בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א

בבא מציעא ע''ו ע''א תוספות


יש לי שתי שאלות בתוספות אבל כדי להגיע אליהן אני רוצה קודם כל להציע את הגמרא ותוכן של תוספות
הגמרא מביאה דיון שבעל הבית רוצה לשכור פועלים ואמר לפועל אחד לכור עוד פועלים בג' והפועל אמר להם בד'. אז הגמרא דנה בזה באופן אחד. ואחר כך היא מביא דיון שבעל הבית אמר בד' והפועל השני אמר בג. לתרץ את זאת וגמרא מביאה רב נחמן שאמר אם האישה אמרה להביא את גיטה והשליח אמר לבעל שהוא שליח קבלה הגט פסול
זה מראה שהאיש השלישי מאמין לאיש השני. רב אשי שואל על זה שם האישה אמרה לקבל את גיטה והשליח אמר להביא הגט כשר. זה מראה שאיש השלישי אפשר שסומך על השני או הראשון ואי אפשר להביא ראיה לדיון של בעל הבית.

תוספות אומר לקבל הוא יותר טוב לאיש בגלל שהיא מתגרשת יותר מהרת הגם שזה לא בדיוק מכוון לדיון של בעל הבית. אף על פי כן הבעל רוצה שהגט יהיה כשר שאם לא כן למה הוא שלח אותו? תוספות מוסיף שאי אפשר לומר שקבלה טוב יותר לאישה שאם כן אין להביא ראיה מרב אשי לנידון שבעל הבית אמר ד' שהוא טוב יותר לפועלים.

שאלה אחת היא שגם היא רוצה שיהיה גט שאם לא כן למה היא שלחה מי שהוא לקבל אותו? ולכל זה גם טוב שהבעל ילך עם קבלה או הובאה. ולכן זה דומה למצב שבעל הבית אמר ד'.
עם כל זה איני בטוח שזאת קושיא טובה שבאמת זה בדיוק השאלה של רב אשי שבאמת הגט כשר בגלל שהיא רוצה שהשליח יהיה שליח קבלה או הובאה--איזה שעובד. ולכן הבעל מאמין לשליח או לה ולכן אין להביא ראיה שהוא תמיד מאמין לאיש השני.

עוד יש לשאול אם הדיון הוא בגלל איזה טוב יותר למי אז למה הדיון הזה אינו שייך למצב שבעל הבית אמר ג והפעל השני אמר לפועלים האחרים ד.

Immigration.

Immigration. Dr Michael Huemer argues in favor of it. But to me it seems like an invasion.

See the book by Dr Peter Heather The Fall of the Roman Empire. The argument that runs through his book is the fall of Rome was because of the Gothic being invited in and then taking over.. It was meant to show that the idea of slow peaceful transition to the different empires of the Goths was not what really happened. He brings  lots of older documents to show that.

The general approach of Dr Huemer is that government is not really legitimate. See his book and also his deabte with Dr Epstein of NY University.

Since Dr Humer is a million times smarter than me, I can not answer his arguments by I think that Danny Frederick [and Michael Huemer] does a good job is showing that the argument of Dr Huemer do not apply to the consequence theory of government that was proposed by Berkeley. [See Hobhouse.] 

To judge people favorably.

To judge people favorably. I noticed this in the book of Rav Nahman the LeM chapter 55.
He brings there that this brings a kind of protection on one who judges all people favorably.


I saw this same idea in Rav Haim of Voloshin [a major disciple of the Gra].
But Rav Nahman brings this idea in an way that shows a tremendous benefit that accrues to one that judges even wicked people favorably.

It is well known that Rav Nahman held this to be a very important principle in life in chapter 282.

But the things that I noticed in chapter 55 is how this idea is connected with other kinds of problems and situation that people can find themselves in.


David Bronson once commented to me that this is the opposite of how engineers work. They look for what is wrong--not what is right.  And in fact you do not want to judge people so favorably that you lose sight of the need to protect yourself.

But the idea here is that this is practice that goes beyond Reason. See Kant concerning the dinge an Sich. That there is a whole aspect of Creation that is not possible to discern by reason nor by the 5 senses.

[The idea that I am trying to say is that in the lessons of Rav Nahman in each lesson there are themes that are interrelated. So when you find in one Torah lesson of Rav Nahman a piece of advice to follow a certain practice and in that same Torah lesson you him dealing with different kinds of problems the implication is that that advice helps to solve those problems. You see this also in Rav Shick [Moharosh] who help that the best advice for any kind of problem is to find the lesson in the LeM that deals with that problem and say it forty days in a role with the prayer of Rav Nathan his disciple.

So when I saw in that Torah lesson certain kinds of problems that seem to apply to me and I also saw this idea of judging even wicked people favorably--it lit up a bulb in my mind that this advice is what I need.

To finish Shas

To finish Shas the best idea I have discovered is to learn a half a page per day with Tosphot and the Maharsha and Maharam. This takes about 40 minutes per day. Then the same method can be used for the Yerushalmi [The Talmud written in Tiberius.]

This depends on the Gemara in Shabat 63 and also brought in the Musar book Ways of the Righteous and also Rav Nahman of Uman in Siha 76.

