bava kama page 19. The difference how tosphot and ramban understand the gemara.

Even though it is kind of obvious I think I might mention how the Rambam understands the Gemara on page 19 (that is brought here in my previous blog entry). The Rambam I think is the simplest. The Gemara says, “If there is a question about warning, that automatically implies there is no change.” Then the Gemara turns that around, and says that change is, in fact, in doubt. However, on the side that there is no doubt, there must be a question about warning. The Rambam understands that that is simply in order to change the direction of causation. However, the basic premise stands. That means according to the Rambam, that if there is warning, there can be no change. There can only be doubt about one, or the other. They are variables that are exclusive. To Tosphot the understanding of the Gemara is thus. If there is doubt about change, there can be no warning. That is, that warning and change are mutually dependent variables. If there is warning about pebbles according to their regular way, there must be warning about change also. If there is no change., there cannot be warning about warning when pebbles come their normal way. I might mention thar רב שך has a different interpretation of the רמב''ם that is more in line with תוספות, but not exactly. According to רב שך, the רמב''ם understands the questions of warning or change are exactly the same question. That means, if warning applicable, then there is change. That means damage by foot of an ox has changed to damage by horn of an ox, and so automatically warning is applicable. But if warning does not apply, that means that צרורות remain a derivative of damage by foot, and therefore change can not apply. Change is only applicable to damage by horn.]

אני חושב שה רמב''ם (ניזקי ממון פרק ב' הלכות ה' ו') סובר שלא יכולים להיות שלושה מיני תשלום עבור צרורות לתנא אחד, וכך הוא מבין את הגמרא על דפים י''ח וי''ט בבא קמא. זאת אומרת שיכול להיות חצי נזק ורביעי; או חצי ושלם, אבל לא שלושתם. כדי להסביר למה אני מתכוון אביא את הגמרא בדף י''ט. שם רב אשי שאל אם יכול להיות שינוי עבור צרורות להוריד את התשלום מחצי לרביע. הגמרא מציע שנוכל לדעת זאת משאלת רבא אם יכולה להיות אזהרה לצרורות? הגמרא אומרת כיון שזו שאלה לרבא, ולכן לא יכול להיות שינוי לרביע. (זו בעיה כי לרב אשי היה ספק אם השינוי שייך. אם התשובה פשוטה לא הייתה לו שאלה). אז גמרא מציע שאולי רבא התכוון לומר שאם אין שינוי, אז חייבת להיות שאלה אם ניתן להפעיל אזהרה. (כלומר לא שאין שינוי בוודאות. אלא אולי יש שינוי, ולכן אין לנו שאלה לגבי אזהרה. או שאולי לא יש שינוי, ולכן יש שאלה לגבי אזהרה.) אפשר לסכם את הגמרא הזו כך. אם יש שאלה לגבי אזהרה, השינוי אינו שייך. כְּלוֹמַר. השאלה לגבי האזהרה גורמת לכך שאין שינוי. ואז הגמרא הופכת את זה, ואומרת אם אין שינוי, צריכה להיות שאלה לגבי אזהרה. כלומר שחץ הסיבתיות מסובב. אבל מכל מקום, הרמב''ם מוטרד תחילה מאותה שאלה שמטרידה את התוספות. איך יכולים להיות שלושה סוגי תשלום, רביע, חצי ושלם. לרמב''ם אפשר לקבל שלושה סוגי תשלום, אבל רק שני מינים לכל תנא (מורה). ר' אלעזר מחזיק שיש חצי ללא אזהרה, וזה עולה לתשלום מלא כשיש אזהרה, (ושינוי לא משנה בכלל, אם הוא קיים או לא). החכמים מחזיקים חצי תשלום לצרורות, ואם יש שינוי, זה יורד לרביע, (והאזהרה אינה חלה כלל, בין אם ניתנה אזהרה ובין אם לא). דבר אחד עדיין מפריע לי במסקנת הגמרא הזו: איך העובדה שאין שינוי תגרום לשאלת אזהרה? אני רוצה להוסיף כאן רעיון נוסף. רב שך מעלה שאלה ברמב''ם. למה הוא מביא את השאלה על שינוי, אבל לא את השאלה על אזהרה? אני רוצה להציע תשובה אפשרית לשאלה זו. אני חושב שהרמב''ם גורס שבגמרא שלנו, אנחנו יכולים לראות ששינוי ואזהרה הם משתנים לא תואמים. אם יש שינוי יורד לרביע, התראה אינה שייכת (שתעלה התשלום לנזק מלא). אם יש אזהרה שעולה לתשלום מלא, לא יכול להיות שינוי יורד לרביע. לכן, הוא הביא רק את השאלה על שינוי, כי הדין אינו כמו ר' אלעזר שגורס שעם אזהרה, התשלום עולה לתשלום מלא. (ר' אלעזר מחזיק את זה בסיטואציה של המשנה על הכלב עם הכיכר והפחם הבוער. הוא מחזיק בזה שזה דורש תשלום מלא כשיש אזהרה שלוש פעמים). אבל הרמב''ם החליט שהדין הוא כמו החכמים שבמקרה זה נדרש רק חצי תשלום. אבל רב אשי שאל לפי החכמים אם אפשר ששינוי יוריד את התשלום לרביעית. לפיכך החליט הרמב"ם ששינוי לצרורות הוא בספק והשמיט אפשרות של אזהרה להעלות את התשלום לנזק מלא כי הדין אינו כמו ר' אלעזר. אולם תוספות גורס שהסבר הגמרא שלנו בדף י''ט שונה. הוא גורס שמשמעות הגמרא היא זו. אם אזהרה חלה על צרורות (כדי שהתשלום יהיה נזק מלא), אז היא תחול גם על שינוי בצרורות. כלומר יש שינוי בצרורות שמביאים אותו לרביעית, והאזהרה הזו ישימה בצורה כזו שתחזיר אותו לחצי. (זה לא יביא לנזק מלא כי זה יהיה קפיצה גדולה מדי כמו שתוספות אמרו קודם. תוספות גם גורס שהגמרא גורסת שאם אזהרה לא חלה על צרורות (להביא תשלום לנזק מלא), אזהרה לא יכולה להיות חלה גם על שינוי. כלומר, בשלב זה עשוי להיות שינוי, אבל אזהרה לא תחול על זה להביא את זה לחצי תשלום

