בבא בתרא ל''ו ע''ב

בבא בתרא ל''ו ע''ב

 עולא מחזיק שהדין הוא that the law is a tree needs to be more than שש עשרה אמות away from the border of a neighbor in order to bring the first fruits from it. The idea is that  any closer than that is like the tree is deriving sustenance from the neighbor's field and it is not פרי אדמתך "the fruit of your field". The גמרא  tries to find from where this law comes from. At first they suggest the משנה of עשר נטיעות. But that does not work because that only gives you up to שמנה אמות for each sapling.  Then they find another משנה about three trees in an area אלפיים חמש מאות אמות. But if we are thinking (that is the גמרא is thinking) that the law of עולא comes from the משנה about שלש נטיעות in a field that is אלפיים חמש מאות square אמות then why did not עולא mention that if the fruit bearing trees are not actually full grown but just נטיעות, then the amount of space between them and the boundary of the neighbor is less. That is just שמנה אמות. The reason is that is the distance that come out of the משנה about ten נטיעות for the field of אלפיים חמש מאות square אמות. In another words עולא should have more lenient with  נטיעות. That is,  that נטיעות do not forbid up until 16 אמות but only up until 8 אמות?



בתרא ל''ו ע''ב בבא. עולא מחזיק  שהחוק הוא עץ צריך להיות יותר משש עשר אמות רחוק מהגבול של שכן על מנת להביא את הביכורים ממנו. הרעיון הוא שכל מה קרוב מזה, הוא כמו העץ שמקבל מזון משדה השכן וזה לא "פרי אדמתך" (פרי השדה שלך). הגמרא מנסה למצוא מאיפה החוק הזה מגיע. בהתחלה הם מציעים את המשנה של עשר נטיעות. אבל זה לא עובד כי זה רק נותן לך עד שמנה אמות עבור כל שתיל. ואז הם מוצאים עוד משנה, שלושה עצים באזור אלפיים חמש מאות אמות. אבל אם אנחנו חושבים  כי החוק של עולא נובע מן המשנה של שלש נטיעות בשדה כי הוא אלפיים חמש מאות מרובע אמות, אז למה עולא לא הזכיר כי אם עצי הפרי הם לא מלאים  אלא רק נטיעות, אז את כמות השטח ביניהם לבין הגבול של השכן פחות, כלומר רק שמנה אמות. הסיבה לכך היא כי הוא המרחק שמגיע מחוץ מן המשנה של עשר נטיעות עבור השדה של אלפיים חמש מאות אמות בריבוע. עולא צריך להקיל עם הנטיעות, כי נטיעות אינן אוסרות עד 16 אמות אלא רק עד 8 אמות.

Gemara Bava Batra page 36

בבא בתרא ל''ו ע''ב תוספות. עולא אומר הוא עץ בבעלותו של אדם שהוא בתוך י''ו אמות של גבול של שכן אינו יכול להביא ביכורים מהעץ בגלל השורשים שהולכים שש עשרה אמות. הגמרא מנסה למצוא מאיפה זה נובע. אם משנת עשר נטיעות (שתילים) בשדה חמישים על חמישים זה משאיר לכל אילן עם רק תשע אמות. אז הם מנסים עוד משנה עם שלשת עצים הגדלים באותה חמישים על חמישים, וכי מיתברר שזה קרוב

Ula said a tree needs to be more than 16 amot away from the border of a neighbor in order to bring the first fruits from it. The idea is that any closer than that is like the tree is deriving sustenance from the neighbors field and it is not פרי אדמתך "the fruit of your field". The Gemara  tries to find from where this law comes from. At first they suggest the mishna of עשר נטיעות. But that does not work because that only gives you up to 8 amot for each sapling.  Then the find another mishna about three trees in a area 2500 square amot.




It occurs to me to wonder if we are thinking (that is the Gemara is thinking) that the law of Ula comes from the Mishna about 3 trees in a field that is 2500 square  amot then why did not Ula mention that if the fruit bearing trees are not actually full grown but just נטיעות then the amount of space between them and the boundary of the neighbor is less. That is just 8 amot. The reason is that is the distance that come out of the Mishna about ten נטיעות for the field of 2500 square amot.
In another words Ula should have more lenient with  נטיעות and said that נטיעות do not forbid up until 16 amot but only up until 8 amot?

"Sidur HaReshash" [Shalom Sharabi]

There are two "Sidur HaReshash"[note 1] both of which I prayed with for years.[2] I knew the large one was more accurate but I never was able to get my hands on it until I was in Mea Shearim and found the address of the family that printed it.
Both of those sidurim I found very helpful I should add.

The only thing I really do need to add to this is that there is a great need for "devekut" attachment with God when you pray with either sidur because of the simple and well known fact that unifications in themselves do nothing unless the Divine Light is there to fill up the unifications.

But Devekut "attachment with God" is  some which everyone needs to strive to get to. There are a few places in Deuteronomy which you see that attachment with God is a positive commandment.

