Gitin page 66 side b. Rambam laws of divorce chapter 2 laws 5 and 6.

This coming piece is to give an approach to the Rambam. But another approach I recall is that a gift needs to be accepted. That might be an answer for the Rambam. Another answer is in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. The main question is why, ''he says 'say''' (he says to two people to two witnesses write a doc of a gift and give it to someone --or to two people tell two witnesses write a doc of divorce and give it to my wife) is not valid for a document of a gift, but for a ''get''(doc of divorce) the Rambam brings that it is not valid derabanan or maybe from the Torah. The coming essay is my explanation for this problem. _____________________________ There is no argument between the Rambam and the Ramban about the case in which one says to two people, “Write and sign a document of divorce to my wife,” that they can do so, but they cannot tell anyone else to do so. [Laws of Divorce chapter 2 law 5.] And they also agree if he tells them to tell a scribe to write a get and for them to sign it, and give it to his wife, that they cannot do so. [Ch. 2 law 6] However in the reason for this, they disagree. To the Ramban the reason for the last law is that we need it to be written for her sake. In other words, this is a regular case of making a messenger. And a person can make messengers to tell others to appoint others to write sign and give a get to his wife. However, the problem is the scribe needs to hear the command from the husband directly. therefore, the get in this case is not valid from the law of the Torah. So, in other cases of, “Tell others to do something” that is valid. The Rambam however holds this last case of telling others to write sign and give a get to his wife is not valid from the words of the Scribes and perhaps from the Torah. So he definitely does not agree with the Ramban about the problem being the need for lishma--for her sake. I think the reason for the Rambam is this. There is an argument in the gemara Gitin page 66. We know the law is like R. Jose, “Words cannot be handed over to a messenger.” But the question is does that also mean if he tells two people, “tell others to write a get “is not valid or not. The Rambam holds we see in the Gemara Gitin page 67 that even if he says, “Tell to others” is valid from Torah law, still there is a decree from the words of the scribes that he must not do so since they might ask the scribe to sign in a case where the husband said openly that the scribe must write, and the two others must sign. (That is he said that they should sign, not the scribe.) However there is also an opinion in the Gemara that R. Jose holds he says, “tell others” is in fact not valid from the Torah. This the reason for these two opinions being brought in the Rambam. Now to go on in this subject a little. The Ramban holds to tell others to write a document of acquisition as a present to someone is valid. Clearly the reason is he holds “He says ‘tell others’” is valid. But the Rambam holds if he says to two people “tell to two others to write a document of acquisition and give it to someone” is not valid at all. The reason is that at that point the Rambam decided that “he said to tell others,” is not valid from the law of the Torah like that alternative opinion in Gitin page 66.][this is a involved subject, but here i just wanted to give my take on the reason for the rambam. The reason for the Ramban is alredy pretty clear in the Ramban himself as quoted by the Ran and more openly said in the Drisha and Rav Naftali Trouphf and Rav Shach. I think my take on the Rambam here is original]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This coming piece is to give an approach to the רמב''ם. But another approach I recall is that a gift needs to be accepted. That might be an answer for the Rambam. Another answer is in the אבי עזרי of רב שך. The main question is why, ''he says 'say''' (he says to two people tell two witnnesses write a doc of a gift and give it to someone ; or write a doc of divorce and give it to my wife) is not valid for a document of a gift, but for a ''גט''(document of divorce) the רמב''ם brings that it is not valid דרבנן or maybe from the תורה דאורייתא. The coming essay is my explanation for