I think that the רמב’’ם in [('ניזקי ממון פרק ב' הלכות ה' ו] holds that there cannot be three kinds of payment for צרורות לתנא אחד and that that is how he understands the גמרא on דפים י''ח וי''ט בבא קמא. I mean that there can be half damage and a fourth; or a half and a whole, but not all three. To explain what I mean let me bring the גמרא on דף י''ט. THERE רב אשי asked if there can be change for צרורות to bring down the payment from חצי to רביע. The גמרא suggests that we can know this from the question of רבא if there can be warning for צרורות? The גמרא says since this is a question to רבא, therefore there cannot be change to a רביע. (This is a problem because רב אשי had a doubt if change is applicable. If the answer is simple he would not have had a question). so גמרא then suggests that perhaps רבא meant to say that if there is no change, then there must be a question if warning can be applied. (That Is to say that it is not that there is no change for sure. Rather there might be change, and therefore we have no question about warning. Or there might be no change and therefore there is a question about warning.) This גמרא can be summed up thus. If there is a question about warning, then change is not applicable. I.e. the question about warning causes there to be no change. Then the גמרא turns that around, and says if there is no change, there has to be a question about warning. That means to say that the arrow of causation is turned around. But at any rate, the רמב’’ם is first bothered by the same question that bothers תוספות. How can there be three kinds of payment, רביע, חצי and a whole. The רמב’’ם that you can have three kinds of payment, but only two kinds for every תנא (teacher). ר’ אלעזר holds there is חצי with no warning, and that goes up to full payment when there is warning, (and change does not matter at all, whether it is present or not). The חכמים hold there is חצי payment, and if there is change, that goes down to רביע, (and warning does not apply at all, whether warning was given or not). One thing still bothers me about the conclusion of this גמרא is this: how would the fact that there is no change cause there to be a question about warning? I would like to add one more idea here. רב שך brings up a question on the רמב’’ם. Why does he bring the question about change but not the question about warning? I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question. I think the רמב’’ם holds that in our גמרא, we can see that change and warning are incompatible variables. If there is change going down to רביע, there cannot be warning. If there is warning going up to full payment, there cannot be change going down to a רביע. Therefore, he brought only the question about change because the law is not like ר’ אלעזר who holds that with warning the payment goes up to full payment. (ר’ אלעזר holds this in the situation in the משנה about the dog with the loaf and burning coal. He holds this requires full payment when there is warning given three times). But the רמב’’ם decided the law is like the חכמים that that case required only half payment. But רב אשי asked according to the sage if change is possible that would bring the payment down to a fourth. The רמב’’ם therefore decided that change for צרורות is a doubt and leave out the possibility of a warning bring up the payment to full damage because the law is not like ר' אלעזר. However, תוספות however holds that the explanation of our גמרא on דף י''ט is different. He holds that the meaning of the גמרא is this. If warning is applicable to צרורות (so that the payment would be full damage), then it would also be applicable to a change in צרורות. That is to say there is change in צרורות that bring it down to a fourth and that warning is applicable in such a way that would bring it back up to a half. (It would not bring to full damage because that would be too much of a jump as תוספות said before. תוספות also holds that the גמרא holds that if warning is not applicable to צרורות (to bring payment to full damage), then warning cannot be applicable to change either. That is, at this point there might be change, but warning would not apply to it to bring it to half payment. Or there might not be change at all. That is even if change happen the payment is still חצי

