Ideas in Talmud

I might mention that I never learned Hebrew except a small amount in Hebrew school and Temple Israel in Hollywood when I was a kid. In yeshiva I did not spend any time on Hebrew at all. So some of my writing is the usual Talmudic kind of Hebrew you see in the Rishonim. Other parts are what I learned from the Old Testament which differs from the Hebrew of the Rishonim. And some of it comes from being in Israel. That is just a warning - since you might notice my style of writing varies. It is not two people writing. It is one person --that is I.

[The most obvious example is I take things like שנה to be feminine because of the Old Testament. שדה I take to be masculine. ]
Here is the link to the book  on Talmud and also to the book I wrote before that on Bava Metzia

Ideas in Talmud

Ideas in Bava Metzia


My main focus is as you can see in trying to understand Tosphot.
Rav Shach has a focus on Maimonides  and that kind of focus started with Reb Haim HaLevi [The Brisker Rav].

Ideas in Talmud

I wanted to mention something about Rashi on Bava Metzia page 14. I think Rashi and Tosphot are not having a big argument here and also perhaps no argument at all. It seems to me that Tosphot is assuming the case is when only the buyer did any work on the field and that is why the owner pays the buyer for the improvement. Just think. If the only person to do improvements on the field was the thief, then why would the owner pay the buyer anything?

However even given this, there is the difference that to Tosphot when the owner pays for the improvement he would be giving the least amount to the thief, and then the thief would give the entire improvement to to the buyer. But if the thief did nothing in the first place, why would this make any sense? Is it possible that perhaps Rashi and Tosphot would not be disagreeing at all?
__________________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to mention something about רש''י.   I think רש''י and תוספות are not having a big argument here and also perhaps no argument at all. It seems to me that תוספות is assuming the case is when only the buyer did any work on the field and that is why the בעל השדה pays the לוקח. Just think. If the only person to do  שפוצים on the שדה was the גנב, then why would the בעל השדה pay the לוקח anything?
__________________________________________________________________



However even given this, there is the difference that to תוספות when the בעל השדה pays for the improvement he would be giving the least amount  שבח או יציאה to the גנב and then the גנב would give the entire שבח to to the לוקח. But if the גנב did nothing in the first place why would this make any sense? Is it possible that perhaps רש''י and תוספות would not be disagreeing at all?

_________________________________________________________________________


) בבא מציעא יד: יש לך מצב שבו שדה נגנב ונקנה ועכשיו חוזר לבעלים המקורים. רש"י שואל מדוע בעל השדה אינו משלם את השבח (השיפוץ)? אחרי הכל, הוא מקבל שדה שהשתפץ. רש"י אומר שזה מקרה שבו הגנב נתן לשדה ללכת בור (הניח אותו להתדרדר) והיה שבח בידיו של הלוקח. מה שרואים מפה הוא שאף על פי שרש''י חולק על תוספות והרמב''ם בדין הזה, עם כל זה היסוד הוא שמה שהלוקח השביח הוא מקבל [או מן הגנב או מן בעל השדה]. וזה כמו שרב אלעזר מנחם שך פירש הסוגיא בדף ט''ו איפה שיש דיון דומה. שם הלוקח אכל פירות וצריך לשלם על מה שאכל. רב שך מסביר שזה מצב שהלוקח לא עבד על השבח, כגון שהפירות הם פירי אילן.
אני רוצה להזכיר משהו על רש''י. אני חושב שבין  רש''י ולתוספות אין ויכוח גדול כאן. נראה לי כי לתוספות יש הנחה שהמקרה הוא כאשר רק הקונה עשה כל העבודה על המגרש. רק תחשוב. אם האדם היחיד שעשה שפוצים על השדה היה הגנב אז מדוע  בעל השדה משלם ללוקח כלום?