this problem. _____________________________ There is no argument between the רמב’’ם and the רמב’’ן about the case in which one says to two people, “Write and sign a document of גירושין to my wife,” that they can do so, but they cannot tell anyone else to do so. [Laws of גירושין chapter 2 law 5.] And they also agree if he tells them to tell a scribe to write a גט and for them to sign it, and give it to his wife, that they cannot do so. [Ch. 2 law 6] However in the reason for this, they disagree. To the רמב’’ן the reason for the last law is that we need it to be written for her sake. In other words, this is a regular case of making a messenger. And a person can make messengers to tell others to appoint others to write sign and give a גט to his wife. However, the problem is the scribe needs to hear the command from the husband directly. Therefore, the גט in this case is not valid from the law of the Torah. So, in other cases of, “Tell others to do something” that is valid. The רמב’’ם however holds this last case of telling others to write sign and give a גט to his wife is not valid from the words of the סופרים and perhaps from the תורה. So, he definitely does not agree with the רמב’’ן about the problem being the need for לשמה for her sake. I think the reason for the רמב’’ם is this. There is an argument in the גמרא גיטיןpage ס''ו ע''ב. We know the law is like ר' יוסי, “Words cannot be handed over to a messenger.” מילי לא מימסרו לשליח But the question is does that also mean if he tells two people, “tell others to write a גט “is not valid or not. The רמב’’ם holds we see in גיטין ס''ז that even if he says, “אומר אמרו” is valid דאורייתא, still there is a גזרה from the words of the scribes that he must not do so since they might ask the scribe to sign in a case where the husband said openly that the scribe must write, and the two others must sign. (That is he said that they should sign, not the scribe.) However, there is also an opinion in the Gemara that ר' יוסי holds אומר אמרו is in fact not valid דאורייתא. This the reason for these two opinions being brought in the רמב’’ם. Now to go on in this subject a little. The רמב’’ן holds to tell others to write a document of acquisition as a מתנה to someone is valid. Clearly the reason is he holds “אומר אמרו’” is valid. But the רמב’’ם holds if he says to two people “tell to two others to write a document of acquisition and give it to someone” is not valid at all. The reason is that at that point the רמב’’ם decided that “he said to tell others,” is not valid from the law of the Torah like that alternative opinion in גיטין ס''ו ע''ב. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ הקטע הבא נועד לתת גישה לרמב"ם. אבל גישה נוספת שאני זוכר היא שצריך לקבל מתנה [דעת המקבל]. זו עשויה להיות תשובה לרמב"ם. תשובה נוספת נמצאת באבי עזרי של רב שך. השאלה העיקרית היא מדוע, "הוא אומר 'תגידו'" (הוא אומר לשני אנשים לומר לשני עדים וסופר לכתוב מסמך מתנה ולתת אותו למישהו; או לומר לשני עדים וסופר לכתוב מסמך גירושין ולתת אותו לאשתי) אינו תקף למסמך מתנה, אבל עבור "גט" (מסמך גירושין) הרמב"ם מביא שהוא אינו תקף דרבנן או אולי מהתורה דאורייתא אין ויכוח בין הרמב"ם לרמב"ן לגבי המקרה שבו אדם אומר לשני אנשים, "כתבו וחתמו על מסמך גירושין ותן אותו לאשתי", שהם יכולים לעשות כן, אך אינם יכולים לומר לאף אחד אחר לעשות כן. [הלכות גירושין פרק ב', חוק ה']. והם גם מסכימים אם הוא אומר להם לומר לסופר לכתוב גט ולחתום עליו ולמסור אותו לאשתו, שהם אינם יכולים לעשות כן. [פרק ב', חוק ו']. אולם בנימוק לכך, הם חולקים. לרמב"ן, הסיבה לחוק האחרון היא שאנחנו צריכים שהוא (הגט) ייכתב למענה. במילים אחרות, זהו מקרה רגיל של יצירת שליח. ואדם יכול למנות שליחים לומר לאחרים למנות אחרים לכתוב, לחתום ולתת גט לאשתו. אולם, הבעיה היא שהסופר צריך לשמוע את הפקודה מהבעל ישירות. לכן, הגט במקרה זה אינו תקף מדין התורה. לכן, במקרים אחרים של, "אמרו לאחרים לעשות דבר מה" זה תקף. הרמב"ם, לעומת זאת, סבור שהמקרה האחרון של אמירת אמרו לאחרים לכתוב ולחתום ולתת גט לאשתו אינו תקף מדברי הסופרים, ואולי גם מהתורה. לכן, הוא בהחלט לא מסכים עם הרמב"ן לגבי הבעיה שהיא הצורך של לשמה (למענה). אני חושב שהסיבה לרמב"ם היא זו. יש ויכוח בגמרא גיטין דף ס"ו ע"ב. אנו יודעים שההלכה היא כמו ר' יוסי, "דברים לא יימסרו לשליח". מילי לא מימסרן לשליח. אבל השאלה היא האם זה אומר גם שאם הוא אומר לשני אנשים, "תאמר לאחרים לכתוב גט" זה לא תקף או לא.