הרמב"ם, הלכות עדות, פרק ג', הלכה ד'

נראה לי שישנן אי-בהירויות אך גם קשרים עדינים בדיני שטר. הסוגיא העיקרית הראשונה שלדעתי קשורה ורלוונטית לכל שאר הסוגיות היא האם שטרות כספיות תקפות דאורייתא, לפי הרמב"ם (הלכות עדות, פרק ג', הלכה ד'), או שמא הן תקפות רק מדברי הסופרים לפי הרמב"ן (ספר המצוות שורש ב') והש"ך בחושן משפט פרק כ"ח. נראה כי הדבר עשוי להשפיע על שאלות אחרות, למשל, אם לאחר חתימת, שטר ויש רכישה באמצעות החלפת מטפחת (קניין סודר), אם זה הופך את הלווה להיות חייב באופן אוטומטי גם אם לא הוחלף כסף (כמו לפי רש"י בבא מציעא דף י"ג צד א'). [הר''י מיגש והרמב''ן סוברים שיש חיוב על המלווה להלוות את הכסף אחר שהשטר נחתם עם קניין סודר (הביא אותם המגיד משנה בהלכות מלוה ולווה 23:5). אולם הרשב''א אומר שאין חובה להעמיד את ההלוואה, ולא להחזירה עד לרגע של החלפת הכסף, והטור ושלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק ל''ט הלכה י''ז מסכימים עם הרשב''א]. (הטור כותב שמסמך לא אמור ליצור אוטומטית חובה לתת הלוואה, אבל הוא יכול להסכים שאם כבר יש קניין סודר שזה עלול ליצור חובה) באותו דף בבבא מציעא, יש ויכוח בין רב אסי לאביי אם העדים על השטר גורמים לכך שהוא כבר נרכש על ידי המלווה? אביי מחזיק כן (והר''י, רבינו יצחק החליט כך בטור חושן משםט פרק ל''ט דין י''ג) ורב אסי אומר לא (והרי''ף החליט כך בבא מציעא דף ט''ז, או עמוד ט' בדפי הרי''ף). עולות נושאים נוספים שאינם ברורים לי, למשל אותה אמירה של רש''י באותו עמוד והרא''ש שעוסק באמירה המסוימת של רש''י. כמו כן, אם העדים על שטר נחשבים כבר בדוקים ונבדקים בבית המשפט. (עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו שנחקרה עדותם בבית דין.)[זהו דרבנן לפי הרמב"ם.] כמו כן, לא ברור לי אם כל הרעיון הזה של עדים על השטר גורם לכך שזה יהיה תקף, פירושו על ידי עדים על השטר בלבד, או גם עם קנין סודר. לרמב"ם הכוונה היא עם קניין סודר, ושהקניין נזכר בשטר, אבל לרש"י זה ללא קנייה על ידי חליפין. ובאיזה אופן הוויכוח בין ר' מאיר לר' אלעזר על איזה עדים הופכים שטר לתקף: החותמים? או המעידים? עבור ר' אלעזר הם המעידים. יש גם ויכוח בין רב שך לרב חיים מבריסק לגבי אילו שטרות ספציפיות מתייחס הרמב"ם כשהוא אומר שטרות כספיות הן דרבנן תקפות. עבור רב חיים, הכוונה רק שטרות של הוכחה, לא רק שגורמות לקניין כמו מכירת קרקע שהן תקיפות דאורייתא. אבל לרב שך, הרמב"ם מתכוון לכל שטרות כספיות, ומביא כמה הוכחות ברורות לעמדתו. [ואולי תשאלו אם אנו מחזיקים את העדים על שטרות נחשבים כאילו נבדקו בבית המשפט, אז למה לבדוק שוב כאשר המלווה מבקש להחזיר לו את הכסף

