says רבי יצחק said the מלווה owns the משכון. Then the גמרא pushes that off and says רבי יצחק was talking about a case when the משכון was taken not at the time of the הלוואה and in that case everyone agrees with רבי יצחק. Rather their argument is when the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה and it is parallel to the argument between רבה and רב יוסף. The argument is this. רבה said a the finder of a אבידה has the category of a שומר חינם. Then רב יוסף said a שומר שכר. The גמרא says even then if the מלווה does not need the משכון there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the מלווה needs to use the משכון.
The גמרא in בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א says רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds דורשין לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the משכון is considered to be for the whole הלוואה even if the משכון is not worth much. The גמרא asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole משכון? But that contradicts רבי יוחנן who said the מלווה can take the whole משכון from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather רבי יהושע בן קרחה meant that if the משכון goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on, then we go after other property in order that the whole הלוואה should be paid back.
___________________________________________________________________________
אלה הם שתי גמרות שההערה הקודמת שלי הייתה אמורה להיות מיושמת
כאן אני לוקח את הגישה של תוספות בהתאם למהרש''א. אני לא נותן את הסבר הגמרות על פי מהרש''ל בבבא מציעא, כי גם אם אני יכול לקבל אותו בב''מ, אני עדיין אצטרך להתמודד עם העובדה שהגישה שלו מנוגדת לחלוטין לגמרא בשבועות, טווח אפס. זאת משום שהמהרש''ל אומר שאנו ממשיכים את גישתו של "דורשיין לשון ההדיוט" גם כאשר זה לא כתוב. זה לההפך לגמרא בשבועות . שם הגמרא אומרת שמואל הוא רק כאשר הוא מסביר בגלוי שהמשכון הוא להלוואה. או לשנות אותו לרש''י אם אתה רוצה ששמואל הוא רק כאשר הוא לא הסביר את זה בגלוי. דרך אחת או האחרות, יש הבדל.
גמרא בשבועות מ''ד ע''א. המשנה אומרת המשכון הוא נגד ההלוואה רק על פי השווי הכספי שלו. הגמרא שואלת זה לא נראה כמו שמואל שאומר המשכון נחשב שווה לכל ההלוואה. הגמרא עונה שמואל הוא כשאמר זאת במפורש והמשנה היא כאשר הוא לא עשה זאת. הגמרא שאולת אולי דעתו של שמואל היא הנושא לוויכוח בין שני תנאים. רבי אליעזר אומר, אם מלווה איבד משכון הוא לוקח שבועה שזה היה באונס והוא אוסף את כל ההלוואה. אז רבי עקיבא אומר: "הלווה יכול לומר, 'מדוע אני נתתי משכון, אבל כדי להיות להלוואה? איבדת המשכון, איבדת את ההלוואה." הגמרא אומרת לא רבי אליעזר ולא רבי עקיבא מחזיקים משמואל. אבל אולי הם מתווכחים על החוק הרב יצחק. רבי יצחק אמר משכון בבעלות המלווה. אז הגמרא דוחפת את זה ואומרת שאם נלקח המשכון לא בזמן ההלוואה כולם מסכימים עם רבי יצחק. במקום זאת הטענה שלהם היא כאשר המשכון נלקח בעת ההלוואה וזה במקביל לוויכוח בין רבה ורב יוסף. הטיעון זה. רבה אמר למאתר של אבדה יש הקטגוריה של שומר חינם. אז רב יוסף אמר שומר שכר. הגמרא אומרת גם אז אם מלווה לא צריך את המשכון אין מחלוקת, אלא המקרה הוא כאשר המלווה צריך להשתמש במשכון.
הגמרא בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א אומרת רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק דורשין לשון הדיוט. זה אומר שאנחנו מסתכלים על השפה של המסמך המדויקת. אז כשהוא כותב, "כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי" זה אומר המשכון נחשב לכל ההלוואה גם אם המשכון הוא לא שווה הרבה. הגמרא שואלת אבל מה אם הוא לא כתב את זה? ואז הוא לא היה בבעלות השלמה של המלווה? אבל זה סותר את רבי יוחנן שאמר מלווה יכול לקחת את כל המשכון מהיתומים. אז הוא מחזיק אותו גם כשהוא לא כתב שום דבר. אלא רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק בשיטה שאם המשכון ירד בערך ואינו שווה לחוב, אז אנחנו הולכים אחרי רכוש אחר של הלווה כדי שכל ההלוואה תהיה משולמת בחזרה.
30.12.15
Talmud Bava Metzia Shavuot
In the Talmud in Shavuot [page 44a]
The question is that the Gemara concludes like Rav Joseph and that is how the Rambam decides. The question is what does the Rambam do with the Gemara in Bava Metzia in which Rav Nachman says about a משכון [collateral for a loan] that even though one can use it he is not liable in אונסים [armed robbers].
I also wanted to point out why the Rif in our Gemara in Shavuot says the law straightforwards that the lender that loses the pledge is like a שומר שכר paid guard, and in a case of armed robbers, he loses only the amount of the collateral not the whole loan. The reason is quite elegant. It comes out of the steady progression of the Gemara itself to reach that point.
The Mishna says in an argument about a case when the pledge was lost that the lender loses only the amount the pledge was worth. Shmuel said he loses the whole loan. [he was talking about when the borrower said so openly.] R Eliezer says the lender does not lose anything and R Akiva says he loses the loan. If the pledge is worth the entire amount then why would R Eliezer disagree? So everyone disagrees with Shmuel. Their argument is about R. Isaac that the lender owns the pledge. But if it was taken not at the time of the loan everyone agrees with R Isaac. So it is at the time of the loan and the disagreement is if a guard of a lost object is considered to be paid or not. But that is only if he needs to pledge. If you follow the logic of the Gemara here you can see why the Rif (Isaac Alfasi) says that nothing matters the lender that loses the pledge loses only the amount it was worth. I can't go into it this minute but by following the logic of the Talmud you can see how he was led to this conslution step by step.
