The shvus Yaakov was asked regarding a man who wrote in his will to give money to ploni who he stole from and the children claimed that the father cannot be believed because ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. Shvus Yaakov said that this does not apply by monetary matters. He cites from the Torah: V'hisvadu es avonam. Then he brings Gemora kesuvos 41 and 42 that it is clear that the principle does not apply by money.
Agav, it would seem that his shaila can be answered according to the Chavos Yair who says that we do not say this rule when someone is intending to do teshuva, and that is what the father is saying in his will.
i was thinkin along the same lines. if one claims to have intentionally destroyed someone else's object we would apply the concept of "hoda'as ba'al din" and be mechayev him to pay, rather than apply the concept of "ain adam meisima atzmo rasha". Basically, i think that the concept of ein adam meisim atzmo rasha only applies to a claim that would render him a rasha an pasul l'aidus, or impose a penalty (such as malkus or misa). This would also explain why we need a special pasuk in baba kama 64b of "k'dei rish'aso" to say that modeh b'knas is patur - meaning that we would have been mechayev even though he would be turning himself into a rasha (however, acc. to the opinion who says that if eidim come after he admits he is still patur, we anyway need the pasuk for that case).
2 points 1-I understand that "Gonavti" (I stole) would make one a Posul L'Aydus. Would Onasti and Pititi make one into a Rasha. It would be a Mili D'Pritzusa but is he a Rasha? 2-Also would this be dependent on how we understand HoDaas Baal Din.If you learn that its a new Chiyuv like a neder, you might say Palginun,
we definitely use the concept of palginun to avoid the problem of ein adam meisim atzmo rasha as tosafos on 18b points out from the gemara in sanhedrin 9b, when someon claims "ploni rav'ani l'rtzoni" we believe him that it was done, but not that it was b'rtzono.
i foudn what the olam is saying in the ritva makos 3a
וכי תימא והיאך נאמן אפי' על עצמו והא אין אדם משים עצמו רשע וי"ל וכו' אבל בממון פלגינן דיבוריה כאומר גנבתי או גזלתי שמשלם קרן עפ"י עצמו שהרי יוצא מדבריו שהוא מודה שיש לחבירו ממון אצלו
Thank you for pointing out the Ritv"a Did you see anybody discuss the first point, Is Onasti or Pititi a Maaseh Aveira, and does it make one Pasul Lo'Aydus?
didn't see it, but i said the same thing to my chavrusa... אחר הדברים i did a search on my computer, 2 things came up.
1. a sefer אהל אברהם has in it something that is called שיטה ישנה i'm assuming its a manuscript of some kind there he says on tosfos in 41a "... אבל קשה דאמאי לא הקשו התוס' הכי ליתני אנסתי דהוי חדוש טפי דחייב ממון, דהא אין אדם משים עצמו רשע" and he doesn't answer
2. more interesting - in sefer נתיב בינה a journal put out by a daf yomi kollel they bring a ביאור הגר"א חו"מ פ"ז סקצ"ט that in ממון you don't say אין אדם משים עצמו רשע and proves it from that case. the question the journal asks is that its open in mishnayos as it is here in 41a. what i am getting to is the answer. they answer that the usual לומדות of why we don't say this by ממון us because we say the person is נאמן on the obligation and not on the מעשה however in that case in choshen mishpat you believe him to pay קרן וחומש ואשם so you must say that you believe him on the מעשה עבירה. therefore the gr"a proved from there that we don't say in ממון the rule of אין אדם משים עצמו רשע period.
the reason might be that this is included in the pasuk of כי הוא זה that a person is believed on himself in ממון even on the מעשה עבירה,
i don't know how this would fit with the ritva,
it would seem that might be an argument in the rishonim, because they quote a תוספות הרא"ש in 19a that holds that we don't say הודאת בע"ד כמאה עדים when he makes himself into a רשע only when we can say that he is admitting בדרך תשובה
this is all beyond me. i am good and confused now.
בעצם נראה ששייך לומר שאין אדם משים עצמו רשע גם בממון אלא שלריטב"א נאמר פלגינן דיבורא או נאמנות ולרא"ש נאמר דנאמן כשמודה בדרך תשובה וחרטה
אי נאמר פלגינן נאמנות היה צד לומר שנאמן על ההתחייבות ולא על המעשה ועל זה מוכיח הגר"א בחו"מ לא כך אלא שנאמן גם על המעשה אף לחייבו כפרה של חומש ואשם - ולרא"ש אולי גם שם נאמן בדרך תשובה
ראיתי לאחד שר"ל שבכלל לא אומרים אין אדם משים עצמו רשע במון מכי הוא זה - אך לא נראה שהראשונים למדו כך
i actually found that raavad and almost posted on it. all the rishonim ask on him from various gemaros. there is a pshat from rav baruch beer on the raavad... not for now.
14 comments:
The shvus Yaakov was asked regarding a man who wrote in his will to give money to ploni who he stole from and the children claimed that the father cannot be believed because ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. Shvus Yaakov said that this does not apply by monetary matters. He cites from the Torah: V'hisvadu es avonam. Then he brings Gemora kesuvos 41 and 42 that it is clear that the principle does not apply by money.