Gemara on page 18 and 19 of Bava Kama. A difference between Rambam and Tosphot.

I think that the Rambam holds that there can not be three kinds of payment for pebbles, and that that is how he understands the Gemara on page 18 and 19 of Bava Kama. I mean that there can be half damage and a fourth; or a half and a whole, but not all three. To explain what I mean let me bring the Gemara on page 19. Rav Ashi asked if there can be change for pebbles to bring down the payment from 1/2 to 1/4. The Gemara suggests that we can know this from the question of Rava if there can be warning for pebbles? The Gemara says since this is a question to Rava, therefore there cannot be change to a 1/4. (This is a problem because Rav ashi had a doubt if change is applicable. If the answer is simple he would not have had a question ). so Gemara then suggests that perhaps Rava meant to say that if there is no change, then there must be a question if warning can be applied. (That Is to say that it is not that there is no change for sure. Rather there might be change, and therefore we have no question about warning. Or there might be no change and therefore there is a question about warning.) This Gemara can be summed up thus. If there is a question about warning, then change is not applicable. I.e. the question about warning causes there to be no change. Then the Gemara turns that around, and says if there is no change, there has to be a question about warning. That means to say that the arrow of causation is turned around. But at any rate, the Rambam is first bothered by the same question that bothers Tosphot. How can there be three kinds of payment, 1/4, 1/2 and a whole. The Rambam that you can have three kinds of payment, but only two kinds for every tana (teacher). R Elazar holds there is 1/2 with no warning, and that goes up to full payment when there is warning, (and change does not matter at all, whether it is present or not). The sages hold there is 1/2 payment, and if there is change, that goes down to ¼, (and warning does not apply at all, whether warning was given or not). One thing still bothers me about the conclusion of this Gemara is this: how would the fact that there is no change cause there to be a question about warning? I would like to add one more idea here. Rav Shach brings up a question on the Rambam. Why does he bring the question about change but not the question about warning? I would like to suggest a possible answer to this question. I think the Rambam holds that in our Gemara, we can see that change and warning are incompatible variables. If there is change going down to 1/4, there cannot be warning. If there is warning going up to full payment, there cannot be change going down to a 1/4. Therefore, he brought only the question about change because the law is not like R Elazar who holds that with warning the payment goes up to full payment. (R Elazar holds this in the situation in the mishna about the dog with the loaf and burning coal. He holds this requires full payment when there is warning given three times). But the Rambam decided the law is like the sages that that case required only half payment. But Rav Ashi asked according to the sage if change is possible that would bring the payment down to a fourth. The Rambam therefore decided that change for pebbles is a doubt and leave out the possibility of a warning bring up the payment to full damage because the law is not like R. Elazar. Tosphot however holds that the explanation of our Gemara on page 19 is different. He holds that the meaning of thee Gemara is this. If warning is applicable to pebbles (so that the payment would be full damage), then it would also be applicable to a change in pebbles. That is to say there is change in pebbles that bring it down to a fourth and that warning is applicable in such a way that would bring it back up to a half. (It would not bring to full damage because that would be too much of a jump as Tosphot said before. Tosphot also holds that the gemara holds that if warning is not applicable to pebbles (to bring payment to full damage), then warning cannot be applicable to change either. That is at this point there might be change, but warning would not apply to it to bring it to half payment. Or there might not be change at all. That is even if change happen the payment is till 1/2