[אומק אמרו] הרמב"ם קובע שאנו רואים בגיטין ס''ז שגם אם הוא אומר "אמרו" תקף דאורייתא, עדיין יש גזרה מדברי הסופרים שאסור לו לעשות זאת מכיוון שהם עלולים לבקש מהסופר לחתום במקרה שבו הבעל אמר בגלוי שהסופר חייב לכתוב, ושני האחרים חייבים לחתום. (כלומר, הוא אמר שהם צריכים לחתום, לא הסופר). עם זאת, יש גם דעה בגמרא שר' יוסי סבור ש"אומר אמרו" למעשה אינו תקף דאורייתא. זו הסיבה לכך ששתי דעות אלו מובאות ברמב"ם. ועכשיו נמשיך קצת בנושא הזה. הרמב"ן סבור שאם הוא אומר לאחרים לכתוב מסמך רכישה כמתנה למישהו, זה תקף. הסיבה לכך היא שהוא סבור ש"אומר אמרו" תקף. אבל הרמב"ם סבור שאם הוא אומר לשני אנשים "אמרו לשני אחרים לכתוב מסמך רכישה ותתנו אותו למישהו" זה בכלל לא תקף. הסיבה היא שבנקודה זו הרמב"ם החליט ש"אמר לומר לאחרים", זה לא תקף מדין התורה, כמו אותה דעה חלופית בגיטין ס"ו ע"ב

za88 midi file E Flat major za88 nwc file

za87 E Minor midi formatza87 in nwc format

Turning Point by Michael Huemer Sep 28

Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10th this year. He was a conservative activist, the founder of the conservative organization Turning Point USA. He went around debating people about hot-button issues, especially on college campuses. The shooter appears to be a pro-trans activist who was angered by Kirk’s right-wing stance about transgenderism. What does this mean for America? 1. Reactions What should concern us is not simply that there was a violent extremist who decided to murder someone he disagreed with. That guy is in jail and will probably never be able to kill again; anyway, one person (who doesn’t work in government) can only do so much damage. What should concern us now is the reaction to the murder. Left-wing social media videos quickly leapt to celebrate the murder without compunction. This really has to be seen; in the following video, watch from 5:04-8:10: Most of those individuals seem genuinely thrilled, with no sense of shame and no concern that maybe they shouldn’t reveal this about themselves. That is why I have come to write this explanation of why the murder was bad. 2. The Case Against Murder 2.1. Charlie Kirk as a human being Charlie Kirk was a human being. Killing human beings is normally wrong. In this case, he was 31, so the murder deprived a human being of perhaps 50 years of life, along with all the goods that he could ever have experienced in that time. His wife was left without a husband, his children without a father. If you have trouble empathizing with him because of his political views, just think about a family member of yours who has conservative views (virtually everyone has one or more such person in their life). Imagine that someone murdered your family member because he was putting forth his political views. Your family member’s views, and his reasons for holding them, are probably pretty similar to Kirk’s, or at least not dramatically superior. 2.2. The propagandistic impact Still, you might think (as I guess the above video-makers thought) that Charlie Kirk was being so harmful through his activism that the reasons for silencing him outweighed the general wrongness of murder. One problem is that it is not at all clear what the overall impact of Kirk’s assassination will be on public perception of the issues on which Kirk spoke. It is unclear, in particular, how the cause of trans rights will be affected by this. On the one hand, Kirk can no longer campaign for his views on transgenderism. Perhaps, if he hadn’t died, he would have made much more content, which would have persuaded more people that, e.g., transwomen aren’t really women. On the other hand, the assassination has put Kirk’s existing videos into the public spotlight. Probably many more people have now watched his content due to hearing about his assassination on the news. In addition, the assassination obviously makes left-wing people, especially trans activists, look much worse. Most people are not so keen on violence, so the side of a disagreement that appears more violent is usually going to lose sympathy with normal people. That’s why Martin Luther King and Gandhi chose nonviolent protests, and that’s part of why they succeeded. It’s not implausible that the assassination might help the cause of trans rights, nor is it implausible that the assassination might set back trans rights. In such a situation, even just on consequentialist grounds, you have to rest with the general presumption against murder. 