Makus 3a-b

1. We spoke about R’ Eliezer from the city of Tul, regarding a teacher who did not get paid on time if he is allowed to charge what he could have invested and earned had he been paid on time. See here for more of this discussion.

2. We spoke about the Machlokes Rash”i  & Tosfos if a Pruzbull is the same thing as someone who gives his Shtar / debts to beis din.

3. We mentioned the Kovno Rov’s (In English and Hebrew) very logical explanation regarding why a person does not count Sefiras Haomer if he is unsure which day it is. The definition of counting, he says, is being definite about the number. When when counts ‘two or three’, it negates the concept of counting.
We then spoke about the Rebbe’s and Rav JB Solovetchik’s  identical response to the ‘logical and cute’ idea. (Attached please find the pdf).


 4- Attached please find the chart showing the two ways one can calculate the amount (net present value) of what a Kesubah is worth prior to death or divorce.

The Rebbe and JB

NPV

Makos 3a

1. We spoke about Reb Elchonon’s explanation that Eidim Zomemin don’t necessarily get what would have happened to the defendant, rather they get what Beis Din would have Pasekned. For example, if the witnesses claim that the defendant stole something, even though -had the verdict been carried out- the Bais Din would have sold the defendant as a slave (because of lack of money), the false witnesses would only have to pay money.

This is because the verdict of Beis Din would have been “pay money”. The selling the defendant as a slave is only a result of his lack of funds.

2- Attached is the famous letter of Reb Elchonon about Yeshiva University and other “Torah u’Mada” institutions.

3-  We mentioned, that we all assume, that the money paid by Eidim Zomemin goes to the defendant.

In reality there is no clear indication of this anywhere in Shas!

The first to question this assumption was Reb Eliezer of Metz, France who was a Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam and author of the Sefer Yerayim.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_ben_Samuel

 

In Hebrew: http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1592

 

His Sefer in various editions: http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/home.aspx?title=%u05E1%u05E4%u05E8%20%u05D9%u05E8%u05D0%u05D9%u05DD&auth=&ocr=&sort=0#gsc.tab=0

 

See the attached PDF of the Yireim who brings up this question and proclaims that until someone shows him differently he thinks the Eidim can give the money to Bais Din and they can distribute it to whoever they or he would like. See the commentary on the side.

 

In the footnotes, Reb Yerucham Perla* also tries to answer the Yerayim’s question.

* Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla (1846-1934). Born in Warsaw in 1846 and studied under Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin in Lomza and under Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik. While he was still young, he was offered prestigious rabbinates, including in Lublin and Krakow, but he turned them down so he could continue his studies. He is known for his encyclopedic commentary to the Sefer Hamitzvos by Rav Saadiah Gaon. Editor

 

Yiraim about who the money goes to

 

Reb Elchonon YU PDF

Makos 2b

1. We spoke about Zomemim that it is a Lav that is not connected with an action. Lav She’in Bo Ma’ase where the general rule is that Malkus is never given.

Why is Zomemim a Lav that is not connected with an action?

Either because when “testifying” one just  utters words or (even if talking is considered an “action”) or because the concept of a witness is “testifying what he “saw”,  “and that, seeing, is not considered an “action”.

 

We mentioned the Magid Mishna’s opinion of the Ramba”m, that even if you are ovier a lav without an action, if it was possible to do the lav with an action you are still going to get Malkus. (Lengthy Minchas Chinuch on this topic. # 8)

The opinion of the Rambam (as opposed to many others) is that witnesses can indeed submit their testimony in writing! Thus Zomemim should be considered a Lav that does indeed have “action”. A gute kashe

 

2. Ramban’s view that the real punishment for someone’s ox killing a person is misa bidei shmoyim. The “koifer” (atonement payment) is a means to avoid the misa bidei shmoyim. It is a substitute. Therefore the first set of eidim never really could have caused misa bidei shmoyim to happen to the victim, because heaven always knew he was innocent. Thus the eidim zomemeim can’t be required to pay the “koifer” which is only a substitute.

 

3-We started speaking about Reb Elchonon Wasserman’s vort on an Eved Ivry. See here  in English or Hebrew.

Attached is the preface his children wrote for his famous book “Kovetz Shiurim”. On the last page is the fascinating story of his heroic and holy stance before he was killed by the Germans YM”S.

 

Elchonon Wasserman

Makos 2a.

1. We mentioned Tosfos’s question why the Mishna (citing two exceptions to the “hazomo rule”)  does not use a case of a mamzer which in theory pertains to everyone as opposed to a Gerusha Vachalutza that is limited to Kohanim.

 

2. In discussing if Makos is a separate tractate or combined with Sanhedrin, we spoke of the two different orders of the Mishnayos, either Zema”n Noka”t or Neze”m Koto”n.  Attached is the Sicah of the Rebbe regarding the Mitzva Tanks where he explained that the work ‘tank’ (same letters as “Noka”t) is symbolic with three ‘sedorim’ in Mishnayos and how one who goes on a ‘tank’ needs to follow the order to be successful.

 

The original Sicha was 12 Tamuz 5734.

 

3. Tosfos in Yevomos (88a, V. Oso Gavra) if two witnesses say that a person is dead, even if he shows up at a later date, he is or may be considered dead, or we must say that it is not him!

 

4. Ramaban’s logical reason why you believe the second set of witnesses because the first set turns into defendants.

 

5. Yaakov Emden’s  (Yavet”z) , (great-grandfather of NY Senator Jacob Javits) relates a fascinating story that occurred with his grandfather Reb Yakov.  During a pogrom where many Jews were beheaded, his grandfather was next on line to be killed. At the last moment he was miraculously saved from execution but fell into the pit where those before him were killed. People who witnessed the entire saga testified at the Beis Din of the famous Reb Heshel of Cracow (teacher of the Sha”ch) that they saw him beheaded. Despite his ruling that Reb Yakov’s wife can remarry, she refused to do so. Sure enough  Reb Yakov reappeared. As a consequence of this story, Reb Heshel (the accepted ‘Rabbi’ of that time) refused to ever rule again on Agunos because of  the mistake that was almost made.

 

Attached is a PDF with the story.

Regarding the actual book Megilas Sefer see Here. You can also buy the book in English Here.

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks

Yaakov Emdin’s Father, never wanted to deal with Agunos

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks