in reference to my previous note it occurs to me that this is the very issue of contention between R, Josph Halevi and the Ran [Rabbainu Nisim Ben Reuven] and Tosphot. Why did not Rava in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו? [look in the ran in Shavuot I think the page number is 45b].
In short Rav Joseph says, we don't say a migo to פוטר from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this migo is different from other migos. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for Rabbainu Tam. That is, BM and Shavuot an Bava Kama Tosphot asks on rabbanu tam his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted understanding why their question is a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did rava not ask from any migos that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of Rav Joseph Halevi or the Ran. [This Rav Joseph I should mention was a drop later than the baali hatosphot and he is brought down often in the Tur. Every time I see anything he has to say I am always impressed.
Why the last question of Tosphot is specifically directed towards Rabbinu Tam. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is Rashi does not fit with that Sugia in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.
Ideas in BM
______________________________________________________________________________
In Hebrew.
This is the very issue of contention between רבי יוסף הלוי and the ר''ן and תוספות. Why did not רבא in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו?
In short רבי יוסף הלוי says, we don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this מיגו is different from other מיגו. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for רבינו תם. That is, ב''מ and שבועות an בבא קמא תוספות asks on רבינו תם his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted from above understanding why their question is a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did רבא not ask from any מיגו that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of רבי יוסף הלוי or the ר''ן. We don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath.
Why the last question of תוספות is specifically directed towards רבינו תם. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is רש''י does not fit with that סוגיא in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.
In short Rav Joseph says, we don't say a migo to פוטר from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this migo is different from other migos. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for Rabbainu Tam. That is, BM and Shavuot an Bava Kama Tosphot asks on rabbanu tam his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted understanding why their question is a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did rava not ask from any migos that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of Rav Joseph Halevi or the Ran. [This Rav Joseph I should mention was a drop later than the baali hatosphot and he is brought down often in the Tur. Every time I see anything he has to say I am always impressed.
Why the last question of Tosphot is specifically directed towards Rabbinu Tam. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is Rashi does not fit with that Sugia in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.
Ideas in BM
______________________________________________________________________________
In Hebrew.
This is the very issue of contention between רבי יוסף הלוי and the ר''ן and תוספות. Why did not רבא in Shavuot ask from any case of מיגו?
In short רבי יוסף הלוי says, we don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath, only from money. The Ran says this מיגו is different from other מיגו. But in any case what comes out from all of this is this amazing fact. There is an answer for רבינו תם. That is, ב''מ and שבועות an בבא קמא תוספות asks on רבינו תם his question that I just got done writing about. And I was granted from above understanding why their question is a good question. But then they ask the further question if the שומר said כפירה about all three animals then he would in fact be פטור But then why did רבא not ask from any מיגו that we have all over the place? Well now we know. We have either the answer of רבי יוסף הלוי or the ר''ן. We don't say a מיגו to פוטר from an oath.
Why the last question of תוספות is specifically directed towards רבינו תם. I have to think about this. Off hand it seems that the major reason is רש''י does not fit with that סוגיא in any case. But that seems like a flaky answer. There might be something deeper here I have not thought about.
