Jump to content


Help needed with gemara>rambam>SA


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Indigo_*

Guest_Indigo_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:33 AM

....

#2 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:53 AM

The agam part is addressing a possible question: since the reason the mazik does not have to pay is because the onus probandi is on the one who wishes to extract payment [from a muchzak], what about in a case where the mazik has no current chazaka, e.g. If the animal in question is currently located in an agam, which is a property belonging to neither of the parties? The response to this is that hma"h still applies, because despite his lack of a current chezkas kol ma shetachas yad adam shelo, he still has a chezkas mara kama - since he was previously the owner, he presumptively remains the owner until proven otherwise. (a cm"k is weaker than a ckmsya"s, because it can be defeated by a bari v'shema according to the raavad. However, this case is a bari v'shema garua, so it's irrelevant.)

The migo is more complicated: what happens if the nizak took possession of the damaging animal, and he freely admits to doing so, but there are no witnesses. He can now claim, "believe me that I am sure that he is liable for the greater damage, migo that I could have claimed that I never took his animal in the first place". The tur claims that the rosh says that he is believed in this case, while the ramah (not rama) says that tefisah does not work in cases of knas.
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#3 Guest_Indigo_*

Guest_Indigo_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:02 PM

....

#4 Guest_Indigo_*

Guest_Indigo_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:06 PM

....

#5 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:29 PM

Thank you.

Hamotzi lechaveiro alayv haraayah might only work when the owner of the goring animal still has physical possession of it, meaning it's on his property?

What if the goring animal is

1. on his, the owner of the goring animal's, property?
2. in an agam, that belongs to nobody [an agam is just an example of a reshut ha-rabbim?]
3. is on some third party's private property
4. is on the property of the owner of the gored animal\

In each of those four cases, is there a difference in the din?



Doesn't the Rama bring the migo example that the Mechaber does not?

The first case is the basic case of the Gemara.

The second and third cases are identical, since a third-party property or public property are the same for the purposes of this discussion. There would be a hava Amina that the chazaka would be lessened in these cases, and the din would change, which is why the tur found it necessary to add that it would remain the same.

The fourth case is what the Rama is adding on to the mechaber; that where the nizak became a muchzak, it is possibly to have a case where he would no longer be a motzi.

the SA in se'if 3 "ve-afilu she'ein ha-mazik muchzak" ... that means that even if the owner of the goring cow is not in physical possession of the goring cow?

also, that is a new element introduced by the Tur that wasn't in the Rambam?

Yes, with agam being an example of such a situation.

Yes, I believe so.
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#6 Guest_Indigo_*

Guest_Indigo_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:32 PM

....

#7 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:35 PM

Thank you very much.

Let me digest this.

(null)

:hi:
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#8 Dan

Dan

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,479 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:30 AM

Indigo, look at the gemara in baba metzia, 100a.

The tosfosim there are also very related to this discussion, as well as the ones re bari/shema starting daf 97.

Here's a short quote from 100a in the mean time:


1) WHEN DO WE DIVIDE

<a name="subject1">(a) (Mishnah #1): If Reuven traded a cow for Shimon's donkey, or he sold a slave, and the cow or slave gave birth (elsewhere), and Reuven says that the birth was before the sale (so the child is mine), and Shimon says that the birth was after the sale, they divide the offspring;
(b) If Reuven had two slaves (or fields), one big and one small, and Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven is unsure which he sold, Shimon gets the big one.

1. If Reuven says, 'I sold the small one' and Shimon is unsure, he gets the small one.
2. If Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven says 'I sold the small one', Reuven swears that he sold the small one;
3. If each says 'I don't know', they divide them.

© (Gemara) Question: (In the first clause) why do they divide? The one in whose premises the baby lies is Muchzak. The other must bring proof to take from him!
(d) Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin): The case is, the calf is in the swamp, and the slave is by the selling-block (neither owns the premises).
(e) Question: The seller is Muchzak. The buyer must bring proof to take from him!
(f) Answer: The Mishnah is Sumchus, who says that when we are in doubt, we divide the money without an oath.
(g) Question: Sumchus (explicitly) said that they divide without swearing only when both parties are unsure. Would he say this when both parties make definite claims?
(h) Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): Yes, Sumchus' law is even when both make definite claims.
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): Sumchus said that they divide without swearing only when both parties are unsure;

1. In our Mishnah, Reuven says 'perhaps the birth was before the sale', and Shimon says 'perhaps it gave birth after the sale.'

(j) Question (Mishnah): If each says 'I don't know', they divide them.

1. Granted, according to Rava, in the Reisha and Seifa, each side is unsure.
2. However, according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, the Reisha teaches that they divide when each is certain. It need not teach this when each is unsure!