I bring this up because I wanted to add that Rav Nahman himself also bring the idea of review  in that Sicha and also in his Sefer HaMidot. And I have found that there are times when my mind is more suited towards learning fast--just saying the words as fast as possible and going on. Other times I find I that I am more attuned towards review.

And both of these methods I believe apply to Mathematics and Physics. Both saying the words and going on and also review.

And I want to add that both methods are well known. In the Mir in NY and also in Shar Yashuv it was considered simple that the morning hours should be devoted towards "Iyun" in depth learning and the afternoon for bekiut [fast learning.]  Rav Freifeld [of Shar Yashuv] I recall used to tell people to review each chapter 10 times. And somhow that idea  got to the Mir in some fashion. There was a store keeper on the same block of the Mir who it was said that he learned chapter 3 of Shabat ten times.

Bava Mezia page 76.

Bava Mezia 76 Tosphot I have two questions that are the kind of things that David Bronson would bring up if I would be learning with him. [Questions that adhere to the idea of calculating the subject as opposed to the larger types of global questions that you see in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri or the Hidushei Harambam of Rav Haim of Brisk.]

The first question is that you could turn the reasoning of Tosphot around to reach the opposite conclusion. The second question is why does the same reasoning not apply the previous case of the Gemara when the employer said 3 and the agent that hired the workers said 4.

To make this clearer let me state the basic structure of the subject.

The Gemara first has a question when an employer said to an agent to hire workers for 3 and the agent told them 4. In that case the Gemara completely ignores the reasoning that it uses later for the case when the employer said 4 and the agent said 3.

Then the Gemara brings the case that the employer said 4 and the agent said 3. The Gemara tries to answer this from Rav Nahman [in the name of Raba bar Abuha in the name of Rav]. Rav Nahman said if a wife says to an agent bring me my divorce document and the agent told the husband that he the agent was told receive my divorce document, the the divorce is invalid. This shows that when you have three people-- 1,2 and 3; then #3 depends on #2--that is he believes the person talking with him and does not depend on the possibility that #1 said something different.
Then the Gemara brings that Rav Ashi asked on this. Rav Ashi said that in the case the wife said "receive" and the agent said "bring" that the divorce is valid.

[Background: A wife can make an agent to receive her divorce and if she does so then when the husband gives the document to the agent she is automatically divorced from that moment on. But if she says bring, then only when she gets the document is she divorced.]

Tosphot says "to receive" is better for the husband. And even though that does not seem to correspond to the case that the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for still it is better for the husband that there should be a divorce at all--otherwise why bother sending he a divorce?

Then Tosphot says that you can not say to receive is better for her because then what would be the proof of Rav Ashi to the case the employer says 4 which is better for party #3 not for party #1.

I am having trouble understanding Tosphot. The logic I think can be reversed. You could say the why does she say receive? Because it is better for her. But by the same logic Tosphot used before she also wants a divorce. Otherwise why send anyone to get it for her? So It is also good for her that the agent should be an agent to bring [not receive]. So that applies to the employer who said 4.

A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog.

In the Musar book the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות you can see that both Metaphysics and physics come under the category of learning Torah [This is common to see in the sages of Spain staring from the period of the Geonim]. But if so then the Gemara Yerushalmi applies that every word of learning Torah is worth all the other commandments of Torah [Beginning of Peah.]

So it does not depend on how smart you are. Everyone is obligated to learn the Law --Oral written Metaphyscs and Physics. So then how can you do it if you are not Einsten? Answer you say the words and go on. As the Gemara in Shabat page 63 says and as is well know from Rav Nahman of Breslov in Sicha 76.
 A good sukot to everyone who looks at this blog. 

Ketuboth 78 side a and b.

The library here is usually closed during Sukot so I will not be writing. I just wanted to introduce a subject that i hope to be thinking about during the coming festivals.

The Ran in the start of the next chapter [ perek 9] [HaKotev = "he who writes"] brings this idea. In Hakotev [perek 9] it says the property of the wife belongs to the husband. In perek 8 we see the opposite. property that comes to her when sh is engaged and then she is married belongs to he. [She can sell it].
The Ran [on the Rif] say this is not a question. Perek 8 is the property falls to he when she is engaged. Perek 9 is it falls to her after she is married. Then he asks from the Gemara Yerushalmi that we see just writing "I do not own something" does not make it so that one does not own it. There needs to be some act. [The question here is based on the idea in perek 9 that the husband can write to his wife I do not have any portion in your property and  so she can sell it. But if he does not write that, she can not sell it.

The Ran [R. Nisim,] says the case in perek 9 is he writes it when she is engaged and has not been fully married yet.

Some important background: When an wife works or finds something the property belongs to the husband. מציאת האישה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה פרק ששי של כתובות. But property that comes to her before she is married belongs to her. So the husband can not sell it. But he can eat from its fruits. If it is written in the ketuba it is property of iron sheep  That is if there is heaven forbid a divorce the amount of the property has to go back to the woman. If it was not written in the ketuba [marriage contract] then she still owns it but if it goes down in value he does not have to make up the difference.

The things I want to think about are this and also one side one on page 78. But the library is closing here so I do not have time to write about this subject.