I wanted to bring here a debate between different Rishonim and Achronim concerning two laws in the Rambam.
[Just for background I should mention the Keztos HaChohen and the Netivot belong to the category of achronim before Reb Chaim Soloveitchik--the class of achronim that I used to learn all the time.
That is my own education was more or less founded on Achronim starting from the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and onward down the line.] (Normal yeshiva education involves this class but also goes on to include Reb Chaim, and Rav Shach.)
I already mentioned the Rambam in in this case: two people come to court. One says you owe me 100. The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say person B borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says ''I never borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי
The issue I wanted to bring out is if person B changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid".--And then the set of witnesses comes.
That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the 100. and the Ri Migash [the teacher of the Rambam and the father of the Rambam] said the reason is מיגו [he could have stuck with the original claim]. The Ketzot HaChoshen [on Chohen Mishpat] asks on the Ri Migash from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also?
You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the Rambam, the witnesses actually support everything the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what Rav Shach is asking on the Ketzot but I have not had time to take a close look at what he writes there.
I looked a second time and in short I think Rav Shach is saying something like this:
We know the reason of the Ri Migash is not enough because of the questions of the Ketzot HaChoshen. That is clear. But what Rav Shach I think wants to do is to join the idea of the Netivot Hamishpat of ''לא דק'' the borrower was "not precise" along with the idea that from לא היו דברים מעולם to לוויתי ופרעתי is only a implication of לא פרעתי but not a direct confession--because if it as a direct confession then we would not say he was not precise.
Rav Shach also requires the idea of the ketzot hachoshen in order for the answer of the ri migash to work. the answer of the ketzot on why does מפטור לפטור work even after witnesses have come was that there it is before גמר דין. The Ketzos is saying those cases when one can not change his plea from Ptur to ptur is after גמר דין. Rav Shach needs this for the Rambam to work because of a question a student in his yeshiva asked --that even if in our case in Bava Batra the borrower said "i considred it like my father's" he should be believed because of a מיגו that he could have said "My fathers but it from your fathers."
****************************************************************
I already mentioned the רמב''ם in this case two people come to court. One says you owe me מנה The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say the נטען borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says, ''I never borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. The issue I wanted to bring out is if הנטען changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid", and then the set of witnesses comes. That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the מנה. and the ר''י מיגש said the reason is מיגו, he could have stuck with the original claim. The קצוות החושן asks on the ר''י מיגש from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also? You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the רמב''ם, the witnesses actually support everything the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what רב שך is asking on the קצוות but I have not had time to take a close look at what he writes there.
כבר הזכרתי את רמב''ם במקרה של שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט. אחד אומר "אתה חייב לי מנה". השני אומר, "לא לוויתי". שני עדים מגיעים ואומרים "הנטען לווה ושילם את הסכום בחזרה." הדין הוא מי שאומר, "לא לוויתי מעולם," שהוא לא שילם בחזרה. כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. בסוגיה הזו רציתי להביא את זה: אם הנטען שינה את דעתו לפני ששני העדים באו, והוא אומר: "אני לוויתי ושלמתי", ולאחר מכן הסט של עדים מגיע. זה נקרא מפטור לפטור ובמקרה הזה אין ספק כי הנטען לא משלם את המנה. הר''י מיגש אמר שהסיבה היא מיגו, הוא יכול היה להחזיק עם הטענה המקורית. קצוות החושן שואל על הר''י מיגש מאישה שבאה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "הייתי נשואה ועכשיו גרושה." ואז שני עדים אומרים שהיא נשואה. אנחנו לא מאמינים לה כי היא גרושה, עד שלא תהיה הוכחה. הוא גם שואל ממסמך של הלוואה שלא אושר על ידי בית משפט, ולאחר מכן הנטען אומר "לוויתי אבל שלמתי בחזרה," ואת שני העדים באים ואומרים, "המסמך תקף. בשני המקרים האלה ביאת העדים לוקחת את הכוח של טענות של האישה והלווה, אז למה לא במקרה הראשון גם? מה מציק לי? במקרה המקורי שלנו הרמב''ם, העדים למעשה תומכים את הכל שהלווה אומר ,מה שהם לא עושים במקרים המאוחרים.
[Just for background I should mention the Keztos HaChohen and the Netivot belong to the category of achronim before Reb Chaim Soloveitchik--the class of achronim that I used to learn all the time.
That is my own education was more or less founded on Achronim starting from the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and onward down the line.] (Normal yeshiva education involves this class but also goes on to include Reb Chaim, and Rav Shach.)