2.3. A Culture of Violence Left-wing people used to worry about problems like the “cycle of violence”. Basically, this refers to a phenomenon in human interactions, including group interactions, in which violence spirals out of control because each side keeps retaliating for the other side’s last act of violence, and there is a tendency for the retaliation to be more severe than the act that it is retaliating for. This is one theory of how wars start. The left used to be against violence, so they would warn people about the cycle of violence. In this case, one plausible consequence of the Kirk assassination is greater anger and extremism on the right, which could in turn provoke still greater anger on the left. Another plausible consequence is increased social acceptance of violence. Human beings are more strongly influenced by perceived social norms than they are by genuine morality. For this reason, if it starts to seem like physically attacking those we disagree with is the sort of thing people in our society do, then more people who are presently peaceful may tip over into violence. And we’ve had indications that the social norms may be changing in the direction of tolerance for political violence. I am not going to try to measure which side is worse (nor am I thereby declaring that the two are exactly equal, nor am I saying that the left is worse, nor am I saying that the right is worse. The fact that people are focused on that is part of the problem.) I recall Trump talking about wanting to punch protestors at a rally. Leftists also developed the “punch a Nazi” meme (where “Nazi” can refer to a huge range of people). We didn’t used to attack people physically for their political views. The last time this sort of thing was prominent was the 1960’s, when there was a great deal of general social unrest. America will get through this time, just as we made it through the 60’s, but there may be a lot more trouble in the meantime. Bear in mind that what changes social norms is the perception of what the norms are; if people perceive that the norms have changed, then the norms in fact change. For that purpose, it matters a lot more that a bunch of people are openly celebrating a political assassination, without any sense of shame, than that one person committed such an assassination (for which he was arrested and sent to prison). Other people see that, and they conclude that endorsing murder is socially acceptable after all, which it never used to be, and perhaps thence that murder is socially acceptable. There will be some small percentage of people for whom this will give them the little push in the direction of giving in to their violent impulses that leads them to go out and start a riot or kill someone. By the way, don’t assume that all those people will agree with you politically. Once we have a culture of violence, the violence can come from any direction. 2.4. Disadvantages of violence The immediate disadvantages of a culture of political violence are obvious (more people hurt, killed, etc.). But the knock-on effects can include a worsening of other institutions. Academics and journalists are afraid to speak about politics, so we all get dumber about politics. Fewer people are willing to serve in public office due to the risks to their safety, so we get lower quality leaders. The people who rise to positions of influence in a violent culture tend not to be the best people; indeed, they tend to be close to the worst people. So there is a risk that everything else gets worse. People in any society are going to have disputes about how that society should be run. Our tradition has been that these disputes get resolved through debate and democratic process. If we give that up, and we decide that our disputes are to be resolved through violence, everything else that’s good in our society is going to collapse. We’re not at that point yet, nor am I predicting that that will happen. But if we kept having events like this, and people kept celebrating them, then there is some point, which no one can predict in advance, at which social order would fall apart. 