המשנה בתחילת בבא בתרא

The משנה בתחילת בבא בתרא writes that since the שותפים both build the wall if it falls it belongs to both. תוספות  asks why not say המע''ה? The ר''י answers because it was not clear from the start that it belonged to either one. One can ask that the משנה in תחילת בבא מציעא holds המע''ה even in a case of  lost object.
I mentioned a different reason why the law would not be המע''ה. That is because they are forced to build or they agreed.
It occurred to me  that תוספות wants the משנה in בבא בתרא to be able to go like the חכמים that hold המע''ה. They could have said the משנה is like סומכוס. That is in fact what happens often in בבא מציעא. For example the משנה on page ק' in בבא מציעא. Also in בבא קמא. The משנה there writes law about a ox that gored a cow and the calf is found next to it. The גמרא brings in the name of שמואל that that משנה is like סומכוס.


המשנה בתחילת בבא בתרא כותבת כי מאז שהשותפים חייבים לבנות את הקיר אם הוא נופל הוא שייך לשניהם. תוספות שואלים מדוע לא לומר המע''ה? ר''י עונה כי זה לא היה ברור מההתחלה של מי הוא היה שייך. אפשר לשאול כי המשנה בהתחילה של בבא מציעא מחזיקה המע''ה גם במקרה של אבדה. הזכרתי סיבה אחרת מדוע החוק לא יהיה המע''ה. זאת משום שהם נאלצים לבנות או שהם הסכימו. עלה בדעתי כי תוספות רוצה שהמשנה בבבא בתרא להיות [באפשרות] כמו החכמים שמחזיקים המע''ה. הם יכלו אמרו המשנה הוא כמו סומכוס. זה למעשה מה שקורה לעתים קרובות בבבא מציעא. לדוגמא המשנה בדף ק" בבבא מציעא. גם בבא קמא. משנה שם כותבת החוק על שור שנגח את הפרה ועגל נמצא לידה. הגמרא מביא בשם שמואל כי המשנה הוא כמו סומכוס

Tosphot says in the beginning of Bava Batra needs a bit of explanation.

I do not have a Gemara to be able to look up anything. But it occurs to me that what Tosphot says in the beginning of Bava Batra needs a bit of explanation.

From what I recall, the Mishna writes that since the partners both build the wall, if it falls it belongs to both. Tosphot  asks why not say המע''ה [to take money from where it is already one needs a proof]?[That is -just give it to the guy in whose domain the wall fell.] The Ri answers because it was not clear from the start that it belonged to either one. In my notes on this I wrote the Mishna in Bava Metzia holds המע''ה even in a case of  lost object.
I mentioned a different reason why the law would not be המע''ה. That is because they are forced to build or they agreed.
It occurred to me today that Tosphot wants the Mishna in Bava Batra to be able to go like the חכמים that hold המע''ה. They could have said the Mishna is like סומכוס.

Nationalism has a complicated history;-- much more that people realize. I was once asked about this idea and I said at the time that it does have some support from the Zohar as there כנסת ישראל [congregation of Israel] is used most often as a nickname for the Divine Presence.
That is the שכינה (Divine Presence) is thought to be the חיה (life) or unifying soul of Israel.

In any case, the history started with the French Revolution. By the time of Napoleon III, communism socialism was opposed to nationalism. In any case Napoleon III was the first to create a kind of synthesis of nationalism along with socialist policies than have come to be part and parcel of the modern state. 

But the whole going to "kivrei tzadikim" [grave of the righteous] has gone way past the fine line.

There is a kind of fine line. I think going to the grave of Reb Nahman to say the ten psalms is fine. But just that one can step over an invisible line.
But the whole going to "kivrei tzadikim" [grave of the righteous] has gone way past the fine line.
However to a small degree it is allowed and even mentioned in the Gemara itself on as a practice that is legitimate.



In fact I noticed today that someone quoted the חיי מוהר'ן קס''ב [Life of Reb Nahman. 162]  where Reb Nahman said that he wanted to return to Israel and to die there. That is he did not in fact want to be buried in Uman. Rather --if it had been his choice he would have returned to Israel and to stay there until he died and to be buried in Israel.

The basic idea of idolatry to the Rambam is what is what is considered going to God through a middle man. The actual worship of the middle man is only a derivative of the main principle which is using the middle man to get to God. I went into this in my litttle booklet on Shas.
Reb Haim from Voloshin also goes into this in the נפש החיים
[I used this fact to explain a difficult Rambam as I might post here.]

I tried to learn this subject in Sanhedrin pages 63-65. My basic conclusion from all that was to stay away from the religious world since according to that Rambam, they are all doing idolatry.

I did not act on that at the time but eventually what the Rambam was saying started to make sense to me.



