https://torah.org/learning/business-halacha-5757-vol3no15/
A “Yissachar – Zevulun” relationship is an actual partnership between a person who studies Torah and someone who financially supports him in this endeavor. In other words, the “Zevulun”, who spends his day involved in business, gives “Yissachar”, who studies Torah, half of the profits that he receives from all business activities that he is involved in from the time that they made this agreement, even if this will amount to a large sum of money. In return, “Zevulun” receives half of the reward that “Yissachar” deserves for his Torah study. In heaven it is considered just as if “Zevulun” himself had studied this Torah.
How is this related to Bitachon?
I'm reading Rav Asher Weiss' new book on bitachon and frankly, the concept is too simplistic.
ReplyDeleteAny child of survivors will tell you that "If you have bitachon, God will give you special protection" is so much hooey. The universe is far more complex than that.
Bitachon is about believing that everything is for the best, even if some badness has to happen for that best to occur, even if I'm the victim of that badness, it was all for the overall best.
that is also similar to the view in Igros Moshe - Bitachon applies to what has happened already
DeleteIt also fits with the story in Berachos where Hillel hears screaming from afar and announces that he's sure that it's not coming from his house. Not that he has bitachon that nothing bad could ever happen in his house but that his family has bitachon that whatever happens is from God and therefore they would accept it quietly.
Delete“‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Kama 117b
ReplyDelete“But if a man ran after a pursuer with the intention of rescuing [someone from him] and [in his course accidentally] broke utensils, whether they belonged to the pursued or to any other person he would be exempt; this [i.e., the latter ruling], however, is not a matter of [strict] law, but is based upon the consideration that if you were not to rule thus [but make him liable], no man would ever put himself out to rescue a fellow-man from the hands of a pursuer [Sanh. 74a].”
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions my theory. Our Sages ruled that if a man ran after a pursuer with the intention of rescuing [someone from him] and [in his course accidentally] broke utensils the man that broke the utensils would be exempt for damages he did. Our Sages make fine beautiful rulings for the benefit of the world. Wow Trump is appealing his conviction to the Appellate Division 2nd Dept, where I’m now waiting for a ruling in Gerald Aranoff v Susan Aranoff. Yes my NYS Court of Appeals return date February 23, 2024 2024-116 is still undecided. Trump argues no victim and without a victim courts cannot punish. Thoughts KA, DT, Garnel, IR?
ny fraud law does not require a victim https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-ny-law.html
ReplyDelete‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Kama 119a
ReplyDelete“Regarding the property of an informer, R. Huna and Rab Judah are divided: One said that it is permitted to destroy it directly [lit., with the hand] whereas the other one said that it is forbidden to destroy it directly.”
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions my theory. Wow regarding the property of an informer מסור, R. Huna and Rab Judah are divided: One said that it is permitted to destroy it directly. My theory R. Huna ruled that it is permitted to destroy an informer מסור property only to impress on us the extreme evil of the informer מסור, who falsely demonizes Jews to the non-Jewish government.
My case NYS Court of Appeals return date February 23, 2024 2024-116 is still undecided. The NYS courts awarded Susan 55% of my TIAA pension from early 1994 with no end in sight based on 2 lying witnesses that falsely demonized me before the NYS courts. Rabbi Solomon Kornfeld ע"ה wrote to Susan July 1, 1991: It was your dream to live in Israel, don’t desert him.
“‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Metzia 3a
ReplyDelete“ It can still be maintained that our Mishnah is in agreement with Symmachus. For the oath imposed upon disputants in our Mishnah is only rabbinical [not Biblical] [cf. Shebu. 41a]. This is expressly maintained by R. Johanan. For R. Johanan says: This oath is an institution of the Sages, intended to prevent anyone from going out and seizing a neighbour's garment, declaring it to be his own.”
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions my theory. I like the Sage Symmachus who does not require swearing as a condition for dividing money Reuven and Shimon are in court over contrary to MISHNAH. TWO [PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE A COURT] HOLD A GARMENT. ONE OF THEM SAYS, I FOUND IT, AND THE OTHER SAYS, I FOUND IT; ONE OF THEM SAYS, IT IS ALL MINE, AND THE OTHER SAYS, IT IS ALL MINE, THEN THE ONE SHALL SWEAR etc. My theory This oath is an institution of the Sages, intended to prevent anyone from going out and seizing a neighbour's garment etc. No. Oaths and false witnesses are so prevalent. The Sage Symmachus says just divide evenly between Reuven and Shimon This way the court case is over, fast, and the true liar, between Reuven and Shimon doesn’t keep it all. This way no investigations of judicial bribery, of lying witnesses, and of lying testimony, Courts don’t like to hear evidence of judicial bribery, of lying witnesses, and of lying testimony. Yes these are matters of interest in Heavenly Court. My theory the Sage Symmachus leaves to the Heavenly Court such matters.
“‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Metzia 5b
ReplyDelete“But in the case in which R. Huna says, We make him swear that [the article] is not in his possession [This refers to a bailee who offers to pay compensation for a lost bailment, rather than swear that it has been lost. As it is possible that he wishes to appropriate the article by paying for it, R. Huna says that he must swear that he has not got it. (V. infra 34b)], Why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? There also he may permit himself [to keep the article] by saying [to himself], I am willing to pay him for it.”
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions my theory. Exodus 22: “9If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it; 10the oath of the LORD shall be between them both, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.”
My theory. Shimon is in court suing Reuven for a lost bailment. If Reuven swears that he, Reuven, he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s [Shimon] goods; and the owner thereof, Shimon, shall accept it, and he, Reuven, shall not make restitution. Reuven wins the court case.
Wow what an oath Reuven has to make: he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. Because if he, Reuven, did put his hand unto his neighbour’s, Shimon, goods, that means stealing. Reuven would have pay double to Shimon. Beautiful Torah laws designed to deter theft. Beautiful Sages’ rulings to deter fraud and lying in money matters.
“‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Metzia 7a
ReplyDelete“ Said R. Mesharsheya: Hence we deduce: [If a seller] grasps the kerchief [ [This was a recognised or legal manner of confirming a transaction, known as Kinyan Sudar, סודר קנין , (cp. lat. sudarium) and derived from Ruth IV, 7: . . . to confirm all things a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour. Any article can be used in the same way as the shoe if it measures three by three fingers.]]12 by a piece measuring three by three fingers, [he has rendered the sale valid, as] we apply to it [the Scriptural term]: And he gave it to his neighbour. [The part that he holds] is considered as if cut off, and by this means [the buyer] acquires [the article sold to him] [The seller establishes his claim to the part of the kerchief which he holds, and thus proclaims himself the owner of the entire kerchief. By this symbolic action the seller confirms the sale of any article which is to become the property of the buyer. See, however, infra 47a.].”
Ruth 4:7 “Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things לְקַיֵּם כָּל דָּבָר: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ ; and this was the attestation in Israel.”
רות פרק ד פסוק ז
וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַגְּאוּלָּה וְעַל הַתְּמוּרָה לְקַיֵּם כָּל דָּבָר שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:
רש"י
על הגאלה - זו מכירה: תמורה - זו חליפין: שלף איש נעלו - זהו קניין כמו שאנו קונין בסודר במקום נעל, ורבותינו ז"ל נחלקו בדבר מי נתן למי יש אומרים קונין בכליו של קונ' ובועז נתן לגואל ויש אומרים קונין בכליו של מקנה וגואל נתן לבועז: וזאת התעודה בישראל - משפט העדות:
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions on validating transactions. My theory. The Mishna rules to divide evenly the value of the garment held both by Reuven and Shimon with each claiming in court the whole is theirs. R. Mesharsheya gives us the Biblical source of the law that each disputant validates his claim to the part of the garment which he holds. Each disputant proclaims himself the owner of the entire garment. No. the Mishna rules, each disputant gets half of the value of the garment. Fair case closed, next case?
“‘Yissachar – Zevulan’ Arrangements” Interesting today’s Daf Hayomi Baba Metzia 8a
ReplyDelete“Said Raba: Now that it has been proved that we base our decisions on the Since argument [Heb. Miggo, מגו ; v. Glos. Since he acquires it for himself he may also acquire if for his neighbour is the argument used in the previous paragraph.]. [it must be assumed that] when a deaf-mute [A deaf-mute is not a responsible person, and, like a minor and an imbecile, he cannot acquire property, but for practical reasons the Rabbis laid it down that to deprive them of anything they possess is robbery (cf. Git. 59b). Applying the Miggo argument to the deaf-mute, Raba holds that Since he acquires it (according to rabbinic ruling) for himself, he also acquires it for his neighbour] and a normal person have picked up a found object, the normal person acquires it by reason of the fact that the deaf-mute has acquired it.”
Beautiful the Sages ruled: when a deaf-mute [A deaf-mute is not a responsible person, and, like a minor and an imbecile, he cannot acquire property, but for practical reasons the Rabbis laid it down that to deprive them of anything they possess is robbery (cf. Git. 59b). Raba: Applying the Miggo argument to the deaf-mute, Raba holds that Since he acquires it (according to rabbinic ruling) for himself, he also acquires it for his neighbour] and a normal person have picked up a found object, the normal person acquires it by reason of the fact that the deaf-mute has acquired it.”
Beautiful Talmudic rulings/discussions on rights of deaf-mutes. Yes my NYS Court of Appeals Motion No. 2024-116 is still undecided and yes I did submit a new document to strengthen my case.