It seems to me that there are ambiguities but also subtle connections in documents. The first major issue which I think has bearing and relevance to all other issues is whether monetary documents are valid from the Torah as per the Rambam (Laws of Witnesses, chapter 3, law 4), or if they are valid only from the words of the scribes as per the Ramban [Nachmanides] and the Shach in Choshen Mishpat chapter 28. It seems this might have bearing on other questions, e.g., if after the document is signed and there is acquisition by exchange of a handkerchief kinyan sudar, if that automatically makes the borrower liable even if no money has been exchanged as per Rashi Bava Metzia page 13 side a. The Ri Migash and the Ramban as brought in the Magid Mishna laws of loans 23:5. However the Rashba says there is no obligation to make the loan nor pay it back until the minute that money has been exchanged, and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 39 law 17 agree with the Rashba. [The Tur writes that just by a document there should not be an obligation to make a loan, but he might agree if there is already a kinyan sudar.] On that same page in Bava Metzia , there is an argument between Rav Asi and Abayee if the witnesses on the document cause it to be already acquired by the lender? Abayee holds yes (and Rabainu Izhak decided this way in the Tur choshen mishpat 39 law 13.) and rav asi says no (and the Rif decided thius way in Bava Metzia page 16 or page 9 in pages of the Rif). Other issues come up which are unclear to me, for example the same statement of Rashi on that page and the Rosh who deals with that particular statement of Rashi. Also, if the witnesses on the document are considered already tested and checked in court. [This is derabanan according to the Rambam.] Also, it is unclear to me if this whole idea of witnesses on the document cause it to be valid means witnesses alone, or also with Kinyan Sudar. To the Rambam that is with kinyan sudar, and that the kinyan was stated in the document, but to Rashi it is without acquisition by exchange. And in what way does the argument between R Meir and R Elazar about what witnesses make a document valid: the ones signing? or the ones witnessing? To R Elazar they are the ones witnessing. There is also an argument between Rav Shach and Rav Chaim of Brisk about which documents in particular is the Rambam referring to when he says monetary documents are valid DeRabanan. To Reb Chaim, that means only documents of proof, not only that cause a kinyan like the sale of land. To Rav Shach, the Rambam means all monetary documents, and brings a few clear proofs of his position. [And you might ask if we hold the witnesses on the document are considered as having been checked in court then why check again when the lender asks to be paid back?] ---------------------הIt seems to me that there are ambiguities but also subtle connections in שטרs. The first major issue which I think has bearing and relevance to all other issues is whether monetary שטרs are valid דאורייתא, as per the רמב’’ם (Laws of Witnesses, chapter 3, law 4), or if they are valid only from the words of the scribes as per the רמב''ן and the ש''ך in חושן משפט chapter כ''ח. It seems this might have bearing on other questions, e.g., if after the שטר is signed and there is acquisition by exchange of a handkerchief קנין סודר, if that automatically makes the borrower liable even if no money has been exchanged as per רש’’י בבא מציעא דף י''ג side a. [The והר''י מיגש רמב''ן סוברים שיש חיוב על המלוה להלוות את הכסף אחר שהשטר נחתם עם קניין סודרas brought in theמגיד משנה הלכות מלוה ולווה 23:5. However the רשב''א says there is no obligation to make the loan, nor pay it back until the minute that money has been exchanged and the טור and שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק ל''ט הלכה י''ז agree with the רשב''א]. [[The טור writes that a document there should not automatically create an obligation to make a loan, but he might agree if there is already a קניין סודר that that might make an obligation..]] On that same page in בבא מציעא , there is an argument between רב אסי and אביי if the witnesses on the שטר cause it to be already acquired by the lender? אביי holds yes (and הר''י רבינו יצחק decided this way in the טור חושן משםט פרק ל''ט law י''ג.) and רב אסי says no (and the רי''ף decided thus in בבא מציעא page ט''ז or page ט inדפים of the רי''ף). Other issues come up which are unclear to me, for example the same statement of רש''י on that page and the רא''ש who deals with that particular statement of רש''י. Also, if the witnesses on the שטר are considered already tested and checked in court. [This is דרבנן according to the רמב’’ם.] Also, it is unclear to me if this whole idea of witnesses on the שטר cause it to be valid means witnesses alone, or also with קנין סודר. To the רמב’’ם that is with קנין סודר, and that the kinyan was stated in the שטר, but to רש’’י it is without acquisition by exchange. And in what way does the argument between ר' מאיר and ר' אלעזר about what witnesses make a שטר valid: the ones signing? or the ones witnessing? To ר' אלעזר they are the ones witnessing. There is also an argument between רב שך and רב חיים of בריסק about which שטרs in particular is the רמב’’ם referring to when he says monetary שטר are valid דרבנן. To רב חיים, that means only שטרs of proof, not only that cause a קמיין like the sale of land. To רב שך, the רמב’’ם means all monetary שטרות, and brings a few clear proofs of his position. [And you might ask if we hold the witnesses on the שטר are considered as having been checked in court, then why check again when the lender asks to be paid back?]---

