A case of doubt about 4 or five damages (five oxen for one ox and five sheep for one sheep ) is an argument between the Rambam and the Raavad. The argument is if the owner of the injured ox has grabbed the ox that caused the damage. To the Rambam [laws of theft 2. law 12] he can keep what he grabbed, but the Raavad has several questions on that. It is more than what he damaged, and there is a doubt so no court that has authority to decide. The answer to the first question,  Rav Shach suggests that only half damages we say if he grabbed  he can keep [which is an open gemara- a person that grabs half damages can keep it until the court convenes and decides the case ], but in our case of four or five damages not. 

so rav shach seems to be saying that  in our case  of 4 or 5 times the damage would the raavad hold you take away the ox if it has been grabbed==even if not a doubt. only if it is a case of half damages that you do not take away the grabbed object. i mean to say that rav shach does not refer to the aspect that our case is one of doubt.  

For some reason, Rav Isar Meltzer did not suggest this answer, but rather refers this subject to an argument between the Rosh and Rabbainu Yona in Ketuboth pg 20. [paragraph 13 in the Rosh]-

Also he mentioned to look at the Rosh in Bava Kama 15 [paragraph 20 in the Rosh]. The Rosh brings there Rav Meir HaLevi who held תופס חצי נזק אין מוציאים מידו ( We do not take half damages away from one who grabs them) except for 1/2 damages-- which would work fine here for the Raavad except for the fact that the Raavad elsewhere in the Rambam holds we do not take half damages away from one who grabs them in general. So Isar Meltzer says the Raavad holds only in a case of doubt do we take away the  half damages because it is like a guarantee for a loan. and in the case of doubt for a guarantee for a loan we would hold  we do not take  away from one who grabs them. But here its is a ''kenas'' punishment for the damages, not monetary.

 The Litvak yeshiva world i have complaints about but also deep respect. The Torah Greats were of course all from the Litvaks--Reb Chaim of Brisk, Rav Shach, Rav Kinyevsky. But there is a general ignorance of the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication.-- Plus there is a lot of disrespect towards the State of Israel. There is also a sort of ''super-organizim'' complex about it, a kind of group mentality which I tend to dismiss as not being in accord with the Torah. we are all Jews and all of u are obligated in all the commandments=especially learning Torah--the Written and Oral Torah. There is no subdivision in Israel except that some keep some commandments and others keep others. The obligations between man and man is the are where fry Yidden do best. Learning and keeping the obligations between man and God is where the Litvaks do best. There is no aspect of moral or mental superiority by which group one is born into. Everything depends on one' personal commitment and free will to do God's s Will. Even being born Jewish means nothing but having to keep more commandments. You might note that the entire book of Nahum was a prophecy given to Ninve--the capital city of the Assyrian Empire--a sworn enemy of Israel. 

Trying to introduce Socialism into Western Democracies

 The Fabian society took the approach of trying to introduce Socialism into Western Democracies slowly and also by stealth. This stealth approach is the reason people need to have certain values that they will not compromise on in any circumstances. In general, a balanced approach with compromise is the way to go. But there also need to be values and principles that you will not compromise on in any circumstances-what so ever. [I personally try to take the basic path of my parents and the Gra as providing the most essential principles that I try not to compromise on.]

 I have gone recently into a local beit midrash that has books from some of the recent great Litvak sages. I have a lot of respect for the depth and thoroughness of their thought. But I am not convinced about the general negative approach they had towards the State of Israel. The so called ''Hareidi'' world still goes with that approach refusing to serve in the IDF and continuing  their constant slander against fry yidden [secular Jews] in the privacy of Shabat meals while pretending ''we are all one happy family'' when they need money from fry yidden.

And I have been looking at some of the halachic decisions of Rav Elyashiv, and the Chazon Ish. I am impressed, but not to the degree of thinking of them as infallible, or innocent of biases--conscious or otherwise,-- certainly nothing approaching of what in common jargon could be called ''Daat Torah''.

And perhaps here I should include my own bias which is totally ''רבינא ורב אשי סוף הוראה'' [''Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the ability to make a halachic decision.''] [That is brought down in the Gemara]. So after Ravina and Rav Ashi [around 500 A.D.] there is no such thing as a ''posek''-- except in the sense of trying to figure out what the Gemara would hold on any legal decision. Of course, some of the final conclusions are already written in the Gemara,  and rules of how to decide are written there. The difficulty is that sometimes these rules contradict. Just for an example in Eruvin, you have the order of which Tana to go by when they argue. In Sanhedrin and Bechorot you have the idea of when a Beit Din makes a mistake when they decide against a ''stam sugia''--subject where the Gemara takes one opinion as a given. The list goes on and on, and it is hard to know of all the rules, which ones the Gemara holds override the others. 

