Between the mouth that forbade and the migo
The latter explain the division between Migo and Pa’ Sha’asr in the sense that in Pa’ Sha’asr, the contemporary claim does not have to reach the level of fidelity, i.e., “I was a man’s wife and I am divorced,” it is fidelity to claim this according to the law of Pa’ Sha’asr, but that does not mean that I really believe that she married and divorced, but rather that if I want to accept the “Hasr” (man’s wife) I must accept it with the “Hathi’ir” with which I was divorced. And if I do not want to accept her words, then I will not accept anything and she will be considered free, since she is considered free and different (what is your mind? I am free whether you accept or not) unlike Migo, in which I must believe the contemporary claim that the litigant claims that if I do not believe his claim, then he will be obligated. And the latter continued to argue that in the law of Pa’ Sha’asr, there is no fidelity at all on the contemporary claim, unlike Migo (not only does it have to reach this in order for the law of Pa’ Sha’asr to operate, but it is not in Pa’ Sha’asr). And so they also excuse the The question of the tips on the law of a claimant who claims exemption from exemption (Section 1, Section 3) Does the Rabbi have an explanation for how it is possible that the mouth that forbade does not have the agreement on the current claim, so what is the difference between the mouth that forbade and the exclusion?
He didn’t fail, and it’s clear that he’s loyal. It might be possible to explain that loyalty isn’t needed, but not that there isn’t loyalty.
So in your opinion, there is no explanation for the words of the Achramites that you will give about the katsuh (there are many other simpler and more understandable excuses for the katsuh, of course) that the difficulty is that how can it be that if a woman said I was a man's wife and I am divorced and later witnesses came that she was a man's wife, then the migo is canceled and she is now a man's wife, since at the time she claimed she had a migo, and how can the migo be canceled since she had the hamanah? And for that, the Achramites (R. Nahum, as I think) will explain that I am the mouth that forbade, and the entire ruling of the mouth that forbade is that if you want to accept the hasr, then you must accept it with the permitter, and therefore since I have another source for the hasr, then I no longer need it. There is no explanation for the above words of the Achramites (sorry for the length).
True. It really doesn't make sense to me. I could have justified the cut in several other ways.
Is it possible to say that in Migo I believe you in your current claim because you had the authority to claim that you could claim, that is, if you claimed it was forged, then I would believe you that the bill was forged, based on your claim that it was forged (according to most of the Rishonim, who claimed that a bill was forged is a demagogy, according to Migo law, and not an oral law that prohibited it according to the opinion of the Ramban) and if you did not claim it was forged, then the bill was kosher, and therefore, based on your fidelity in claiming it was forged, then I will also give you fidelity in claiming it was forged, but in the law of a man's wife and a divorcee, what we would consider you to be single is not because you claimed that you were single, but because every woman is presumed to be single until proven otherwise. In other words, the authority is not in your claim, but in the reality that every single woman is presumed to be single, and without depending on your claim, and therefore if you claim that I was a man's wife and a divorcee, I will not believe you in this claim because even in the claim that you could claim, you did not have the authority.
This is a formal explanation that assumes no power of claim (or power of trust). But in the simplicity of the trust to claim that it is free even if it is based on a presumption there is still trust here. Even in the false claim I was loyal because I am held in money, and there is still trust here that is transferred to the wild claim.
I agree that in the second, both in the mouth of the ass and in the migo, I am faithful, only this loyalty is forgotten to a certain level (let's say I have nothing to lie about) and this helps a lot with money, but in the prohibitions of the desh”a it does not help, and therefore if I assume the a”a I cannot accept my divorce only by virtue of the migo and I owe something else (the explanation of the latter above) and it is canceled when there are witnesses
(And there is no difficulty in the image between mamon and the sh”a which of course the whole image is only that I am against the held and not when I am together with the held that the a”a is faithful when there is no held and so on, etc. and not all migo, at least for a significant part of the former, is not in the way of spending everything; the held is always on the side of the migo)
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