) סנהדרין סא: הרמב''ם פסק שעבודה לאמצעי גם כן נחשבת למינות. בפירוש המשנה הוא מסביר העיקר החמישי שעבודה לשום דבר חוץ מן השם היא עבודה זרה. וזה אפילו אם כוונתו היא שהאמצעי יקרב אותו להשם יתברך. (ושם הוא מסביר שהאיסור מכיל כל דבר מהמלאכים עד הגלגלים ועד כל דבר מורכב מארבעה היסודות. כוונתו כל דבר מן הרוחניים ודברים שנעשו מן ההיולי (כמו שחשבו לגבי הגלגלים), וגם דברים בזה העולם שנעשו מן ארבעה היסודות. ובמשנה תורה הוא מוסיף שהאיסור מכיל כל דבר שנברא.
כשלמדתי את הרמב''ם בהלכות עבודה זרה, לא היה ברור לי מהוא עיקרו ומהותו של עבודה זרה. ראיתי שהוא מביא את העניין של לקבל כאלוה, וחשבתי שזה מהותו של ע''ז. אבל אחר כך ראיתי את הגמרא בסנהדרין סב: אתמר העובד ע''ז מאהבה ומיראה אביי קבע חייב רבא קבע פטור. והבנתי שאם מהותו של ע''ז היא לקבל כאלוה אז אין מקום לשיטת אביי שגם בלי זה הוא חייב. ואין מקום לכל המחלוקת. ואז הבנתי למה הרמב''ם התחיל עם הסיפור של דור אנוש. לפי דעת הרמב''ם עיקרו של ע''ז הוא לשבח ולפאר או לעבוד שום נברא בתור אמצעי כדי לקיים רצון הבורא או שיהיה האמצעי מליץ טוב בשבילו או שהאמצעי ישפיע איזה טוב אליו.
הקדמה: בתחילת הלכות עבודה זרה הרמב''ם כתב שעיקר עבודה זרה היא לעבוד או לפאר אמצעי כדי להתקרב לבורא יתברך. וכן הוא כתב הפירוש המשנה פרק חלק. בפרק ג' הוא כותב שהעובד מאהבה או מיראה אינו חייב אלא אם כן הוא מקבלו עליו כאלוה. הרמ''ך שאל למה הוא חייב כשזורק אבן למרקוליס בלי לקבל עליו כאלוה? החברותא שלי תירץ שכוונת הרמב''ם היא שחייב חטאת בגלל עבודה זרה בשוגג. והוא לא כיוון שחייב סקילה. אני רוצה לומר שהתנאי לקבל עליו כאלוה הוא רק במצב של עובד מאהבה או מיראה. ובדרך כלל העובד רק בתור אמצעי חייב בגלל שהעובד אמצעי הוא עיקר עבודה זרה.






Ideas in Bava Metzia.   Ideas in Shas

Rav Avraham Abulafia was one of those people who were not exactly politically correct.
The major story with him is fairly well known. He was a mystic from the Middle Ages and is quoted extensively by later mystics like Rav Haim Vital, the Remak and Rav Haim Azulai. etc.
He went to debate the pope and the pope sent police to arrest him on his way there. But anyone who tried to lay a hand on him did not survive long.

But he was subject also to criticism by the Rashba and others.
Thus his books were not published for 800 years until recently someone finally published the whole set.

The first person to pay any attention to him in recent years is Professor Moshe Idel who did his PhD thesis on Rav Abulafia, and also wrote lots of later books dealing with his approach. Then later, that fellow from Mea Shearim went into the basement of Hebrew University and started the long and arduous process of writing down the medieval script into legible Hebrew letters and publishing his books.

What is lacking is for someone to redact his system. To condense it and explain it. For what was published was simply to write down in legible script the manuscripts in medieval script. No real analysis has been done yet.

Even though it is common to give students advice, "Think for yourself. Examine the issue on your own and come to your own conclusions," if your friend comes to you complaining about stomach pains would you tell him to study the issue on his own and come to his own conclusions, or would you tell him to go to a doctor?

Faith in the wise has a good argument going for it from Dr Michael Huemer. Even though it is common to give students advice, "Think for yourself. Examine the issue on your own and come to your own conclusions," if your friend comes to you complaining about stomach pains would you tell him to study the issue on his own and come to his own conclusions, or would you tell him to go to a doctor?

I never thought thinking for oneself made sense when it come to learning and understanding  Physics.

So faith in the wise is an important principle but the real issue is how to gain the proper degree of common sense to tell who is really wise or an expert in a subject and on the opposite end of things who is faking it?

Soft subjects are just too easy to fake. The hard sciences are much harder to fake.

The ease of faking expertise in easy subjects is what makes the experts worth while staying away from.


The greater the reputation one has in the easy stuff, the greater likelihood is the guy is just the best faker among mediocre fakers.

[But still faith in the wise I think is important. There was a time I was in great need of good advice, and I decided to take a Torah lesson of Rav Nahman from Breslov Vol. 1:61 and just say it through every day for as long as it would take for me to get to a good decision. That is a lesson that discusses the problem of not knowing the right direction.