thinking that one is righteous because of strict adherence to ritual.

There is a danger of thinking that one is righteous because of their strict adherence to ritual. Even though many rituals are specified by our holy Torah, that is not equivalent to being righteous. That in turn leads to people thinking that they ought to be supported, thus demanding money from secular Jews because of their strict adherence to ritual. [Being righteous is more in line with keeping all the commandment of the torah. Much of that or in fact mot of that ha to do with being a mensch, good character.

תשובת רב שך ברמב''ם נזקי ממון. תוספות בדף י''ח בבבא קמא

אומר הרמב''ם בנזקי ממון פרק ב', הלכות ה' ו'. יש ספק לגבי מקרה חריג של צרורות. לדוגמה, אם החיה בעטה ואז צרורות ירו למעלה, אז זה מקרה של ספק. זה מהגמרא. האם חל על צרורות מעשה חריג, כך שיירד מחצי תשלום נזק לתשלום נזק רביעי? או לא? שאלה נוספת בגמרא היא האם חלה אזהרה על צרורות? כך, הם יעברו מתשלום חצי לתשלום מלא. הרמב''ם משמיט את השאלה השנייה. מַדוּעַ? רב שך אומר כי מהשאלה על מעשה חריג של צרוררות, אנו יודעים שיכולה להיות אזהרה על צרורות. אני לא מבין למה? אולי יש מעשה חריג של צרורות, והם ירדו מ-1/2 ל-1/4, ועכשיו הוא מקבל אזהרה והם עולים מ-1/4 ל-1/2? או שמא לא? אולי הם נשארים 1/4. או שאין מעשה חריג, והם ½ גם אם הם נעשים בבעיטה. אבל אז בא אזהרה, והם עולים מ-½ לנזק מלא? ובאותה מידה, אני מבולבל לגבי תוספות בבא קמא דף י''ח ע''א ד''ה במועד מתחילתו.... הם מחזיקים אם יש אזהרה, אז זה יכול לחול בין אם יש שינוי או לא. אבל אם אין אזהרה, אז אין שינוי. מַדוּעַ? אני לא יכול לראות את זה. אולי אין אזהרה, ובכל זאת אם החיה בועטת ויורה צרורות, זה יורד ל-1/4 נזק בין אם הייתה אזהרה ובין אם לא? או אולי אפילו זה נעשה הרבה פעמים לא משנה כלום

Rambam, Laws of Monetary Damage chapter 2, laws 5 and 6. Tosphot on page 18 in Bava Kama.

The Rambam says in Laws of Monetary Damage chapter 2, laws 5 and 6. There is a doubt about an unusual case of pebbles. For example, if the animal kicked and then pebbles shot up, then this is a case of doubt. That is from the Gemara. Does an unusual act apply to pebbles, so that it would go down from half damage payment to a fourth damage payment? Or not? Another question in the Gemara is if warning applies to pebbles? Thus, they would go from a half to full payment. The Rambam leaves out this second question. Why? Rav Shach says because from the question about an unusual act of pebbles, we know there can be doubt about warning by pebbles. I do not see why? Maybe there is an unusual act by pebbles, and they have gone down from 1/2 to ¼, and now he gets warned and they go up from 1/4 to 1/2? Or they don’t. Maybe they stay down to 1/4. Or there is no unusual act, and they are ½ even if done by kicking. But then come warning, and they go up from ½ to full damage? And just as much, I am confused about Tosphot. They hold if there is warning, then that can apply whether there is change or not. But if there is no warning, then there is no change. Why? I cannot see this. Maybe there is no warning, and still if the animal kicks and shoots up pebbles, that goes down to ¼ damage whether there was warning or not? Or maybe even doing that many times changes nothing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The רמב''ם says in נזקי ממון chapter ב', laws ה' and ו'. There is a doubt about an unusual case of pebbles. For example, if the animal kicked and then pebbles shot up, then this is a case of doubt. That is from the גמרא. Does an unusual act apply to צרורות, so that it would go down from half damage payment to a fourth damage payment? Or not? Another question in the גמרא is if warning applies to צרורות? Thus, they would go from a half to full payment. The רמב''ם leaves out this second question. Why? רב שך says because from the question about an unusual act of pebbles, we know there can be doubt about warning by צרורות. I do not see why? Maybe there is an unusual act by צרורות , and they have gone down from 1/2 to a fourth, and now he get warned and they go up from 1/4 to 1/2? Or they don’t. Maybe they stay down to 1/4. Or there is no unusual act, and they are ½ even if done by kicking. But then come warning, and they go up from ½ to full damage? And just as much, I am confused about תוספות . They hold if there is warning, then that can apply whether there is change or not. But if there is no warning, then there is no שינוי. Why? I cannot see this. Maybe there is no warning, and still if the animal kicks and shoots up צרורות, that goes down to ¼ damage whether there was warning or not? Or maybe even doing that many times changes nothing.