The need to combine two principles in learning that at first glance seem contradictory

It is worth mentioning that my son Izhak was aware of the need to combine two principles in learning that at first glance seem contradictory. One is the idea of saying the words and going on until the end of the book or chapter, and then the other of review. He was aware of the greatness and importance of Rav Nahman's idea of “saying the words and going on.” But on the other hand, often people often forget the importance of review as Rav Nachman said himself in Sefer Hamidot, “He who learns, but does not review etc.” some people are naturally brilliant in one field or the other but that does not exclude the importance of learning Gemara Physics and mathematics even if you are not naturally talented in this area. It is like saying you do not need to be moral even if you are not naturally moral. Positive values need to be adhered to even against one’s natural inclination, The issue is not how talented you are, but rather what are the areas that are important to concentrate on even if you are not in order to become a whole and wholesome human being.

The North violated the contract –state’s rights, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case

If you look at questions and answers of the Radvaz you will see what I have been saying all along. That if you have two people in a contract, and one breaks the conditions of the contract, the other has the right to leave the partnership. This happened in Egypt where three people had the king’s treasury in partnership, and one Reuven was not active at all, but simply collected a percentage. Part of the agreement was that the other two that were active would not loan out any of the money to anyone. It was simply to collect taxes. And yet even though they swore not to, they violated the contract and later money was found missing. Still Reuven was forced to pay a third of the missing money as per the agreement with the king. If money was found missing, then the partners had to pay with their own money. However, the Radvaz wrote that Reuben had the right to leave the partnership. Why should not the same idea apply to the Civil War? The North violated the contract –state’s rights, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Why should the South not be allowed to leave the partnership? Think of a wife that wants to leave a marriage. Should the husband wage war to stop her?

I respect Rav Nahman of Breslov a lot, but his critique of science and philosophy is something I think was better to be left out.

It is hard to say that any one person has all the truth. There is a lot of emphasis on finding one person or path to follow, and to stick with that, -- no matter what. But I find that approach to lack this insight that not everything any one person said was always 100% correct. I respect Rav Nahman of Breslov a lot, but his critique of science and philosophy is something I think was better to be left out. It may have applied to people in in his area and in his time, but a blanket condemnation of science seems to me to be contrary to the general approach of Musar which started with the book the chovot levavaot which is clear about the importance of science in chapter 3 of shar habechina. But also the Gra, I think, was right about most things- in particular his emphasis on learning Torah. You see this in the results of the generations that held with his approach-strong sense of morality and decency as you can see today in the Lithuanian kind of yeshivot that follow his path. The proof is in the pudding. (The results show the validity of the recipe.)I am not saying the Litvak world yeshiva world is perfect either. But that is the only address to go to learn what is straight un-adulterated Torah