The key is to remember that if we don't hold by Shmuel then it does not matter if the borrower said it is against the loan or not. And if it is at the time of the loan of not also makes no difference since we go by R Akiva against R Eliezer. And even if the lender needs the pledge we still consider he is doing a mitzvah and so gets the coin of Rav Joseph and so is a שומר שכר
There is one question I have even though I have not even gotten to learn Tosphot properly yet. The Rif does as I say take all the divisions and throws them out, and most of this you can see in the Gemara itself. The last division though I find difficult. If they all hold by R. Isaac that the pledge is owned when it was taken not at the time of the loan, and their argument is at the time of the loan and it goes by the debate between Raba and Rav Joseph, then there is a difference! A pledge taken not at the time of the loan is owned, and for a pledge taken at the time of the loan, the lender is only a שומר שכר [paid guard]. So why does the Rif say for a pledge taken even not at the time of the loan he is a שומר שכר. He should say if taken not at time of loan he owns it and if taken at time of loan he is a paid guard.
From what I can tell Rashi answers this question in Bava Metzia. [That is he explains the Gemara there in a way that can help us understand the Rif in Shavuot--that is we can say perhaps the Rif was learning like Rashi.] He says on pg 84 that the pledge is owned completely only until the loan is paid. He says openly that what Rabbi Isaac means is that the lender is not a paid nor unpaid guard. He is an owner. But the ownership only exists until the second the borrower comes to pay back the loan. So this is not what I wrote in my ideas in Bava Metzia and I am sad to say I have to go back and correct my mistake. I was thinking around page that the lender owns the object completely.
Does this help us? Maybe. But still it looks like we still end up that for the pledge taken not at the time of the loan he is more than a paid guard--he owns it and thus is liable even in a case it was stolen by force. That is a case the paid guard would not have to pay for. So we still are in a mess concerning the Rif. And we still have to figure out how all this applies to the case of pledge in chapter 9 of Bava Metzia.
The question is that the Gemara concludes like Rav Joseph and that is how the Rambam decides. The question is what does the Rambam do with the Gemara in Bava Metzia in which Rav Nachman says about a משכון [collateral for a loan] that even though one can use it he is not liable in אונסים [armed robbers].
I also wanted to point out why the Rif in our Gemara in Shavuot says the law straightforwards that the lender that loses the pledge is like a שומר שכר paid guard, and in a case of armed robbers, he loses only the amount of the collateral not the whole loan. The reason is quite elegant. It comes out of the steady progression of the Gemara itself to reach that point.
The Mishna says in an argument about a case when the pledge was lost that the lender loses only the amount the pledge was worth. Shmuel said he loses the whole loan. [he was talking about when the borrower said so openly.] R Eliezer says the lender does not lose anything and R Akiva says he loses the loan. If the pledge is worth the entire amount then why would R Eliezer disagree? So everyone disagrees with Shmuel. Their argument is about R. Isaac that the lender owns the pledge. But if it was taken not at the time of the loan everyone agrees with R Isaac. So it is at the time of the loan and the disagreement is if a guard of a lost object is considered to be paid or not. But that is only if he needs to pledge. If you follow the logic of the Gemara here you can see why the Rif (Isaac Alfasi) says that nothing matters the lender that loses the pledge loses only the amount it was worth. I can't go into it this minute but by following the logic of the Talmud you can see how he was led to this conslution step by step.
The key is to remember that if we don't hold by Shmuel then it does not matter if the borrower said it is against the loan or not. And if it is at the time of the loan of not also makes no difference since we go by R Akiva against R Eliezer. And even if the lender needs the pledge we still consider he is doing a mitzvah and so gets the coin of Rav Joseph and so is a שומר שכר
There is one question I have even though I have not even gotten to learn Tosphot properly yet. The Rif does as I say take all the divisions and throws them out, and most of this you can see in the Gemara itself. The last division though I find difficult. If they all hold by R. Isaac that the pledge is owned when it was taken not at the time of the loan, and their argument is at the time of the loan and it goes by the debate between Raba and Rav Joseph, then there is a difference! A pledge taken not at the time of the loan is owned, and for a pledge taken at the time of the loan, the lender is only a שומר שכר [paid guard]. So why does the Rif say for a pledge taken even not at the time of the loan he is a שומר שכר. He should say if taken not at time of loan he owns it and if taken at time of loan he is a paid guard.
From what I can tell Rashi answers this question in Bava Metzia. [That is he explains the Gemara there in a way that can help us understand the Rif in Shavuot--that is we can say perhaps the Rif was learning like Rashi.] He says on pg 84 that the pledge is owned completely only until the loan is paid. He says openly that what Rabbi Isaac means is that the lender is not a paid nor unpaid guard. He is an owner. But the ownership only exists until the second the borrower comes to pay back the loan. So this is not what I wrote in my ideas in Bava Metzia and I am sad to say I have to go back and correct my mistake. I was thinking around page that the lender owns the object completely.
Does this help us? Maybe. But still it looks like we still end up that for the pledge taken not at the time of the loan he is more than a paid guard--he owns it and thus is liable even in a case it was stolen by force. That is a case the paid guard would not have to pay for. So we still are in a mess concerning the Rif. And we still have to figure out how all this applies to the case of pledge in chapter 9 of Bava Metzia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)