Bava Kama page 6a

In the Rambam laws of damages 13:19 there is a law that if a tree or wall fall down and cause damage there is no liability unless they were not sturdy and  unsteady and the court told him to take them down. Then he is obligated. In Bava Kama page 6a  Abyee says we learn from the Mishna in the beginning of Bava Kama "the common denominator" comes to include his stone, knife or package that he left on a roof and they fell because of a common wind that even after they fall he is liable. The Rif and  Rambam leave out the law about a stone knife or burden. Rav Shach writes that that can be derived from the case of the wall.  a question is that Abyee derives the stone from a hole in a public domain (pit) and fire, while Ravina derives the tree and wall from a pit and an ox. Therefore we can not derive the stone and knife from the wall  because the knife might not be obligated since a different force is mixed with their fall.  I thought of the answer to this last question. The Rif and Rambam do bring other cases which we derive from hole (pit) and fire, and so we can derive the stone and knife from those cases.  another question is if the Rif and Rambam do not bring the law of the stone and knife on the roof, maybe they do not hold from it at all.  After all that law is from Abyee, and they might say that this whole subject is an argument between Abyee,  Rava, Rav Ada bar Ahava and Ravina,  and we do not go with Abyee against Rava except in 6 specified cases. [Yal Kegam]. But this last question does not seem very likely since the case of the stone and knife seem more severe that the tree since he put them on the roof where he was aware that a common wind could knock them down. 

Also I would like to mention that the Rosh learns from Tosphot that all these cases have the law of  a hole in a public domain, and we need to derive them from the common denominator only to show that they are liable, but their main law is that of a hole. It is likely that the Rif and Rambam hold the same way.   

I would like to add here for clarification the  Gemara on page 6a of Bava Kama. The Gemara asks what is the "common denominator" of the Mishna coming to add? Abyee says his stone knife or package that he left on a roof and they fell in a common wind and caused damage after they  were already at rest. This is derived from  hole and fire. Rava said a hole that is being pushed around in a public domain from hole a fire. Rav Ada Bar Ahava said opening the drain pipes and that drainage causes damage from pit and fire. Ravina said a wall and tree that fell from pit and ox.     

 To Tosphot any damage the wall or tree do at the time of falling is not liable because the owner is considered innocent of wrongdoing. But to Rav Isar Melzter damage they do at time of falling is obligated because they are  like fire that damages while moving. But the problem I see with that is fire and a knife that fall from a roof are liable because there was a transgression from the beginning when he put them there while there was no transgression in planting the tree and building the wall that fell. However the answer to this is one learns from an ox that one is obligated in damage even if the thing that causes damage was not dangerous from its inception. But furthermore, with fire there is also the fact that another power i.e. wind is mixed with it and makes it more dangerous. In fact Rav Isar Melzar suggested that this is the reason Tosphot holds the wall and tree are not obligated because of fire     

___________________________________________________________________________________

In the רמב''ם הלכות נזקי ממון  פרק י''ג הלכה י''ט there is a law that if a tree or wall fall down and cause damage there is no liability unless they were not sturdy and  unsteady and the court told him to take them down. Then he is obligated. In בבא קמא ו' ע''א says we learn from the משנה in the beginning of בבא קמא "the common denominator" צד השווה comes to include his stone, knife or package that he left on a roof and they fell because of a common wind that even after they fall he is liable. The רי''ף and  רמב''ם leave out the law about a stone knife or burden. רב שך writes that that can be derived from the case of the wall.  A question is that אביי derives the stone from a hole in a public domain (pit) and fire, while רבינא derives the tree and wall from a pit and an ox. Therefore we can not derive the stone and knife from the wall  because the knife might not be obligated since a different force is mixed with their fall.  I thought of the answer to this last question. The רי''ף and רמב''ם do bring other cases which we derive from hole (pit) and fire, and so we can derive the stone and knife from those cases.  Another question is if the רי''ף and רמב''ם do not bring the law of the stone and knife on the roof, maybe they do not hold from it at all.  After all that law is from Abyee, and they might say that this whole subject is an argument between אביי, רבא, רב אדא בר אהבה and רבינא,  and we do not go with אביי against רבא except in 6 specified cases. יע''ל כג''ם.. But this last question does not seem very likely since the case of the stone and knife seem more severe that the tree since he put them on the roof where he was aware that a common wind could knock them down. 