באבי עזרי, הלכות הלוואות כ"ג, הלכה ה'

הייתי בדרכי חזרה מחוף הים ועלה בדעתי שיש בעיה קטנה בתשובתו של רב שך לרשב"א (באבי עזרי,הלכות הלוואות כ"ג, הלכה ה'). הרשב"א קובע שאחרי שנכתב ונחתם מסמך הלוואה תקף, עדיין אין חובה לתת או לקבל את ההלוואה, שכן מדובר רק ברכישה באמצעות מטפחת, קנין סודר. אין הלוואה עד שהכסף הוחלף. עם זאת, הרשב"א החליט לפי פסיקת רבינו יצחק, לפיה אנו פועלים לפי אביי שהעדים על המסמך כבר גורמים לרכישה להיות תקפה. "עדים בחתימתם מזכים לו", וכי עדים על המסמך נחשבים כאילו עדותם כבר נבדקה ואומתה בבית המשפטד'ד. [שני דינים אלו הם מדברי סופרים לפי רב שך באבי עזרי הלכות עדות, פרק ג' הלכה ד'] והרשב''א סבור שהחוק הוא כמו שמואל שכאשר מסמך הלוואה נמצא ברחוב, הוא מוחזר למלווה. הבעיה בהחלטה זו היא שאם אין חובה להמשיך בהלוואה גם לאחר החלפת מטפחת, קנין סודר, ומסמך תקף, איננו יודעים ממי המסמך נפל. אולי הוא נפל מהלווה? אולי הוא החזיר את החוב, והוא נפל ממנו בדרכו הביתה? רב שך עונה על כך בכך שנפילת המסמך לרחוב גורמת לספק בתקפות המסמך, אך לא בתקפות העדים. הבעיה שאני רואה בתשובה זו היא שברגע שאתה אומר שיש בעיה במסמך, אז יש אוטומטית בעיה עם העדים שחתמו על המסמך. הרי אין לנו עדים נפרדים. העדים היחידים שיש לנו הם אלה שחתמו על המסמך/אתה יכול לענות שבכל מקרה, אתה צריך אימות של המסמך כאשר המלווה מגיע לקבל תשלום. אבל זה כשלעצמו לא בהכרח תשובה טובה מכיוון שכל מה שזה אומר זה שאתה מאמת את החתימות

