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

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 singed 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.

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.]

חשבתי שאפשר להסביר את הוויכוח בין הרי''ף לבין הרשב"א בצורה הפוכה מזו של רב שך, כלומר, שהרי"ף מחזיק פעם אחת שטר של הלוואה או שטר שמראה שיש הלוואה (שטר אקנייתא) שהמלווה חייב לתת את ההלוואה למרות שעד כה יש רק שטר וקנין סודר (רכישה באמצעות החלפת מטפחת). זה יתאים לדעת רב אסי (בבא מציעא דף י"ג ע"א) שטר המראה שניתנה הלוואה אינו תקף במלואו עד שהוא מגיע לידי המלווה. ובכל זאת, אם הוא נמצא ברחוב, מחזירים אותו למלווה מכיוון שהשטר לפחות חצי תקף. אין זה שונה מכל שטר רגיל של הלוואה, שלמרות שהיא תקפה לחלוטין ובידי המלווה, עדיין איננו גובים עליה עד שהעדים יבואו שוב לבית המשפט כדי לאמת את חתימותיהם. דעתו ההפוכה היא זו של הרשב"א שאין חובה לתת הלוואה למרות שכבר קיים שטר תקף של הלוואה. כלומר, עד לרגע בו הכסף מוחלף, לא המלווה ולא הלווה צריכים להשלים את העסקה, אף על פי שהשטר תקף לחלוטין עוד לפני שהוא מגיע לידי המלווה. שוב, אין זה שונה מכל שטר של הלוואה שהיא תקפה לחלוטין, אך לא ניתן לגבות אותה עד שהעדים יבואו לחזור על עדותם המקורית

Bava Metzia pg 13a; Shulhan Aruch, vol. 4, Hoshen Mishpat, chapter 29, law 13

I was thinking that one could explain the argument between the Rif and Rashba in the opposite way that Rav Shach does, i.e., that the Rif holds once a document of a loan or a document that shows there is a loan that the borrower must make the loan even though so far there is only a document and a kinyan sudar (acquisition by means of exchange of a handkerchief). This would correspond to the opinion of Rav Asi (Bava Metzia page 13 side a) that a document showing a loan was made is not fully valid until it reaches the hands of the lender. Still if it is found in the street, we return it to the lender because the document is at least halfway valid. This is no different than any usual document of a loan that even though it is fully valid and in the hands of the lender, we still do not collect on it until the witnesses come again to court to validate their signatures. The opposite opinion would be that of the Rashba that there is no obligation to make a loan even though there is already a valid document of a loan. That is to say that until the second that money is exchanged, neither thee lender nor borrower have to go through with the deal, but the document is fully valid even before it reaches the hands of the lender. Again, that is no different than any document of a loan that is fully valid and yet cannot be collected until witnesses come to repeat their original testimony.======I was thinking that one could explain the argument between the and רשב''א in the opposite way that רב שך does, i.e., that the רי’’ף holds once a שטר of a loan or a שטר that shows there is a loan that the מלווה must make the loan even though so far there is only a שטר and a קנין סודר (acquisition by means of exchange of a handkerchief). This would correspond to the opinion of רב אסי (בבא מציעא דף י''ג ע''א page 13 side a) that a שטר showing a loan was made is not fully valid until it reaches the hands of the מלווה. Still if it is found in the street, we return it to the מלווה because theשטר is at least halfway valid. This is no different than any usual שטר of a loan that even though it is fully valid and in the hands of the מלווה, we still do not collect on it until the witnesses come again to court to validate their signatures. The opposite opinion would be that of the רשב''א that there is no obligation to make a loan even though there is already a valid שטר of a loan. That is to say that until the second that money is exchanged, neither the lender nor borrower have to go through with the deal, but the שטר is fully valid even before it reaches the hands of the מלווה. Again, that is no different than any שטר of a loan that is fully valid, and yet cannot be collected until witnesses come to repeat their original testimony.