Revach L'Neshama http://revach.net/ RSS feed for - Section: DAF YOMI Copyright 2007, Revach L'Neshama en-US Revach L'Neshama Logo 144 31 http://revach.net/img/small_header.jpg http://revach.net/ info@revach.net Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:00:00 -0800 240 Bava Basra 33 - SUMMARY 1.  Rava bar Sharshom and the Mashkon of The Yesomim:  No Migu if there is a Kol  (1) 2.  R. Idi b. Avin finally Gets Justice, What About The Peiros?  (2) 3.  Zeh Omer Shel Avosai... Mah Lo Lishaker does not help against Eidim  (3) 4.  Eidim for only two years  - Lose Field & Pay Peiros  (4) 5.  A person does not have the nerve to go into his friends field and eat Peiros. 6.  Typically there is a Shtar when selling a field but not when selling Peiros.
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. Rava b. Sharshom had a Shtar that he wanted to collect without a Shvua. His ne'emanus was based on a that he could claim that the field in his possession as a Mashkon was his with Chazaka. Abaye said since there is a Kol that the field is a Mashkon, he would not dare claim it's his so he has no Migu. 2. After losing an inheritance battle with his cousin who is stronger, the cousin later admits and returns the field. R. Idi wants all the peiros he already ate. • Rav Chisda - The cousins admission was gift and he did not give Peiros • Rava & Abaya - it was an admission and we view it as if R. Idi was always the rightful owner and the peiros should be returned. 3. Rav Chisda says that even if you could have made a winning argument your actual argument cannot be believed if Eidim contradict it. In this case if a person had Chazaka but claimed against Eidim that it belonged to his father, he is not believed even though he could have won by claiming Chazaka. 4. Only if there are Eidim that you ate the Peiros but not based on your claim that the field is yours since you are believed with a Migu that you didn't need to say that you ate Peiros.

]]>
Bava Basra 32 - SUMMARY 1.  Ein Irur Pachos MiShnayim  (1) 2.  Reinstating the Kohen Over Bais Din's Shame (2) 3.  Do Two Eidim need to testify at once?  (3) 4.  A Migu Based On A Lie - Sale & Loan (4) 5.  R. Idi b. Avin does not pasken for Rabba or R. Yosef  (5) 6.  A Shtar has no validity for another transaction if it was paid already  (6)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. When one person is believed, you need two people to contradict him. One is not believed. 2. Everyone agrees that if proven with kosher witnesses (see below #3 - machlokes) a rightful Kohen's status is reinstated even if it means Bais Din must retract. 3. - R. Elazar says they need to (like the Rabbanan in the braisa of Eidus), therefore the Kohen cannot be reinstated with one Eid coming after two eidim and combining with a previous Eid. - R. Shimon b. Gamliel holds like R. Nosson that the two eidim can testify at different times and therefore he is reinstated with the second Eid in his defense. 4. A person came with a forged Shtar to Bais Din that he later admitted. However now he wants to be believed with a Migu that he lost the real Shtar. • Rabba - Ma Lo Lishaker so we believe him because he could have gotten away with the forged Shtar. • R. Yosef - Since he wouldn't have the Migu without originally claiming a lie he is not believed. (pshat based on the Ri in Tosfos) 5. Therefore he leaves everything where it is. • Sale - the land remains in the hands of the person with the Shtar like Rabba • Loan - The money remains in the hands of the lender like R. Yosef 6. If an Arev tries to use the loan shtar to collect a subsequent loan to lender he has no Migu since we pasken like R. Yosef by a loan that the money remains by the lender (see above #5)

]]>
Bava Basra 31 - SUMMARY 1.  Mah Lo LiShaker is very nice logic, but not if the Eidim say he is lying  (1) 2.  Fine tuning a claim but not perfectly, Machlokes Ulah & Naharda'a  (2) 3.  Ulah is Modeh and Naharda'a is Modeh (3) 4.  Can you believe Eidim that only partially contradict each other?  (4) 5. Zilusa D'Bei Dina - Making Bais Din Look Bad (5)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. - If someone could have used a winning argument but chose this one, we believe him because he must be telling the truth. However if there are Eidim contradicting his words then we cannot believe him. - Her he could have said that he bought it from the claimant and has chazaka. Instead he claims inheritance. But Eidim say that it belonged to the claimants father, so he is not believed. 2. - Ulah says you can but in Naharda'a they say no. The Machlokes is if he says when I said an inheritance it is because I purchased it from you ages ago. 3. - Ulah is modeh in two cases a) If the new claim is a contradiction he may not explain himself (i.e. he originally explicitly said that it was his father's and not the claimants). b) He left court long and came back with new stories that others may have fed him. - Naharda'a is modeh a) If he fine tunes it by saying that his father purchased it from the claimant's father. b) His original claim was made outside of court (not in front of Eidim). 4. - Rav Chisda - Both sets are unreliable to take money from someone even in an unrelated case - Rav Huna - both sets are believed for another Eidus - Rava - says according to Rav Huna both sets are disqualified for even unchallenged statements in this case. - Rav Nachman says that according to R. Huna they can even be believed for fact that are not contradicted in this case. 5. Rav Nachman says we do not worry about making Bais Din look like a laughingstock. Although a braisa is not like him, he has a mishna that agrees with him.

]]>