Also I would like to mention that the רא''ש learns from תוספות that all these cases have the law of  a hole in a public domain, and we need to derive them from the common denominator only to show that they are liable, but their main law is that of a hole. It is likely that the רי''ף and רמב''ם hold the same way.   

I would like to add here for clarification the  גמרא בבא קמא ד''ו ע''א  . The גמרא asks what is the "common denominator" of the משנה coming to add? אביי says his stone knife or package that he left on a roof and they fell in a common wind and caused damage after they  were already at rest. This is derived from  hole and fire. רבא said a hole that is being pushed around in a public domain from hole a fire. רב אדא בר אהבה said opening the drain pipes and that drainage causes damage from pit and fire. רבינא said a wall and tree that fell from pit and ox.     

 To תוספות any damage the wall or tree do at the time of falling is not liable because the owner is considered innocent of wrongdoing. But to רב איסר מלצר damage they do at time of falling is obligated because they are  like fire that damages while moving. But the problem I see with that is fire and a knife that fall from a roof are liable because there was a transgression from the beginning when he put them there while there was no transgression in planting the tree and building the wall that fell.

But furthermore, with fire there is also the fact that another power i.e. wind is mixed with it and makes it more dangerous. In fact, רב איסר מלצר suggested that this is the reason תוספות holds the wall and tree are not obligated because of fire. This is in spite of the fact that תוספות holds that having another power mixed with it would be more of  a reason to acquit from responsibility.

ברמב''ם הלכות נזקי ממון פרק י''ג הלכה י''ט יש דין שאם עץ או חומה נופלים וגורמים נזק אין אחריות אלא אם לא היו יציבים והזהירו הבית הדין להוריד אותם. ואז הוא מחויב. בבבא קמא ו' ע''א אומר למדים מהמשנה בתחילת בבא קמא "המכנה המשותף" צד השווה בא לכלול את אבן, סכינו או חבילה שהשאיר על גג ונפלו בגלל רוח מצויה שגם לאחר שנפלו הוא אחראי. הרי''ף ורמב''ם משאירים בחוץ את הדין על סכין אבן או משא. רב שך כותב שאפשר ללמוד את זה ממקרה הקיר. שאלה היא שאבי שואב את האבן מבור ברשות הרבים ואש, ואילו רבינא לומד את העץ והקיר מבור ושור. לכן לא נוכל ללמוד את האבן והסכין מהקיר כי ייתכן שהסכין לא חייבת כיון שכוח אחר מעורב בנפילתם. חשבתי על התשובה לשאלה האחרונה הזו. הרי''ף והרמב''ם אכן מביאים מקרים אחרים שאנו נובעים מבור ואש, וכך נוכל להפיק את האבן והסכין מאותם מקרים. שאלה נוספת היא אם הרי''ף והרמב''ם אינם מביאים דין האבן והסכין על הגג, אולי אינם מחזיקים ממנו כלל. הרי הדין הזה הוא מאבי, וייתכן שיגידו שכל הנושא הזה הוא ויכוח בין אביי, רבא, רב אדא בר אהבה ורבינא, ואין אנו הולכים עם אביי נגד רבא אלא בשש מקרים מוגדרים, יע''ל כג''ם.. אבל השאלה האחרונה הזו לא נראית סבירה מאוד שכן המקרה של האבן והסכין נראים חמורים יותר מהעץ מאז שהניח אותם על הגג שם היה מודע לכך שרוח רגילה עלולה לדפוק הם למטה

כמו כן אני רוצה להזכיר שהרא''ש לומד מתוספות שלכל המקרים האלה יש דין של בור ברשות הרבים, וצריך ללמוד אותם מהמכנה המשותף רק כדי להראות שהם חייבים, אבל החוק העיקרי הוא של בור. סביר להניח שהרי''ף והרמב''ם מחזיקים באותו אופן.

אני רוצה להוסיף כאן לבירור את הגמרא בבא קמא ד''ו ע''א . הגמרא שואלת מהו "המכנה המשותף" של המשנה שבא להוסיף? אביי אומר כי סכין האבן או החבילה שלו שהשאיר על גג והם נפלו ברוח מצויה וגרמו נזק לאחר שכבר היו על הקרקע. זה נגזר מבור ואש. אמר רבא בור שדוחפים אותו ברשות הרבים מבור ואש. רב אדא בר אהבה אמר פתיחת צינורות הניקוז וכי הניקוז גורם נזק מבור ואש. רבינא אמר חומה ועץ שנפלו מבור ושור

 

