za32 midi za32 in nwc format [files go from ''a'' to ''z'' but after ''z'' start again with ''za''. each letter should have about a 100 files. but many were not put on the internet. and many were lost. some early files had names, but after some time they got just a letter. ]
7.9.24
4.9.24
Rav Yehuda said (Ketuboth page 76) in a case when one who owns an ox exchanges the ox with a donkey and then goes and finds the donkey dead, that the owner of the donkey has to bring proof the donkey was alive at the time of the sale. Rami said that the person in whose domain the problem was found has to bring proof. All the rishonim except the RIF and Rambam (Laws of Sales 20) hold that the point of Rami is the owner of the ox has to bring proof because the finding occurred after the exchange was made. However the Rambam holds even to Rami, the owner of the donkey must bring proof. Rav Shach said the reason is that when a sale is made, it is incumbent on the seller the verify that the object he is selling is the object being bought. But this can not help to answer the problem because in the very next halacha, the Rambam brings a case where an animal was sold and it turned out to be traif. There the buyer has to bring proof. If Rav Shach would be correct, then the seller would have to bring proof. Therefore to me it seems that Rav Isar Meltzer was correct when he said the reason the owner of the donkey must bring proof because the donkey has not yet entered the domain of the buyer. The Rambam did not say the "possession" of the buyer but rather the "domain" of the buyer. This is different from the animal that is traif that has already come into the domain of the buyer.
רב יהודה said בשם שמואל in a case when one who owns an ox exchanges the ox with a donkey, and then goes and finds the donkey dead, that the owner of the donkey has to bring proof the donkey was alive at the time of the sale. רמי said that the person in whose domain the problem was found has to bring proof. All the ראשונים except the רמב'ם hold hold that the point of רמי is the owner of the ox has to bring proof because the finding occurred after the exchange was made. However the רמב'ם holdS הלכות מכירה כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו even to רמי, the owner of the donkey must bring proof. רב שך said the reason is that when a sale is made it is incumbent on the seller the verify that the object he is selling is the object being bought. but this can not help to answer the problem because in the very next הלכה the רמב'ם brings a case where an animal was sold and it turned out to be טריף. There the buyer has to bring proof. If רב שך would be correct, the the seller would have to bring proof. Therefore to me it seems that רב איסר מלצר בספרו אבן האזל was correct when he said the reason the owner of the donkey must bring proof because the donkey has not yet entered the domain of the buyer. The רמב'ם did not say the "possession" of the buyer, but rather the "domain" of the buyer. This is different from the animal that is טריף that has already come into the domain of the buyer.
כתובות ע''ו ע''ב
רב
יהודה אמר בשם שמואל במקרה שבו מי שבבעלותו שור מחליף את השור בחמור, ואז הולך
ומוצא את החמור מת, שעל בעל החמור להביא הוכחה שהחמור היה חי בזמן המכירה. רמי אמר
שהאדם שבתחום שלו נמצאה הבעיה צריך להביא הוכחות. כל הראשונים מלבד הרי''ף והרמב"ם
גורסים שנקודת רמי הוא בעל השור צריך להביא הוכחה כי הממצא התרחש לאחר ביצוע
ההחלפה. אולם הרמב"ם מחזיק הלכות מכירה כ' הלכה י''ד וט''ו אפילו לרמי, בעל
החמור חייב להביא הוכחה. רב שך אמר שהסיבה היא שכאשר מתבצעת מכירה זה מוטל על
המוכר לוודא שהחפץ שהוא מוכר הוא החפץ הנקנה. אבל זה לא יכול לעזור לענות על הבעיה
כי בהלכה הבאה הרמב"ם מביא מקרה שבו נמכרה חיה והתברר שהיא טריף. שם הקונה
צריך להביא הוכחה. אם רב שך יהיה נכון, המוכר יצטרך להביא הוכחה. לפיכך נראה לי
שצדק רב איסר מלצר כשאמר הטעם שעל בעל החמור להביא הוכחה כי טרם נכנס החמור לתחום
הקונה. הרמב"ם לא אמר "חזקתו" של הקונה אלא "רשות" של
הקונה. זה שונה מהחיה שהיא טריף שכבר נכנסה לתחום של הקונה
3.9.24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)