{note 1} The Reshash is Rav Shalom Sharabi from Yemen and then later in Yerushalim. His grandson wrote the larger Sidur. In terms of praying with the intentions of the Ari, the only thing I ever found to be practical is either of those two sidurs. It goes without saying that this ought to be done only after one has finished Shas at least once-preferably twice. People outside of Israel might find it hard to get either of these two sidurs.

[2] That is not to imply I pray with it nowadays. I feel for myself that trying to do those unifications without the proper degree of devekut and Divine light would only cause damage. However for people in a Litvak yeshiva environment where there is already a certain degree of "השראת השכינה" dwelling of the Divine Presence because of the learning Torah, --in such a place these unifications could do a great deal of good. 

The Mind Body problem, Dr Michael Huemer noted that no one has come anywhere near giving a decent answer to it.

I am not sure  understand why the answer to the mind body problem should not be simple, that is people have a soul. As Allan Bloom made note of that after the Enlightenment people became secular. So the problem is the Mind body problem --not the mind soul problem.

Maybe that is not scientific enough nowadays but to me it makes sense.

To some degree Kant actually answered it in that way by claiming to the self to be the dinge an sich - the unknowable self that is beyond reason of perception.

I do not mean to belittle the Mind Body problem, but as Dr Michael Huemer noted that no one has come anywhere near giving a decent answer to it. Maybe the  whole perspective is wrong.
The problem with the mind body problem is the elephant in the room--Life. the mind is not the same thing as life. The answer to the mind body problem is to add the one missing ingredient: Life. So you have Mind Body and Life and then the problem never arises.

The reason this simple answer got ignored was that Descartes had a true critique on the Aristotle concept of perception, an the result was to throw out all of Aristotle.  Not just the faulty parts.

religious fanaticism

The way to look at this is to draw a parallel to the "Fire in the Minds of Men" of the 1800's when people were thinking that overthrowing the old order would usher in Utopia. This is very much the same with religious fanaticism.

The way to combat this tendency is by learning Musar [Ethics] of the Middle Ages where the basic approach of the the Torah--straight Torah is outlined without adding and without subtracting anything.

Utopias have a vast and expanding literature and this virus  infected both the secular revolutionists and religious fanatics.

The religious world is insane. There is some kind of evil force at work in the religious world.

The major problem in keeping the laws of the Torah strictly is that the religious world is insane and very much into idolatry of tzadikim. It is apparent there is some kind of evil force at work in the religious world.. Therefore keeping the Torah privately is the only real way to go about it.

When this became apparent to me I also understood that keeping the commandments as strictly as they ought to be kept also was not possible. So I made use of previous knowledge about how to be lenient.  However being lenient in many laws may also cross the line.

This predicament I am sure is widespread among many people who wish to keep all the commandments properly but are aware the religious world uses commandments as traps to catch prey with.
. 

בבא בתרא עמוד י''ח ע''ב. בתוספות ד''ה מכלל

 בבא בתרא עמוד י''ח ע''ב. בתוספות ד''ה מכלל

תוספות had to explain the משנה like אביי that the owner of the mustard can put his mustard by the boundary and that the owner of the bees can also put his bees there because that is the only way the question of the גמרא makes sense.
But after the גמרא reaches the conclusion of רב פפא in רבא, then the only way for the answer of the גמרא to make sense is כל הקודם זכה first come first served. That is who ever was first at the border can stay and the other has to move his object 6 hand breaths away.
In any case the way תוספות understands the question of the גמרא is based on that fact that the question of the גמרא is thinking the משנה is going like אביי. Then the תוספות changes the assumption in the end of the גמרא because that is the only way the answer of רב פפא in רבא makes sense.

The reason the answer of the גמרא has to be that since neither neighbor did anything wrong since it is a case when half the field was bought there is no reason to demand the bees to be put far from the border.

בבא בתרא עמוד י''ח ע''ב. בתוספות ד''ה מכלל
תוספות נאלצו להסביר את קוששית הגמרא שהולכת לפי אביי כי הבעלים של החרדל יכולים לשים החרדל שלהם על יד
הגבול, וכי הבעלים של הדבורים ניתנים גם לשים הדבורים שלהם שם כי רק באופן הזה השאלה של  הגמרא מסתברת.

. אבל אחרי הגמרא מגיעה למסקנה של רב פפא אליבא דרבא אז הדרך היחידה עבור התשובה של הגמרא להיות הגיונית היא כל קודם זוכה.  מי שהיה ראשון בגבול יכול להישאר והשני צריך להזיז ששה טפחים האובייקט שלו משם. בכל מקרה דרך שהתוספות מבינים את השאלה של הגמרא מבוססת על העובדה כי שאלת הגמרא היא לחשוב שהמשנה הולכת כמו אביי. ואז התוספות משנים את ההנחה בסוף הגמרא כי זה הדרך היחידה התשובה של פפא  ברבא הגיונית.