   לתוספות כל נזק שיגרמו הכותל או עץ בשעת נפילה אינו אחראי כי הבעלים נחשבים חף מפשע. אבל לרב איסר מלצר נזק שעושים בשעת נפילה חייב משום שהם כאש הפוגעת תוך כדי תנועה. אבל הבעיה שאני רואה בזה היא אש וסכין שנפלו מגג אחראים כי הייתה עבירה מלכתחילה כשהניח אותם שם, אבל לא הייתה עבירה בנטיעת העץ ובבניית החומה שנפלו

אולם התשובה לכך היא לומדים משור שחייב בנזק, גם אם הדבר הגורם נזק לא היה מסוכן מראשיתו

אבל יתרה מכך, עם אש יש גם את העובדה שכוח אחר כלומר רוח מתערבב בו והופכת אותו למסוכן יותר. למעשה, רב איסר מלצר הציע שזו הסיבה שתוספות מחזיקים את שהקיר והעץ אינם חייבים בגלל שריפה. זאת, וזה למרות שתוספות גורסת כי כשמעורבת בה כוח אחר תהיה סיבה יותר לזכות מאחריות

learning Torah is important.

 I would like to recommend learning the book Nefesh haChaim by Reb Chaim of Voloshin [a disciple of the Gra] in in particular the fourth volume.    This is a part of book that explains why learning Torah is important. A large part of my own approach to the world is to a large extent based on this idea, even though I got the idea originally by being in two great Litvak yeshivot, Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY. The actually reading of the Nefesh HaChaim came after I had already been in the Mir for a few years. It just confirmed what I already felt intuitively.  Nowadays I think that it is hard for most people to get the idea of the importance of learning Torah without that book. [I might mention here that the best way to learn Torah is to hear classes from an authentic Litvak rosh yeshiva. Happily I had the opportunity to hear such classes myself from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum. However the important thing is that they should be in fact expert. That can be found mainly in people that have learned in Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir or the other great Litvak yeshivot.]

I would also like to mention I define "learning Torah" in a rather limited way. That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds. the Midrashei Halacha  and Midrashei Agada. So anything written after the finishing of the Talmud does not count except as commentary. [I do think that here it is important to mention the opinion of some early authorities like ibn Pakuda and the Rambam who held learning Physics and Metaphysics is in the category of learning Talmud as you can see in Mishna Torah laws of Learning Torah in the law about dividing ones time into thirds: one third for Talmud, and in that category comes the subjects dealt with in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah. And if that is not clear enough, the Rambam makes sure that you get the point in the Guide.] Metaphysics in the early authorities means Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus.  Physics in the Rambam  includes Chemistry.

Torah is the Law of Moses.  The point of the Gemara is to understand how to apply it. Not to change it or to add or subtract. Thus I see that what the world needs is the Law of Moses.  

The problem in dealing with the Law of Moses is not to add and not to subtract and not to change it or change its meaning. And to accomplish this is very much an individual endeavor.   It is impossible to keep the Law of Moses except as an individual and ignore all groups.

Why Do Progressives Like Islam? MICHAEL HUEMER

 