I already mentioned the Rambam in in this case: two people come to court. One says you owe me 100. The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say person B borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says ''I never borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי
The issue I wanted to bring out is if person B changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid".--And then the set of witnesses comes.
That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the 100. and the Ri Migash [the teacher of the Rambam and the father of the Rambam] said the reason is מיגו [he could have stuck with the original claim]. The Ketzot HaChoshen [on Chohen Mishpat] asks on the Ri Migash from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also?
You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the Rambam, the witnesses actually support everything the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what Rav Shach is asking on the Ketzot but I have not had time to take a close look at what he writes there.
I looked a second time and in short I think Rav Shach is saying something like this:
We know the reason of the Ri Migash is not enough because of the questions of the Ketzot HaChoshen. That is clear. But what Rav Shach I think wants to do is to join the idea of the Netivot Hamishpat of ''לא דק'' the borrower was "not precise" along with the idea that from לא היו דברים מעולם to לוויתי ופרעתי is only a implication of לא פרעתי but not a direct confession--because if it as a direct confession then we would not say he was not precise.
Rav Shach also requires the idea of the ketzot hachoshen in order for the answer of the ri migash to work. the answer of the ketzot on why does מפטור לפטור work even after witnesses have come was that there it is before גמר דין. The Ketzos is saying those cases when one can not change his plea from Ptur to ptur is after גמר דין. Rav Shach needs this for the Rambam to work because of a question a student in his yeshiva asked --that even if in our case in Bava Batra the borrower said "i considred it like my father's" he should be believed because of a מיגו that he could have said "My fathers but it from your fathers."
****************************************************************
I already mentioned the רמב''ם in this case two people come to court. One says you owe me מנה The other says "I never borrowed " Two witnesses comes and say the נטען borrowed and paid back the sum. The first collects because anyone who says, ''I never borrowed'' implies he never paid back
כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. The issue I wanted to bring out is if הנטען changed his mind before the two witnesses came, and he says: "I borrowed and paid", and then the set of witnesses comes. That is called מפטור לפטור in which case there is no doubt that he does not pay the מנה. and the ר''י מיגש said the reason is מיגו, he could have stuck with the original claim. The קצוות החושן asks on the ר''י מיגש from a woman come to court and says, "I was married and now divorced." Then two witnesses say she was married. We do not believe her that she is divorced,-- until there is proof. He also asks from a document of a loan that was not ratified by a court, and then the borrower says, "I borrowed but paid back," and the two witnesses come and say, "the document is valid."
In both these later cases the coming of the witnesses take away the strength of the statements of woman and the borrower, so why not in the first case also? You can see right away what is bothering me. In our original case in the רמב''ם, the witnesses actually support everything the borrower is saying, which they are not doing in the later cases. And this might be what רב שך is asking on the קצוות but I have not had time to take a close look at what he writes there.
כבר הזכרתי את רמב''ם במקרה של שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט. אחד אומר "אתה חייב לי מנה". השני אומר, "לא לוויתי". שני עדים מגיעים ואומרים "הנטען לווה ושילם את הסכום בחזרה." הדין הוא מי שאומר, "לא לוויתי מעולם," שהוא לא שילם בחזרה. כל האומר לא לוויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי. בסוגיה הזו רציתי להביא את זה: אם הנטען שינה את דעתו לפני ששני העדים באו, והוא אומר: "אני לוויתי ושלמתי", ולאחר מכן הסט של עדים מגיע. זה נקרא מפטור לפטור ובמקרה הזה אין ספק כי הנטען לא משלם את המנה. הר''י מיגש אמר שהסיבה היא מיגו, הוא יכול היה להחזיק עם הטענה המקורית. קצוות החושן שואל על הר''י מיגש מאישה שבאה לבית המשפט ואומרת, "הייתי נשואה ועכשיו גרושה." ואז שני עדים אומרים שהיא נשואה. אנחנו לא מאמינים לה כי היא גרושה, עד שלא תהיה הוכחה. הוא גם שואל ממסמך של הלוואה שלא אושר על ידי בית משפט, ולאחר מכן הנטען אומר "לוויתי אבל שלמתי בחזרה," ואת שני העדים באים ואומרים, "המסמך תקף. בשני המקרים האלה ביאת העדים לוקחת את הכוח של טענות של האישה והלווה, אז למה לא במקרה הראשון גם? מה מציק לי? במקרה המקורי שלנו הרמב''ם, העדים למעשה תומכים את הכל שהלווה אומר ,מה שהם לא עושים במקרים המאוחרים.