(k) Answer: From the Seifa we deduce that in the Reisha, both are certain. Otherwise, we might have thought (like Rava) that both are uncertain.
(l) Question (Mishnah): If Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven says 'I sold the small one', Reuven swears that he sold the small one.

1. We understand according to Rava. Sumchus says that we divide the money only when neither side is sure.
2. But according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, even when both are sure, Sumchus says that they divide!

(m) Answer: When one party is obligated to take an oath mid'Oraisa, Sumchus agrees (that he swears and gets like he says).




and the tosfos:


האמני סומכוס היא. [ג] נראה לרבינו שמואל מדלא קאמר אלא הא מני סומכוס היא משמע דלא הדר ביה ממה דאוקמה בעומדת באגם ולא איירי סומכוס אלא בשאין מוחזק לא זה ולא זה אבל היכא דמוחזק מודה סומכוס דעל אידך להביא ראיה וק' לר"י דלעיל (דף צז:) אמרינן דזה אומר איני יודע אם שאולה אם שכורה וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו ואוקימנא כסומכוס ואע"ג שהשוכר מוחזק במעותיו וי"ל התם שהמוחזק נמי טוען שמא אין חזקתו מועלת אבל הכא אוקימנא בעומדת באגם כדי לאוקמה אפילו בברי וברי דאי הוה מוחזק חד מינייהו היתה מועלת חזקתו ומיהו קשה דבשילהי המניח (ב"ק דף לה: ושם) אמתני' דזה אומר שורך הזיק וזה אומר לא כי אלא בסלע לקה המע"ה וקאמרינן בגמ' זאת אומרת חלוקין עליו חביריו על סומכוס דלסומכוס יחלוקו ומתניתין דהתם איירי בברי וברי מדקתני וזה אומר לא כי כדאמר התם והשתא הלא סומכוס מודה כשהמוחזק טוען ברי שחזקתו מועלת וליכא למימר דהתם ס"ד דמיירי באגם ובשור תם דמשלם מגופו מ"מ מנליה דסומכוס פליג אמתני' לוקמה כשעומדת בביתו דמודה סומכוס כיון דטעין ברי וא"ת ואמאי קאמר הא מני סומכוס היא לוקמה אפילו כרבנן והכא לית לן למיזל בתר מרא קמא דאיכא חזקה אחרת כנגדה דאוקמה בחזקת מעוברת והשתא היא דילדה וי"ל דחזקת מרא קמא חשיבא טפי ואם היה עם חזקת ממון חזקת מעוברת אפילו סומכוס מודה דהמע"ה כדאשכחן בריש שור שנגח את הפרה (ב"ק דף מו. ושם ד"ה שור) דאוקי רישא כסומכוס וקתני סיפא פרה שנגחה השור ואינו יודע אם הולד היה בשעת נגיחה ופרה דחד וולד דחד בעל הפרה משלם רביע נזק דאמר ידעינן דשותפות אית ליה ואינו משלם אלא כאילו ודאי וולד סייע דהמע"ה וה"ט דאיכא תרי חזקה לבעל הפרה חזקת מעוברת והשתא ילדה וחזקת ממון אבל מן הולד גובה שמינית שזהו חצי חלקו אע"ג שהוא מוחזק דחזקת מעוברת היא כנגדה וקשה דלעיל (דף צז:) תנן שאלה היום ושכרה למחר זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו ואמאי והאיכא תרי חזקה בחזקת קיימת והשתא היא דמתה בשעת שכירות וגם חזקת ממון וצ"ל דיחלוקו לא קאי אשאלה היום ושכרה למחר:


כלל זה יהא נקוט בידך: מי שאינו רואה את המקום [=ה'] בכל מקום, אינו רואה בשום מקום
איפה נמצא אלוקים? בכל מקום שנותנים לו להיכנס
-Kotzker

נישט אלעס וואס מען טראכט דארף מען זאגען, נישט אלעס וואס מען זאגט דארף מען שרייבען, נישט אלעס וואס מען שרייבט דארף מען דרוקען און נישט אלעס וואס מען דרוקט דארף מען ליינען!
-R' Salanter

יש בן חורין שרוחו רוח של עבד, ויש עבד שרוחו מלאה חירות; הנאמן לעצמיותו בן חורין הוא, ומי שכל חייו הם רק במה שטוב ויפה בעיני אחרים הוא עבד
-R' Kook

#9 Guest_Israel Reals_*

Guest_Israel Reals_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2016 - 01:34 PM

WIN a LUXURIOUS ALL-EXPENSE PAID TRIP TO ISRAEL by answering our survey!

Click Here: http://israelreals.com/survey/






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users