 I have never heard of an idea that because one ii learning Torah, that he is not obligated in some commandment. From where the idea comes from that because some people learn  Torah all the time, therefore they have no responsibility to guard their own lives.  Rather I think this is a smoke screen. The religious simply despise  fry yidden [secular Jews] and would rather see them die, than to serve in the IDF.    it would be different if at least they would be honest. Let them just say they refuse to be anywhere near fry yidden because [according to them] they are all apikorsim/heretics. At least they would be honest. But to lie about what the Torah holds is the most despicable thing to do. That is one of the things that one has no portion in the next world מורה שלא כהלכה to lie about what the Torah holds on purpose.

the above paragraph was written not in an academic style, but for now let me add that i am aware that one who learns torah all the time is not obligated in the three daily prayers, and that in general there is an over arching principle one who is involved in one mitzvah is not obligated in another. however this later  principle only applies to Torah when there is someone else that can do the mitzvah. And in fact I think many people that were learning Torah thought privately that that is the reason  they decided not togo into the Israeli Defense Force. 

there is a ort of problem with pride- that the religious believe they are morally superior to fry yidden. that of course  absurd by reason of how we see them act every single day.  

 I was in a study hall [beit midrash] today and someone asked a question about a woman who became a convert while pregnant. The question was if her daughter can marry a [cohen] priest.  I have no idea why he asked me this question, but it just so happened  that the previous day I was looking at a book containing questions and answers of Rav Elyashiv that happened to have that very question.    It was about a woman that had converted and was pregnant and had lost her documents and then came to Israel and had to convert again. It was clear from the answer of Rav Elyashiv that that daughter is allowed to marry a Cohen [since she was born by a regular Jewish woman].But in another place I noticed Rav Elyashiv bring up this issue in terms of a question if a fetus is part of the mother. Does this depend on that question?     

The issue here is that there are a few types of women that a priest can not marry, e.g. a convert, a woman who has had relations with someone forbidden to her [zona], or a woman who has had relations with someone forbidden to the priesthood, or a divorced woman. 

בבא קמא ל''ד ע''א בבא מציעא ט''ו bava kama page 34. bava mezia pg 15 rav shach laws of robbery chapter 9 law 8. Rav Isar Melzer in laws of theft 7 law 12

 Both Rav Shach in laws of robbery 9 law 8 and Rav Isar Melzer in laws of theft 7 law 12 hold in four places the ''shevach'' [profit, or what grows on the ground] that comes about by effort belongs to the one who did the effort. This Rav Isar Meltzer shows the Rambam holds this way in four places robbery theft, inheritance, loans. My question on this comes from the gemara that one who went into the field of his friend without permission and planted crops. The gemara holds the owner pays only the expense, not profit in afield that is not set aside for planting. Rav Shach answers this that in that case the owner can say my field had a part in the profit. but if so that should apply in all the other four cases that Rav Melzer brings.

[i am being a bit short here. rav isar meltzer goes into great detail about this subject in a few places but the place i brought here is where he delves into this at length. only later did i notice that rav shach says the same sort of principle in the other place i brought here.     ]

 Both רב שך  in הלכות גזילה פרק ט' הלכה ח' and רב איסר מלצר in הלכות גניבה פרק ז הלכה י''ב hold in four places the שבח profit, or what grows on the ground that comes about by effort belongs to the one who did the effort. This רב איסר מלצר shows the רמב''ם holds this way in four places robbery theft, inheritance, loans. My question on this comes from the גמרא that one who went into the field of his friend without permission and planted crops. The גמרא holds the owner pays only the expense, not profit in a field that is not set aside for planting. רב שך answers this that in that case the owner can say my field had a part in the profit. but if so that should apply in all the other four cases that רב איסר מלצר brings.

גם רב שך בהלכות גזילה פרק ט' הלכה ח' וגם רב איסר מלצר בהלכות גניבה פרק ז' הלכה י''ב מחזיקים בארבעה מקומות את הרווח השבח, או מה שצומח על הקרקע שבא במאמץ שייך למי שעשה את המאמץ. רב איסר מלצר מראה שהרמב''ם מחזיק כך בארבעה מקומות שוד גניבה, ירושה, הלוואות. שאלתי על כך באה מהגמרא שאדם הלך לשדה של חברו בלא רשות ושתל יבולים. הגמרא גורסת שהבעלים משלם רק את ההוצאה, לא רווח בשדה שאינו מופרש לנטיעה. רב שך עונה על זה שבמקרה כזה הבעלים יכול לומר שלקרקע שלי היה חלק ברווח. אבל אם כן זה אמור לחול בכל ארבעת המקרים האחרים שמביא רב איסר מלצר