Partial loyalty, Migo

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Partial loyalty, Migo

asked 10 months ago

Peace and blessings,
The one who says this is my son, a trustee, in the matter of inheritance, will give him that money. The Rashbam asks that he does not have a trustee now regarding what he is going to buy and does not have at the moment, and the Rashbam answers that he is certainly not a trustee except for the money he has now.
He married my wife a month ago, according to one method (deflaginan), faithful to the future, David to her, and not to the past, which is no longer in his hands.
My question is how in these two cases the Supreme Court ruled that no one argued,
What reality allows God to give him money only then? The father did not claim that he gave him the money, but that it was his son’s and would pass to him as an inheritance, a fact that we probably cannot accept due to the difficulty of obtaining future money.
Likewise, he did not claim that he had expelled her now, which is “probably” (and probably not) what the judge assumes, and accepting his complete claim A.A. due to the retroactive effect that is not in his control,
How does the Supreme Court ruling work, then? It sounds like it’s not ruling on pure facts, but rather on a type of rights, but I can’t articulate it?
thanks

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 10 months ago

Indeed, there is no factual ruling here. There is a division here because of the laws of evidence. The example Shrek’a gives is of a single witness who says that when her husband dies, she is allowed to marry but her heirs are not allowed to inherit. The difference is in the level of evidence required for each of the consequences. For the first, one witness is sufficient (the testimony of a woman), and for the second, two witnesses are required. Therefore, this is de facto a division. Incidentally, this is also true in other legal systems, where there may be a difference in the level of evidence required between criminal and civil cases. It could also be phrased differently (a phrase I like less): The migo does not prove the fact but gives me the power to win (the migo is the power of argument). According to this, the ruling does not deal with the facts but with the status of the money itself. This reminds me of the ruling, ‘Anyone who says I did not borrow is like someone who says I did not repay.’ It is clear that he did not intend to admit that he did not repay. But in practice we rule on the basis that he did not repay.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אלי replied 10 months ago

Can you expand on this point,
For some reason the example of one/two witnesses is more understandable to me, more intuitive
What is it called that the judge rules in the financial situation? He claims the right to the financial situation does not matter for what reason, or the woman's release from her marriage and discuss to what extent this claim can be accepted regardless of the reason for the matter?
How do you separate the implication from its circumstances?
Thank you

מיכי Staff replied 10 months ago

If the example of evidence is understandable, then what is the problem? Use it. I have evidence regarding the previous money but not from here on. Therefore, even though the questions are related, I can rule on them differently. I did not establish the fact but the right to the money. Just like the one who takes the evidence from his friend, which is not necessarily evidence that the money is his, but I leave it with him for legal reasons that the burden of proof has not been lifted.