3. What Happened to Us? We’ve slid from thinking that people with other political views are wrong to thinking they are evil. This is lazy and dumb. If there are two large factions of society, each close to half the population, it is unlikely that one of them is generally evil while the other is generally good. It is unlikely that the mainstream position on an issue is just pure evil, such that anyone who holds that position deserves to die. Of course, it is possible that the people who disagree with you are evil. But if things often seem that way to you, the more likely explanation is that you are a dogmatic ideologue. That is more plausible than that lots of seemingly ordinary people are pure evil. In the case of transgenderism, the mainstream position is probably that transwomen are men, not women. There is no need to posit demonic evil or hate to explain why people think this, when the simple explanation is that transwomen were born with penises, which most people grew up thinking was incompatible with womanhood. At the same time, the “arguments” given by trans activists are generally extremely unpersuasive; e.g., “transwomen are women, because if you say otherwise you’ll be hurting their feelings” or “transwomen are women, because people who say otherwise are bigots.” The simplest explanation for someone’s being unpersuaded by these arguments is that they are obviously terrible arguments. Better arguments can be given, but they rarely are, and most people have never heard them. Still worse is the “argument” that “transwomen are women, because if you say otherwise, we’re going to kill you.” People with this kind of rage leave the rest of us with the impression that they have to resort to violence because they know they can’t win an actual debate. 4. What to Do What should we do? When a prominent public figure is murdered, act sad. If you aren’t sad, pretend that you are anyway. Or at least shut up. Don’t go on social media bragging about how much schadenfreude you have. Those people are damaging the culture. More broadly, if someone disagrees with you, start with the presumption that it is a good faith disagreement; they, just like you, want what’s best, despite disagreeing about what that is.

za86 C Minor MIDI format ditto nwc format

השלחן ערוך כותב כי עדים צריכים להעיד בעל פה, לא בכתב (חושן משפט פרק כ''ח ס''ק י''א). אבל כדי לאמת מסמך, בחושן משפט סימן מ''ו סעיף ז' הרמ''א אומר שאפשר להעיד בכתיבה בשם הריב''ש (יצחק בן ששת). ואף על פי כן, לאחר שכותב השלחן ערוך (פרק מ''ו הל''ו) אם אחד הוא עד, ואז פתאום לא יכול לדבר, הוא אינו יכול להעיד על תוקף חתימתו (אפילו בכתב). והרמ''א אינו חולק שם. מַדוּעַ? רב שמואל רוזובסקי עונה את זה. רב יוסף קרו סבור כמו תוספות שמסמך עם עד אחד בלבד אינו נחשב כמסמך תקף, ולכן כדי לאמת אותו, צריך להעיד בעל פה, לא בכתב. נראה שזה מרמז שרב קרו סבור שמסמך שנכתב בניגוד להסכמת הלווה גם אינו נחשב כמסמך, ולכן גם שם יש להעיד על תוקפו בעל פה, בעוד שהרמ"א סבור שאפשר להעיד בכתב על תוקפו. ----בהתחלה היה נראה לי קשה להבין למה רב שמואל מתכוון בזה שיש מסמך שיש לו תוקף ועדיין צריך לאמת אותו. הוא לא מסביר למה הוא מתכוון בדיוק. עם זאת, עלה בדעתי שהוא חייב לסבור שהשלחן ערוך סבור כמו הרמב"ם שאף מסמך אינו תקף מדין התורה, רק דברי הסופרים הופכים מסמכי הלוואה לתקפים בכלל. אבל אפילו אז, צריך לאמת אותם כאשר המלווה מגיע לבית המשפט כדי לגבות את התשלום שלו. לכן, תמיד צריך להעיד על תוקפו של מסמך בעל פה, כי הפסוק "מפיהם" מרמז "ולא מפי כתבם". עם זאת, הרמ"א חייב לקבוע שמסמכי הלוואות ועסקים תקפים מהתורה. מכיוון שהם כבר תקפים, אז אפשר להעיד על תוקפם בכתב. [רק כאשר מסמך נכתב עם רק עד אחד, אז אין לו תוקף מהתורה, ולכן צריך להעיד על תוקפו מדברי הסופרים בעל פה.] ויכוח זה בין השלחן ערוך לרמ"א מבוסס על תוספת כתובות עמוד כ'. דעה אחת היא ש"שטר" שנכתב ללא הסכמת הלווה אינו נחשב כמסמך, ורב קרו מסכים לכך, והרמ"א חולק על כך. דעה נוספת היא שמסמך עם עד אחד בלבד אינו נחשב כמסמך. גם השלחן ערוך וגם הרמ"א מסכימים