Avi Ezri, laws of loans 23 law 5

I was on my way back from the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a slight problem in the answer of Rav Shach for the Rashba (in the Avi Ezri, laws of loans 23 law 5). The Rashba holds after a valid document of a loan is written and signed there still is no obligation to give or receive the loan since it is only aacquisition by handkerchief, kinyan sudar. There is no loan until money has been exchanged. Yet the Rashba follows the decision of Rabainu Izhack that we follow Abyee [not like the Rif] that the witnesses on the document already cause the acquisition to be valid. “Witnesses by their signature cause acquisition," and that witnesses on the document are considered as if their testimony was already tested and verified in court.[these two laws are from the words of the scribes. see avi ezri laws of testimonu chapter 3, law 4] And the Rashba holds the law is like Shmuel that when document of a loan is found in the street, it is returned to the lender. The problem with this decision is that if there is no obligation to go through with a loan even after there is exchange of a handkerchief, kinyan sudar, and a valid document, and we do not know from whom the document fell, maybe it fell from the borrower? Maybe he paid it back, and it fell from him on his way home? Rav Shach answers this by the fact that the fall of the document into the street causes a doubt in the validity of the document, but not in the validity of the witnesses. The problem I see in this answer is that once you say there is a problem in the document, then there is automatically a problem with the witnesses that have signed the document. After all, we do not have separate witnesses. The only witnesses we have are the ones that have signed the document.------------------------------------------I was on my way back from the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a slight problem in the answer of רב שך for the רשב’’א (in the אבי עזרי, laws of loans 23 law 5). The רשב’’א holds after a valid document of a loan is written and singed there still is no obligation to give or receive the loan since it is only acquisition by handkerchief, קנין סודר. There is no loan until money has been exchanged. Yet the רשב’’א follows the decision of רבינו יצחק that we follow אביי that the witnesses on the document already cause the acquisition to be valid. “עדים בחתימתם מזכים לו," and that witnesses on the document are considered as if their testimony was already tested and verified in court. And the רשב’’א holds the law is like שמואל that when document of a loan is found in the street, it is returned to the lender. The problem with this decision is that if there is no obligation to go through with a loan even after there is exchange of a handkerchief, קנין סודר, and a valid document, and we do not know from whom the document fell, maybe it fell from the borrower? Maybe he paid it back, and it fell from him on his way home? רב שך answers this by the fact that the fall of the document into the street causes a doubt in the validity of the document, but not in the validity of the witnesses. The problem I see in this answer is that once you say there is a problem in the document, then there is automatically a problem with the witnesses that have signed the document. After all, we do not have separate witnesses. The only witnesses we have are the ones that have signed the document. you can answer that at any rate, you need validation of the document when the lender comes to receive payment. but that in itself might not be a good answer since all that means is that you validate the signatures.

zb11 midi E flat major zb11 nwc file

When I looked at the 13 stories of Rav Nachman of Breslov about the smart son and the dumb one, I noted that the dumb son really was dumb, and yet by the trait of simplicity, he became smart; and that the smart son even though he was in fact smart, in the end he became stupid. Thus, I think we can see here an amazing bit of advice about how to go about learning. I have noticed in my own learning, that if I concentrate on understanding, I usually lose the big picture, and often I even lose the understanding of what I am learning by over doing it. It seems to me, I learned a lot more by the method of the simple son,--that of simplicity--just say the words of what I am learning and go on. However, when it comes to learning in depth, I do find it important to have at least one session of in-depth learning. THIS I find in my learning of gemara and in physics and math also, -------When I was in the Mir Yeshiva in N.Y. the main learning was in depth, and yet in the afternoon I went through Gemara pretty fast,—not very fast but not slow either. Then in Israel, I spent a lot of my day in prayer, and then when I got home after the evening prayer, I would go though a lot of Gemara. Then in Uman where I learned with David Bronson, the learning took a turn, and I started learning in depth again. Thus, I find it important to have what is called in yeshivot "Bekiut and Iyun", a fast session and an in-depth session

No matter how traditional or loyal a woman seems, it has no relation to her perceived interests. She will remain loyal as long as it pays off.

Through some weird alchemy, Dad goes from vital member of the child’s life while he’s married to Mom, to vestigial appendage when she decides to divorce him for somebody younger. All the while judges claim that everything done in family court is in “the best interests of the child.” which of course is the biggest lie ever told to the American public. Regardless of how little parenting time courts dole out to dads, they’ve never explained that hypocrisy. --The mother starts accusing him of violence against her. Then, she finds everyone supports her, and believes her lies. In her mind, truth is what she can get others to believe. Then, she goes to stage two; she accuses him of violence against the children. Then again, everyone believes her. Then she goes to stage three, and accuses him of sexual violence against the children. Her dream life is fulfilled. She gets him in prison, and she gets all his assets and children, and from then on all his money goes to support her, while little or nothing to the children. [How traditional she might seem to be has no relation to this dynamic.]