Maimonides’ opinion on the equal side
There is a difference in the essence of the equal side. There are two main opinions. The Rosh and the opinion of the great ones in Rosh
It seems that the Rosh believes that once there is a father from whom the main learning is derived, he is considered the same as the father himself, but the opinion of the elders says that the exemptions of the two fathers being learned are learned.
The Tur and the Shulchan Arbiter are verses like the Rosh, but I was unable to understand the Maimonides’ opinion on the subject…. Can you help?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does Maimonides' method have the equal party? On the face of it, it seems that he did not rule on the cases of the equal party in financial damages, Chapter 13
It does seem that he did not bring these cases. But I do not think it has to do with a particular perception of the equal side. In any case, he should have brought it.
My question is that it is not at all clear from his words how he understood the equal side, do they study the exemptions? Do they not study exemptions at all? Apparently there are many issues
I don't see how one can learn from the absence of something like that. He didn't bring it into the law, and now you can offer various guesses as to why. I don't think you'll reach conclusions about his method on the "equal side" that way.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