The Rav Joseph Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch) writes that witnesses need to testify verbally, not by writing (Choshen Mishpat chapter 28, law 11). But to validate a document, in choshen mishpat chapter 46 law 7 the Rema says one can testify by writing in the name of the Rivash (Izhak ben Sheshet). And yet later on when the Shulchan Aruch writes (chapter 46 law 36)if one is a witness, and then suddenly became unable to speak , he cannot testify as for the validity of his signature (even by writing). And the Rema does not disagree there. Why? Rav Shmuel Rozovski [Rosh yeshiva of Ponovitch before Rav Shach] is this. Rav Joseph Karo holds like Tosphot that a document with only one witness does not have a valid category of a document, and therefore to validate it, one needs to testify verbally, not in writing. This seems to imply that Rav Karo holds a document written against the consent of the borrower is also not considered to be a document, and therefore there also one must testify for it’s validity verbally, while the Rema holds one can testify in writing about its validity. It seemed to me at first hard to understand what Rav Shmuel means by a document having validity and yet still needing to be validated. He does not explain what he mean exactly. However, it occurred to me that he must hold that the Shulchan Aruch Rav Karo holds like the Rambam that no document is valid from the law of the Torah, only the words of the sages makes documents of loans valid at all. But even then, one needs to validate them when the lender comes to court to collect his payment. Therefore one must always testify for the validity of a document verbally because the verse from their mouth which implies not from their writing. However the Rema must hold that documents of loans and business are valid from the Torah. Since they are already valid, then one can testify as for their validity in writing. Only when a document was written against with only one witness, then it has no validity from the Torah, so one has to testify as for its validity from the words of the sages verbally. This argument between the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema is based on Tosphot Ketuboth page 20.One opinion is a document written without consent of the borrower does not have the status of a document, and Rav Karo agrees with this, and the Rema disagrees. Another opinion is a document with only one witness does not have the status of a document. Both the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema agree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The שלחן ערוך writes that witnesses need to testify verbally, not by writing (חושן משפט פרק כ''ח ס''ק י''א ). But to validate a document, in חושן משפט סימן מ''ו סעיף ז' the רמ''א says one can testify by writing in the name of the ריב''ש (יצחק בן ששת). And yet later on when the שלחן ערוך writes (chapter מ''ו lawל''ו ) if one is a witness, and then suddenly became unable to speak , he cannot testify as for the validity of his signature (even by writing). And the רמ''א does not disagree there. Why? the רב שמואל רוזובסקי is this. רב יוסף קרו holds like תוספות that a document with only one witness does not have a valid category of a document, and therefore to validate it, one needs to testify verbally, not in writing. This seems to imply that רב קרו holds a document written against the consent of the borrower is also not considered to be a document, and therefore there also one must testify for it’s validity verbally, while the רמ''א holds one can testify in writing about its validity. ----It seemed to me at first hard to understand what רב שמואל means by a document having validity and yet still needing to be validated. He does not explain what he mean exactly. However, it occurred to me that he must hold that the שלחן ערוךholds like the רמב''ם that no document is valid from the law of the תורה, only the words of the סופרים makes documents of loans valid at all. But even then, one needs to validate them when the lender comes to court to collect his payment. Therefore, one must always testify for the validity of a document verbally because the verse "מפיהם" which implies ולא מפי כתבם. However, the רמ''א must hold that documents of loans and business are valid from the תורה. Since they are already valid, then one can testify as for their validity in writing. Only when a document was written against with only עד אחד, then it has no validity from the תורה, so one has to testify as for its validity from the words of the סופרים verbally. This argument between the שלחן ערוך and the רמ''א is based on תוספות כתובות page כ''. One opinion is a שטר written without consent of the borrower does not have the status of a document and רב קרו agrees with this and the רמ''א disagrees. Another opinion is a document with only one witness does not have the status of a document. Both the שלחן ערוך and the רמ''א agree.