Rambam laws of theft chapter 1 halacha 15

  Rambam laws of theft chapter 1 halacha 15: when a thief  has broken an object or it has gone down in value by itself, we do not evaluate the loss in value for a thief, but rather  the value the whole object and pay back double of what it was worth. \The Raavad writes "Even though 'We do not evaluate for a thief', that is for the main value, but for the double we do evaluate as is the law for a robber."  

The Raavad says the law of the thief and the robber are the same in terms of the main value. [The robber does not pay double]. And we already know the law for both the thief and the robber is they pay back according to what the object was worth at the time of the theft or robbery, not the time he is standing before the court. So the Raavad must mean that for the double we evaluate at the time of standing before the court. But the Rambam already wrote this in chapter 1 law 14. And the Raavad knows this. So he must be understanding the Rambam means to pay back cash for the whole value, while the Raavad holds one can pay back in whatever is worth money for the double.

I mean to  say that the Raavad understands the Rambam to intend like the Yerushalmi  that the thief pays back whole vessels or money while the Raavad himself hold that only refers to the main value but for the double he can pay back whatever is has monetary value.

_______________________________________________________________________________

רמב''ם  הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה ט''ו  when a גנב  has broken an object or it  went down in value by itself, we do not evaluate the loss in value the for a thief, but rather  the value the whole object and pay back double of what it was worth. \The  ראב''ד writes "Even though 'We do not evaluate for a thief', that is for the main value, but for the double we do evaluate as is the law for a robber."  

The ראב''ד''   says the law of the thief and the robber are the same in terms of the main value. And we already know the law for both the thief and the robber is they pay back according to what the object was worth at the time of the theft or robbery, not the time he is standing before the court. So the  ראב''ד must mean that for the double we evaluate at the time of standing before the court. But the רמב''ם already wrote this in   הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד'. And the  ראב''ד knows this. So he must be understanding the רמב''ם means to pay back cash for the whole value, while the  ראב''ד holds one can pay back in whatever is שווה כסף for the double.

I mean to  say that the ראב''ד understands the  רמב''ם to intend like the ירושלמי  that the thief pays back כלים שלמים or money while the ראב''ד himself hold that only refers to the main value, but for the double, he can pay back whatever is has monetary value.

רמב''ם הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה ט''ו כאשר גנב שבר חפץ או שהוא ירד בערכו מעצמו, אין אנו מעריכים את הפסד הערך, אלא את הערך של כל החפץ ומחזיר כפול ממה שהיה שווה. הראב''ד כותב "אף על פי שאיננו מעריכים לגנב, זה על הערך העיקרי, אבל על הכפל אנו מעריכים כדין שודד,

. הראב''ד אומר שדין הגנב והגזלן זהים מבחינת הערך העיקרי. [[השודד לא משלם כפול]] וכבר ידוע לנו הדין הן לגנב והן לגזלן הוא שמחזירים לפי מה שהיה שווה החפץ בשעת הגניבה או הגזל, לא הזמן שהוא עומד בפני בית הדין. אז הראב''ד חייב להתכוון שלכפל אנו מעריכים בזמן עמידה בפני בית המשפט. אבל כבר כתב את זה הרמב''ם בהלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. והרב''ד יודע זאת. אז הוא בטח מבין שהרמב''ם מכוון להחזיר מזומן עבור כל הערך, בעוד שהראב''ד מחזיק אפשר להחזיר בכל מה שהוא שווה כסף עבור הכפל\

כוונתי לומר שהראב''ד מבין את הרמב''ם שהוא מהתכוון כמו הירושלמי שהגנב מחזיר כלים שלמים או כסף בזמן שהראב''ד עצמו מחזיק שזה מתייחס רק לערך העיקרי, אבל לכפל הוא יכול להחזיר כל מה שיש לו ערך כספי

my little booklet on Bava Metzia chapter 8 and chapter 9  I am putting in the link to my booklet for people who might like to learn it. But this little paragraph here I just added today.

I absolutely regret that the whole idea of deep learning in Tosphot is almost forgotten. But it is nothing that I can do on my own.  It takes a sort of talent plus IQ to be able to see the depths of the Tosphot. I could see this in Shar Yashuv, but I certainly was no where near getting to that myself. And later I saw this again when I was learning with David Bronson.

But it has nothing to do with the so called ''pin test.''  Most people that imagine that they understand Tosphot have no idea of what Tosphot is saying.  Part of the reason is that learning in depth largely means learning Reb Haim of Brisk and the general achronim that came after him up until Rav Shach. And that kind of "global learning" is great. That means getting into the depth of the Gemara as compared with the Rambam which often apparently disagree, but with great ingenuity the achronim often find a way to show that the Rambam is not really disagreeing with the Gemara, but understanding it in an uncommon way. This is worthy and great in itself, but one unexpected result is it leaves  people not knowing the depths of Tosphot,

I spent a lot of time learning  the achronim before Reb Chaim and that was helpful because they do look into Tosphot. But the learning of the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua is uncommon. and even then it is rarely understood.

 I am a bit surprized that the herem of the Gra [that is, his signature on the famous letter of excommunication published in Villna] is so widely ignored. I mean to say that if people  do not pay attention to the law of the Torah--that I can understand though I can not agree. But if people  are interested in keeping Torah, why would ignoring that herem be considered to be ok? 

