And it is not admitted that Rabban Gamliel did not approve of the teaching of Ketubot 13:2-14:1.
Hello Rabbi Michi,
Also thanks to you, I started setting times and studying Gemara. The Havruta suggested starting a tractate of Ketubot.
On page 14a, Abaye asks the above regarding the ruling of Rav Yosef when a fiancé and his fiancée come and both admit that the hemlock is from the fiancé.
And they answer that there is from the beginning and there is in retrospect
In the previous issues, Rabban Gamliel rules that the woman is faithful in a number of cases, and here, Abaye asks whether Rabban Gamliel would indeed say the woman is faithful in this case if the fiancé claimed that the pregnancy was not his.
Isn’t it simpler for Abaye to say that in all the previous cases, Rabban Gamliel ruled according to Beri and Shema, but in this case, it could be Beri versus Beri, the woman claims it was from the fiancé and the fiancé can claim that he was not with her, and therefore in such a case it is not certain that Rabban Gamliel would have ruled in favor of a faithful woman.
Hope that’s understood.
I am very happy. You went to Oriyta.
In the Toda “Chada”, he explains that it is about qualifying the child, and notes that the Rabbis are loyal to Beri and Shema and not Beri and Beri. Incidentally, as far as I remember, this is a dispute among the Amoraim (what does the Rabbis think about Beri and Beri).
Beyond that, here it is truly a situation of retroactivity (since it is transitory), and therefore there is no need to go into the question of whether or not. Even if we are talking about whether or not this is a retroactivity, it is still clear that it is a retroactivity.
That is, according to this interpretation, the question is whether the child is kosher.
If she claims that it is from the fiancé and the fiancé claims that it is from him, the claim is accepted.
Abaye asks whether the Rabbis will always say that the woman is faithful after the claim of Rav Yosef, which is accepted both because the husband admits and because the Rabbis.
I am not sure that this is the retroactive effect that we are talking about, the fact that the woman is already pregnant does not strengthen the claim that it is from the fiancé. I understand that the retroactive effect refers to after the marriage, if she claims that she was beaten with a tree or that I was raped from my inheritance, it is retroactive. But if the woman claims before, then she is forbidden to serve according to the Rabbis as well.
In conclusion,
Why, if she is pregnant, and the fiancé claims that it is not from him, does this qualify the child? It still seems to be both good and bad
Because all that Reg disagrees with is her loyalty to herself. But with the child, it's a different matter. For example, because here the testimony is not about herself but about someone else. In any case, that's what Thos writes there.
I looked for a discussion of Beri and Shema, and I didn't find it. I would still like to ask the Rabbi,
What is the explanation that Beri and Shema Beri are also useful when there is a hold on money? (A disagreement in the Gemara in Ketubot 12: If Beri is better or a hold on money is better, and so is it in the mana, I have it in my hand, etc., etc.). It's worth it: A person claims that so-and-so owes him money, and so-and-so says that he doesn't remember, should we therefore hold him even though he is held on money? And I've heard some suggest that because he says she is undermining his hold, but it's hard to say that about a borrower, for example, where there is no specific money that he is held on and his hold on him is being undermined because he claims she is.
I would love to hear the Rabbi's opinion.
As far as I remember, there is a lesson on this in the Bible. You can search there.
In my opinion, this is not an appeal by the holder, but one of two things: 1. In a bad presumption, this is evidence against him, and evidence like a presumption takes money from the holder (for example, the presumption that there is no default within its time). 2. In a good presumption, there is no evidence against him, but it can still be said that a presumption is useful only if there is a claim on its side. If you do not argue, what use are evidence and presumptions to you? The evidence and presumptions operate after there are two parties who argue their claims before the court. If you do not argue, the evidence and presumptions have no meaning. It may depend on the question of whether or not it is a claim (I remember that the Qosh dealt with this).
Hello Maran Shalit and thank you for the answer.
Unfortunately, I did not find the lesson in B, it may have a different name.
Regarding your first answer, you are relying on the interpretation of Thos, who explained the issue of Shabri and whether it is precisely Babri tov and whether it is bad. But Thos' words are not really necessary for the issue of Damiri Babri and whether it is precisely Babri tov and whether it is bad.
Regarding the second answer, if a person seizes land and one claims that it is his land and the other says he does not know, that is indeed true. But in Babri, you have money in your hand. When he is held in money and it is not a specific money in kind, then it is very difficult to make such an assumption that because he does not remember whether he owes him or not, then we will owe him. Imagine that a person comes to you on the street and asks you, remember that you lent me money? You haven't returned it yet. And you claim you don't remember whether you returned it or not, is it perhaps fine to ask him in accordance with the law of heaven but to hold him accountable in court?
Thank you!
That's exactly what I said. In my opinion, it is reasonable. First, there is a presumption that a person does not sue unless he has. And a person is considered to be in possession of kashrut as long as he is not disqualified. And beyond that, the presumption does not stand without a claim. I do not see this as a difficulty. Yes, if I do not remember, then he will be entitled to justice. Do you think it is reasonable that a person who is more peaceful than me could lie a convenient lie by claiming that he does not remember and be entitled to justice? By the way, the situation you described is perhaps worse.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
