- This topic has 37 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
If on daf vov (or some daf) of baba metziah the gemara brings 3 cases of Choshid amomoina lo choshid ashvuosa why does rashi still say choshid amomoina choshid ashvuasa?
Why are you asking me?!?
OMG tunaisafish
It was disscused in class!Abbayai over there answers that those three cases, the reason why he’s not choshid is because we’re chayish for sofek malve yeshana. And, if not for that, we’d say choshid amomoina choshid ashvuasa.
Your kasha was Tosefus. My asnser is Ramban.
P’nei Yehoshua defends Tosefus: if we’re always chayish for sofek malve yeshana, then the bottom line is he can never be choshid ashvuasa.
tunaisafish, (uch, I wish you had a better screen name, I hate tuna, how about ‘icecream’?)
Did you get 100 on the homework. Remember, you’re supposed to say b’shem amro: amar Little Froggie b’shem the heileger Ramban…Check the Artscroll
In SA CH’M 92,3 says that if we have witnesses that he stole, then we don’t let him swear as milva yeshena does not apply.
Did you? He doesn’t answer Tosefa’s Kasha.
R E, Were discussing Choshud, not kofer or eidim.
Little Froggie, I think that the SA answers all questions. Abbaye’s view is accepted when possible but a safek does not undo a vaday, so normally we are not chashud but if we know for a fact with eidim that he steals even rabbinically as playing cards, we are chashud and no shevua is placed on him.
R E. Exactly. That is why Tosefus asks on Rashi. And The Ramban answers. And the Pnei Yehushua answers for Tosefus.
Because here all cases are not vaday, still we’re concerned for choshid amamona choshid ashvua
Froggie, please appreciate that Reb E went to yeshiva when Jack Kennedy was still alive. Learn as well.
‘not vaday, still we’re concerned for choshid amamona choshid ashvua’. Froggie, I don’t know what you are saying. Only if we know for sure he did an aveira even a derabonon are we choshud as the words of the SA.
שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות טוען ונטען סימן צב סעיף ג
וכל מי שחשוד ליקח ממון חבירו, {ט} חשוד על השבועה, (ח’) ודוקא שיש עדים שלקח ממון חבירו, {י} ו’] ג’) אבל
בלא עדים אינו חשוד, (ג) ד} דשמא ({יא} ו
[ב] ספק) ד’) ד) מלוה ישנה יש לו עליו שבשביל כך (ח*’) תפס אותוAmar Reb Yaakov Kennedy?
R E
I’m afraid you’ll have to refer to the opening post, do the Gemarah and Rashi. You’ll see his question. And the conversation here.
Little Froggie’s best topic is actually Hilchos Ribbit.
DY, I had to read that three times till I got it!!!
When it comes to Ribis, it says lo yechetzu yemehem. Explains the Ben Ish Chai that Yitzchak Avinu said that half of time people are sleeping so they should not be punished as they are not sinning. However, one who takes ribis, even when he is sleeping his money makes money, so the days cannot be divided in half, but vaani evtach boch, I trust you, so I don’t take ribbis and my days will be divided.
I need help with another question. on daf zayin how can the husband claim that he gave kesubah if he passed away? Frogie, Reb eliezer, Common saychel?
In the case where he passed away (נתארמלה), it’s referring to the heirs who are paying the Kesuba (יורשי הבעל).
I think the yesomim claim that the kesuba was returned to them after she was paid and they lost it and she claims that she lost it before it was paid.
So she gives the heirs the kesubah?
That is the question of the day, they claim it was paid, she claims it wasn’t who do you return the Kesuba to? Because if you return it to her, she’ll use it to get her money (perhaps a second time). The heirs (or the husband the case of Gerusha) have no use for it other than to prevent the woman from getting hold of it.
I think so in order to be paid as no shover is written.
To whom do you return the kesuba to? There are both muchzakim here. The heirs the money and the wife the kesuba. Could be that since the kesuba is out of her hand here, she is not muchzak on it any more, so we say they paid it and she cannot collect the kesuba.
Explains the Ben Ish Chai
Who explains the Ben Ish Chai?
You see, Yiddish and English aren’t the same. Pay attention to well written Torah in English.
The way I understood that Rashi on 3b is that he isn’t referring to the Halachah of חשיד אממונא, but rather the logic of it. Since we are delving into a טעמא דקרא this problem is dealt with as well.
HaLeiVi, you like better the Ben Ish Chai explains? By me they have the same meaning. I did not put a subject in the front, obviously I mean the subject is the Ben Ish Chai. If someone else explains, I would have said, the Ben Ish Chai is explained. Why don’t you criticize the exchange of who and whom, the subject and the object?
In yeshivas, translated from Yiddish, hold is used instead of up to as where do we hold and asks the gemora and answers the gemora but I learned gemora in Yiddish.
There is a joke where someone knocks on the heaven’s gate and he is asked, who is this? He answers, it is I. He is being retorted, another English teacher.
I understand how it comes from the Yiddish, but it’s much worse than using a certain word in a localized way. This is just not an English sentence. That’s just not how verbs connect to subjects.
Why don’t you look and substance? Don’t be tofas hatafel unaniach kaikar as language devolves. Impacted in place of affected was frowned upon but now it is part of regular speech.
Again you are referring to the usage of a word. But that is on no way similar to the basic sentence structure. Let me rephrase that.
Referring you are again to the usage of a word…
Why do you assume I didn’t understand the substance? Are you expecting a gif of my nodding, or should I post: “Aha. Mm Hmm. Very nice vort”?
Now, surely language can eventually adapt to include what became widespread. But that is hardly an argument to speak incorrectly now, whilst hoping it will one day be part of normal language. Speaking unclearly has no benefits. It doesn’t help your own thinking, either, as we find in Eiruvin 53.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.