Now perhaps in previous generations, it was not so obvious. But nowadays it ought to be clear.--worship of dead corpses [even if they want to call the corpse a "tzadik"] ought to be easy to see that that has nothing to do with Torah.

The pretense of Torah is not Torah, no matter how many people that can be fooled. [ I learn and hold very much with Rav Nahman because I believe that the herem was not relevant to him. There was a book that contained  all the five herems and testimonies gathered that I read in a library in the old city of Jerusalem. According to what  the herem aid, Rav Nahman would not be included    ]

 the only reason to get married commitment and for having children. It doe not make sex holy not even allowed. For in Torah law sex with an unmarried woman i allowed. That is the  law of pilegesh.

For good children, I think sex ha to be Friday night after midnight. see the sidur of yaakov emden for this subject in detail 

bastard [ממזר]

A bastard [ממזר]is born from sex that is with guilt of Karet [כרת].  It has nothing to do with marriage.

An example would be a woman that is married to one man and then has sex with another, or any of the types of karet in Viyakra (Leviticus) 18 and 20. [There is an exception of nida [menstruating'--seeing blood  ] who is under penalty of karet and yet one born from a nida is not a bastard ]

There is an opinion of R. Akiva who holds a bastard can come from sex is merely prohibited by a prohibition, .but that is not the law.

 Guilt of Karet is a kind of prohibition that gets the death penalty if done on purpose in front of two witnesses or has to bring a in offering if done by accident. [e.g. idolatry]

sex with an unmarried woman is not prohibited at all Tothe Rambam it just i lacking a positive command of getting married. But to most Rishonim it is not prohibited at all.

see Chronicle I chapter 2. verse 46

[But I can see good reasons to be married in term of commitment..That is it tends to reinforce mutual  commitment. But it does not make sex holy ]

To the Rashbam [Bava Metzia 96] לרש''י ולרא''ש גנב יכול להחזיר רק כלים שלמים או בכסף. לרשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו]

 To Rashi Tosphot and the Rosh a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the Rashbam [Bava Metzia 96] even with anything that is worth money. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the Rashbam it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to Rashi and the Rosh the meaning of "one does not evaluate" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could   evaluate then he could give back teh broken pieces and jut pay for the damaged part.

However the Rambam might hold like the Rosh and Rashi  or like the Rashbam. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds one does not evaluate refers to what value the object lost by being broken,--not the whole object and what it was worth.. I have written about this in my little book on Bava Metzia but I see Rav Shach  is explaining the subject according to the Rambam that the two laws are unconnected. At any rate, it is hard to see the difference between אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object or one does not evaluate the worth of the damage. The reason is the only way to evaluate the worth of the damage is by seeing what the object was worth at first before the damage. . 

____________________________________________________________________ 

 To רש''י תוספות and the רא''ש a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the רשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו] even with anything that is worth money[שווה כסף]. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the רשב''ם it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to רש''י and the רא''ש the meaning of "אין שמין לגנב" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could   evaluate then he could give back  broken pieces and  pay for the damaged part. However the רמב''ם might hold like the רא''ש and רש''י  or like the רשב''ם. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds ''אין שמין לגנב'' refers to what value the object lost by being broken,,not the whole object and what it was worth..  רב שך  is explaining the subject according to the רמב''ם that the two laws are unconnected

____________________________________________________________________ 

לרש''י ולרא''ש גנב יכול להחזיר רק כלים שלמים או בכסף. לרשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו] אפילו בכל דבר ששווה כסף אבל יש לנו גם חוק שלגנב לא מעריכים את ערך החפץ. [זה החפץ שנגנב ונשבר לפי הזמן שנגנב]. לרשב''ם נראה שזה מכוון שמעריכים את החפץ בזמן שהוא עומד בפני בית המשפט. אבל לרש''י ולרא''ש פירוש "אין שמין לגנב" הוא להחזיר כלים שלמים, שהרי אם היה אפשר להעריך אז הוא יכול להחזיר חתיכות שבורות ולשלם על החלק הפגום. אולם הרמב''ם עשוי להחזיק כמו הרא''ש והרש''י או כמו הרשב''ם. אבל בכל מקרה, הוא מחזיק בדין "אין מעריכים" ודין איך הגנב משלם אינם קשורים כי הוא מחזיק ''אין שמין לגנב'' מתייחס לאיזה ערך החפץ איבד בשבירה,,לא כל החפץ ומה שהיה שווה.. רב שךמסביר את הנושא לפי הרמב''ם ששני החוקים לא קשורים. בכל מקרה, קשה לראות את ההבדל בין "אין שמין לגנב" לא מעריכים את ערך החפץ או לא מעריכים את ערך הנזק. הסיבה היא שהדרך היחידה להעריך את שווי הנזק היא לראות מה היה שווה החפץ בהתחלה לפני הנזק. .

 The religious world bears only a superficial resemblance to Torah. But at least  those that follow the Gra get most things right. But not all.  They learn Torah in depth and love Torah for it's own sake.  They are aware that good character [to be a mensch] is the essence of Torah--. But by ignoring the herem [letter of excommunication] of the Gra, they tend to fall into the same Dark Side trap. [Sitra achra]

[I admit that I could be wrong about my particular liking of Rav Nahman of Breslov in that he might be thought to be in the category of te excommunication of the Gra. But I tend to believe that he stands outside of it. In fact I have seen that the Litvak world in general considers him to be a great tzadik.]