הרמב''ם פרק ב' הלכה י''ד

הרמב''ם נזקי ממון פרק ב' הלכה י''ד כתב שבמקרה של תרנגולת שלועסת על חוט שמחובר אליו דלי, שאם נחתך החוט ונשבר הדלי, משלמים נזק מלא על הדלי. אם היה בצק על החוט, אז הוא משלם נזק מלא גם עבור החוט. נשמע שהתשלום של נזק מלא עבור הדלי אינו תלוי אם היה בצק על החוט או לא. אם כן, זה הולך כמו הנימוקי יוסף והרא''ש והשילטי גיבורים על הרי''ף שהנזק לדלי הוא בגלל שהחוק הוא כמו רבה שהולכים בהתחלה. אולם ישנה אפשרות להבין שהרמב''ם משמע שהעוף היה דוחף את הדלי בגלל כמה מילים מיותרות. שם הוא כותב שהדלי נשבר בגלל העוף. ובכן, זה נראה מובן מאליו. אז למה הוסיף הרמב''ם את זה? אולי בגלל שהוא הולך כמו טור והבית יוסף חושן משפט ש''צ הלכה י''א שהחזיקו אם אין בצק על החוט, זה מקרה של צרורות וחייב רק בחצי נזק. זה יהיה משום שבבבא קמא י''ח אומרים שבמקרה שהתרנגולת לעס את החוט ונפל הדלי ושבר כלי אחר שנפל עליו, שזה כח כוחו. מכאן נראה ברור שהמקרה הראשון שלנו רק עם חוט העוף והדלי שזהו מקרה של כוחו, (לא מגע פיזי ישיר), וכבר אמר הגמרא שמקרה של כוחו הוא חצי נזק. הגמרא הוא כזה. רבא שאל אם הולכים לפי ההתחלה או השבירה של כלי? המקרה המדובר הוא זה. חיה דרכה על כלי והוא התגלגל ונשבר על אבן. אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, זה נזק מלא. אם נלך לפי הסוף, זה חצי נזק. ענינו על זה על ידי רבה שאמר שאם זורק כלי מגג ואז בא מישהו אחר ושובר אותו, חייב הראשון. לכן אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה. ואז הגמרא חשב לענות לשאלת רבא באמצעות המקרה עם העוף והדלי ששם נראה שהולכים כפי ההתחלה בגלל דרישת נזק מלא. אז אנחנו דוחפים את זה ומציעים שסומכוס שמחזיק צרורות הם נזק מלא. ואז אנחנו דוחפים את זה כי סוף אותה ברייתא (הוראה) אומר שאם הדלי נפל ושיבר דלי אחר, השני הוא חצי נזק ואיננו מודעים לכך שסומכוס אמר שיש דבר כזה חצי נזק. ואז הגמרא מציעה שאולי בעצם סומכוס מחזיק בכוח של כוחו שהוא חצי נזק. ואז נדחק את זה כי אז לרב אשי הייתה תשובה קלה לשאלתו אם כוח הכוח הוא חצי נזק לסומכוס. אז אנחנו חוזרים לשאלתנו המקורית שהעוף דוחף את הדלי עד שהוא נשבר, ולכן אין לנו תשובה לשאלת רבא