	Why Do Progressives Like Islam? MICHAEL HUEMER MAR 3   READ IN APP   1. Pro-Muslim Progressivism Leftists have been trying to promote the cause of the oppressed for as long as I can remember. When I was in college, they mainly thought of the oppressed groups as women, blacks, and the poor. In the last 20 years, the ranks of oppressed groups have grown. Of particular interest, Muslims are now thought of as an important oppressed group, on whose side good progressives must fight. After warning about racism and patriarchy, the left is also eager to warn against “Islamophobia”. Left-wing protestors now seek to silence speakers who criticize Islam, as happened to Richard Dawkins when he was scheduled to speak in Berkeley. (Dawkins rejects all religion, but only his anti-Islam comments anger people on the left.) It was also woke activists who got the film Jihad Rehab cancelled. This was a documentary containing interviews with ex-terrorists who were being rehabilitated at a Saudi detention center. It was initially critically acclaimed, before Muslim/woke filmmakers embarked on a campaign to label it “Islamophobic” (with no rational basis) and keep it from being publicly shown. After the Hamas attack on October 7, left-wing students on American university campuses began passionate anti-Israel protests, among which you could find such slogans as “queers for Palestine” displayed unironically. Immediately after the attack, a group of 33 Harvard student organizations released a statement blaming Israel entirely for the attack. 2. The Strangeness of Pro-Islamic Progressivism Let’s review what is odd about this. a. Women Progressives usually speak against what they view as the oppression of women in Western nations, e.g., the fact that women earn 20% less money than men on average (which is due to their choosing different kinds of work). Women in Muslim countries, however, are actually oppressed. In Saudi Arabia, women have male guardians (typically their fathers or husbands). Until very recently, they needed the permission of their male guardian to get a passport, get married, get official documents, or get a job. Only in 2017 did the Saudi patriarchs decide that women could be allowed to drive. In Islamic tradition, women are expected to cover their heads. In Iran and Afghanistan, women are legally required to wear the hijab. The most committed Muslims want women to cover their faces as well. Some forms of Islam consider female genital mutilation mandatory, to prevent women from ever experiencing sexual pleasure. b. Gays For context, recall that gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. by the Supreme Court in 2015. Before that, this was a major issue for progressives, who viewed the lack of recognition for gay marriage as a form of intolerable oppression of gays. Even now, many still regard America as oppressive towards gays. In many Muslim nations, however, the idea of gay marriage is completely beyond the pale; just being gay is illegal. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Brunei (all majority Muslim countries), homosexuality is a death penalty offense. Given how much progressives criticize America for its alleged mistreatment of women and gays, one would expect that they would be apoplectic about the horrific oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations. Yet among those who are most vocal about the oppression of minorities in other contexts, it’s hard to find a critical word spoken about Islam. 3. Progressive Explanations How could progressives explain this? a. It’s only a few extremists Perhaps progressives would say that these forms of oppression are only supported by the more extreme, fundamentalist Muslims and that we should avoid allowing our general view of Islam to be colored by a few extremists. But we’re not just talking about a small, fringe element in the Islamic world. Again, multiple Muslim nations literally, legally prescribe death to homosexuals. After the October 7 attack, 72% of Palestinians surveyed supported the attack — an attack that massacred teenagers at a music festival, raped and mutilated women, and burned babies. Progressives don’t seem particularly concerned about portraying Americans, white people, or men as oppressive. Yet the forces of intolerance within each of those groups are a minute fraction of what they are within the Islamic world. b. US/Israel is worse Perhaps progressives would say that Israel and the U.S. have caused more harm to Muslims than Muslims have caused to Israel and the U.S.; therefore, it’s more important to protest Israel and the U.S. Perhaps progressives just don’t want to dilute this most important message by adding criticisms of Islam. Bear in mind, however, that hundreds of millions of people in the world live in Islamic theocracies. So this really doesn’t seem like a kind of oppression that someone whose political worldview revolved around oppression could afford to overlook. Progressives are also not usually very sympathetic to the “someone else is worse” defense. For instance, during the Cold War, they didn’t see as a good reason suppress their criticisms of the United States that the Soviet Union was worse. They don’t hold off from attacking America’s history with slavery when informed that Arab slavery was worse; they regard that as quite irrelevant. c. The obligation to fix one’s own society Perhaps progressives would say that they tend to focus on problems with the West, America, Christianity, etc., because we have an obligation to fix the problems in our own society. I’m not sure, though, why it wouldn’t also be important to address huge problems in other societies — at least important enough that you would frequently hear progressives talking about the oppression of women and gays in the Islamic world. Progressives living in America also don’t seem to have any reticence about criticizing Israel, so it doesn’t seem as if the relevant distinction is between one’s own and other societies. It seems that the distinction is Muslims versus (Jews & Christians). 4. Hate I have a suspicion about the answer. It is not a nice explanation, but it seems to me to fit the evidence. When did Muslims gain favor with the American left? As far as I recall, it started after 9/11/2001. Before that, I can’t remember the left caring about the plight of Muslims or including them in their “diversity” goals. Before that, Islam wasn’t really on the radar screen of American politics. Right after 9/11, most Americans were horrified and enraged. But not everyone. Some people on the far left gleefully seized the chance to blame America, just as those Harvard students took the chance to blame Israel for the October 7 attack. An Ethnic Studies professor at the University of Colorado posted an essay on “the justice of roosting chickens”, seemingly explaining the attack as the natural and just consequence of American evil. He compared America to the Nazis and justified killing people in the World Trade Center thus: “As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire … If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” Needless to say, the idea that Islamic terrorists are crusaders for socialism and progressive causes as Western leftists understand them is a narcissistic delusion. Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other Islamic extremist groups don’t give two craps about American leftist causes. They are crusaders for Islam. Osama bin Laden attacked America because he wanted to end U.S. support for the Saudi government, so that he could depose them and establish a different, more extreme fundamentalist theocracy in Saudi Arabia. Many people fail to understand this because they can’t imagine a society having completely different issues and different belief systems from ours. Returning to the point: What do far leftists like about Islam? They like that Islamic extremists hate America. That’s what really matters to them. It’s more important to hate America than to recognize democracy, or free speech, or to treat women or gays like human beings. The far left’s hatred of America is not explained by America’s mistreatment of this or that group, else they would hate the countries that treat those groups far worse. Rather, hatred of America is a fundamental ideological axiom. Their complaints about America’s alleged oppression of minorities are not driven by concern for those minorities; they are just a tool for attacking America. That is why woke activism doesn’t focus on practical steps to improve the lives of minorities (e.g., programs to reduce out-of-wedlock births, increase graduation rates, or reduce gang violence); it focuses almost entirely on convincing everyone that America is evil. Granted, most people on the left side of the political spectrum are moderate leftists who don’t really hate America (just as most rightists are moderate rightists, not white supremacists). But people on the left stick together: they’re afraid to criticize anyone on the left side of the spectrum, however extreme. They’re afraid even to undermine the messaging that anyone on their side has undertaken. Hence, even moderate leftists won’t criticize Islam, since that would show disloyalty to their side, since the extremists have decided that the Islamic world is a leftist ally. Why do the extreme leftists hate America? I still don’t know. This is very strange because most people throughout history, regardless of the society they lived in, had a very strong bias in favor of their own society. What trauma have left-wing extremists suffered that left them with such a deep-seated resentment toward their own society? LIKE COMMENT RESTACK   © 2024 Michael Huemer