Agav, it would seem that his shaila can be answered according to the Chavos Yair who says that we do not say this rule when someone is intending to do teshuva, and that is what the father is saying in his will.
i was thinkin along the same lines. if one claims to have intentionally destroyed someone else's object we would apply the concept of "hoda'as ba'al din" and be mechayev him to pay, rather than apply the concept of "ain adam meisima atzmo rasha". Basically, i think that the concept of ein adam meisim atzmo rasha only applies to a claim that would render him a rasha an pasul l'aidus, or impose a penalty (such as malkus or misa). This would also explain why we need a special pasuk in baba kama 64b of "k'dei rish'aso" to say that modeh b'knas is patur - meaning that we would have been mechayev even though he would be turning himself into a rasha (however, acc. to the opinion who says that if eidim come after he admits he is still patur, we anyway need the pasuk for that case).
shkoyach to all!
where is the שבות יעקב?
siman 170
2 points
1-I understand that "Gonavti" (I stole) would make one a Posul L'Aydus. Would Onasti and Pititi make one into a Rasha.
It would be a Mili D'Pritzusa but is he a Rasha?
2-Also would this be dependent on how we understand HoDaas Baal Din.If you learn that its a new Chiyuv like a neder, you might say Palginun,
H Grumet
we definitely use the concept of palginun to avoid the problem of ein adam meisim atzmo rasha as tosafos on 18b points out from the gemara in sanhedrin 9b, when someon claims "ploni rav'ani l'rtzoni" we believe him that it was done, but not that it was b'rtzono.
dear H Grumet
i foudn what the olam is saying in the ritva makos 3a
וכי תימא והיאך נאמן אפי' על עצמו והא אין אדם משים עצמו רשע וי"ל וכו' אבל בממון פלגינן דיבוריה כאומר גנבתי או גזלתי שמשלם קרן עפ"י עצמו שהרי יוצא מדבריו שהוא מודה שיש לחבירו ממון אצלו
Thank you for pointing out the Ritv"a
Did you see anybody discuss the first point, Is Onasti or Pititi a Maaseh Aveira, and does it make one Pasul Lo'Aydus?
H Grumet
didn't see it, but i said the same thing to my chavrusa... אחר הדברים i did a search on my computer, 2 things came up.
1. a sefer אהל אברהם has in it something that is called שיטה ישנה i'm assuming its a manuscript of some kind there he says on tosfos in 41a
"... אבל קשה דאמאי לא הקשו התוס' הכי ליתני אנסתי דהוי חדוש טפי דחייב ממון, דהא אין אדם משים עצמו רשע" and he doesn't answer
2. more interesting - in sefer נתיב בינה a journal put out by a daf yomi kollel they bring a ביאור הגר"א חו"מ פ"ז סקצ"ט that in ממון you don't say אין אדם משים עצמו רשע and proves it from that case. the question the journal asks is that its open in mishnayos as it is here in 41a. what i am getting to is the answer. they answer that the usual לומדות of why we don't say this by ממון us because we say the person is נאמן on the obligation and not on the מעשה however in that case in choshen mishpat you believe him to pay קרן וחומש ואשם so you must say that you believe him on the מעשה עבירה. therefore the gr"a proved from there that we don't say in ממון the rule of אין אדם משים עצמו רשע period.
the reason might be that this is included in the pasuk of כי הוא זה that a person is believed on himself in ממון even on the מעשה עבירה,
i don't know how this would fit with the ritva,
it would seem that might be an argument in the rishonim, because they quote a תוספות הרא"ש in 19a that holds that we don't say הודאת בע"ד כמאה עדים when he makes himself into a רשע only when we can say that he is admitting בדרך תשובה
this is all beyond me. i am good and confused now.
בסיכום הדברים כך נ"ל בהשקפה ראשונה
בעצם נראה ששייך לומר שאין אדם משים עצמו רשע גם בממון אלא שלריטב"א נאמר פלגינן דיבורא או נאמנות ולרא"ש נאמר דנאמן כשמודה בדרך תשובה וחרטה
אי נאמר פלגינן נאמנות היה צד לומר שנאמן על ההתחייבות ולא על המעשה ועל זה מוכיח הגר"א בחו"מ לא כך אלא שנאמן גם על המעשה אף לחייבו כפרה של חומש ואשם - ולרא"ש אולי גם שם נאמן בדרך תשובה
ראיתי לאחד שר"ל שבכלל לא אומרים אין אדם משים עצמו רשע במון מכי הוא זה - אך לא נראה שהראשונים למדו כך
Ran in Kesuvos Perak Hamadir cites a Raavad that we do say ein adam etc. by mamon as well.
Also check sdei chemed mareches alef klal 170
i actually found that raavad and almost posted on it. all the rishonim ask on him from various gemaros. there is a pshat from rav baruch beer on the raavad... not for now.
I like your summary: if you're ever interested on commenting on the "other" daf blog, feel free. shkoyach
not sure how the gr"a will work with palginan?
Post a Comment