bava kama page 17-18

The Rambam wrote that in a case of a chicken that chews a string with a bucket attached to it that if the string Is cut and the bucket broken that one pays full damage for the bucket. if there was dough on the string then he pays full damage for the string also. It sounds like the payment of full damage for the bucket is independent of whether there was dough on the string or not. If so, that is going like the Nemukei Yoseph and the Rosh and the Shiltei Giborim on the Rif that the damage for the bucket is because the law is like Raba that one goes by the beginning. However, there is a possibility of understanding that the Rambam means that the chicken was pushing the bucket because of a few extra words where he writes that the bucket was broken because of the chicken. Well, that seem obvious so why did the Rambam add that? Maybe because he is going like the Tur and Beit Yoseph [Choshen Mishpat 390 law 11] that held if there is no dough on the string it is a case of pebbles and liable only in half damage. This would be because in the Gemara Bava Kama 18 it say a that in a case where the chicken chewed on the string and the bucket fell and broke another vessel on which it fell, that is a case of force of his force. From that it seems clear that our first case with only the chicken string and bucket that that is a case of force, not direct physical contact and the Gemara has already said that a case of force is half damage. The case of the Gemara is this. Rava asked if one goes by the beginning or the breaking on a vessel? The case in question is this. An animal stepped on a vessel and it rolled away and was broken on a stone. If we go by the start, that is full damage. If we go by the end, that is half damage. We answered this by Raba who said if one throws a vessel off a roof and then someone else come and breaks it, the first Is liable. We therefore go by the beginning. Then the Gemara thought to answer the question of Rava by means of the case with the chicken and bucket where it looks that one goes by the beginning because of the requirement of full damage. Then we push that off and suggest that is Sumchos who holds pebbles are full damage. Then we push that off because the end of that braita (teaching) says if the bucket fell and broke another bucket, the second one is half damage and we are unaware that Sumchos ever said there Is such a thing a half damage. Then the gemara suggests that well perhaps in fact Sumchos holds force of his force is half damage. Then we push that off because then rav ashi would have had an easy answer to his question if force of force is half damage to Sumchos. So we return to our original question that ay the chicken I pushing the bucket until it breaks and therefore we have no answer to the question of rava. I might mention here my miniscule opinion that the Rambam seem to be more on the side of the Rosh and Nemukai Yoseph. (------------------------------------------- The רמב''ם פרק ב' הלכה י''ד wrote that in a case of a chicken that chews a string with a bucket attached to it that if the string Is cut and the bucket broken that one pays full damage for the bucket. if there was dough on the string then he pays full damage for the string also. It sounds like the payment of full damage for the bucket is independent of whether there was dough on the string or not. If so, that is going like the נימוקי יוסף and the רא''ש and the שילטי גיבוריםon the רי''ף that the damage for the bucket is because the law is like רבה that one goes by the beginning. However, there is a possibility of understanding that the רמב''ם means that the chicken was pushing the bucket because of a few extra words where he writes that the bucket was broken because of the chicken. Well, that seem obvious so why did the רמב''ם add that? Maybe because he is going like the טורand בית יוסף חושן משפט ש''צ הלכה י''א that held if there is no dough on the string it is a case of צרורות and liable only in half damage. This would be because in בבא קמא י''חit say a that in a case where the chicken chewed on the string and the bucket fell and broke another vessel on which it fell, that is a case of force of his force. From that it seems clear that our first case with only the chicken string and bucket that that is a case of force, not direct physical contact and the גמרא has already said that a case of force is half damage.

Apollo 11

I wanted to mention here that Buzz Aldrin eventually was able to redeem his reputation by means of one swift punch to a moon landing denier who was harassing him. [Aldrin was the second in command to Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11. Neil was the first to walk on the moon.] The reputation of Buzz had suffered, and that no one wanted to work with Buzz Aldrin. One Apollo commander (Borman) said openly to the Flight Director that if he was going to assign Buzz to his crew, he would reign. The flight director, at one point, took Neil Armstrong aide and asked him if he wanted to replace Buzz with Lovell (commander of Apollo 13). And Neil said, “Give me a day to think about it.” After a day, Neil said,” I can work with him. Lovell deserves his own command.” The truth be told, Buzz was a great astronaut, but people were put off by his self-promotion. In the end, Aldrin redeemed himself by one swift punch that I think not Armstrong, nor any other Apollo pilot would have done. But all the Apollo astronauts were great men. All were Navy test pilots who put their lives on the line daily. And Buzz had an advanced degree in engineering from MIT. [That punch was caught on film, and the D.A. of L.A. refused to prosecute because he said it was self-defense.] I think it is about time for Israel to get to Mars, and start a colony there, and start planting trees to make it inhabitable. I can see the need for self-defense, but getting to Mars is more important. It is about time for Israel, to devote some of its considerable brain power toward this goal of getting Mars ready for human expansion.

za69 E Flat Major midi za69 nwc format