My approach to war is like General Sherman

 My approach to war is like General Sherman who burnt every town he walked into on his way through Georgia.  Not from cruelty, but from the sense that war is hell, and the most compassionate way about it is to end it as soon as possible. That is by making people not want to fight. He made no differences between soldiers or civilian. All the more so in Gaza where there is in fact no difference. 

 In the approach of Torah there have been three compromises. Faith with reason was the compromise of the Middle Ages. It is the approach of Saadia Gaon, the Chovot Levavot (Josef ibn Pakuda), and Rambam. [This I think is not that of the Ramban.] The separation of faith from reason, I think is a mistake. 

  There is another approach of Torah with pleasure. In this approach people follow Torah because it is the best way to "get laid" i.e., to get one's desires fulfilled. 

  There is a modern approach where the compromise is Torah with community. That is that Torah is a way to have a place in the religious community.

In these last two of these choices, boredom is the main motivation. People follow them because they are bored.

Mysticism also got mixed up with Torah because it tend to be tasty --much more than Talmudic arguments. But most of its influence has been baneful. However I have a lot of respect for Izhak Luria. The fact  that he is misused does not remove his value. Even Hegel quotes him. The Romans had a saying: "Misuse does not cancel use."

monastery of Mount Cassino

 The Allies bombed the monastery of Mount Cassino which they thought was being used by the Germans as an observation post or perhaps even more. The Allies were mistaken,(the Germans were on the slopes below the monastery), but in any case the monastery was bombed out of existence. So I do not understand why Moshe Dayan thought Muslim holy places were off limits- while in fact they were being used for military purposes during the pervious decade by Jordan and during the six day war.[

For Schopenhauer there is only one thing in itself.

For Schopenhauer there is only one thing in itself, not many. by this he intends to belay the problems on Kant raised by Schulze, Fichte and others. That is the WILL, but this will is not automatically good.  There is a non-rational aspect to God, as the verse we say in the morning states  יוצר אור ובורא רע ''forms light and creates evil.'' However that blessing changed to actual words of the verse to be ''...creates darkness.'' This you can see in Job where the suffering  in fact did not come from sin, but from a bet God had with the devil. The non rational aspect of God can be seen through-out the Torah. God gave Avraham a son and later told him to kill him to show how religious he is. He brings Moses to the edge of the Land of Israel but does not let him enter because Moses hit the rock similarly to what he was told 40 years prior to that right after they left Egypt. The events with David and Bat Sheva also shows this aspect  where he was never supposed to be married with her and yet that is the union from which all kings of the House of David come. in the Torah there is a command to appoint a king but when Israel wanted to fulfill that command the prophet Shmuel showed to them a miracle to show that they had sinned.

This irrational aspect is because reason is a creation of God. It does not control Him.