Three different reading of the mishna are brought regarding the first 6 words of the mishna – monetary laws are judged by 3, theft and injuries by 3. All conclude the same bottom line law – that for loans and admissions you would need 3 regular people and for theft and injuries you would need 3 judges. However how they read this into the words of the mishna and what the original Torah laws and how the Rabbis changed it and why is a subject of debate. What are damages and half damages listed separately – why isn’t it included in injuries? From where do we derive that courts should be 3 judges? There is a debate between Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonatan – is there debate just about the derivation or do they have a different understanding of how judgments are decided?
This shiur includes an introduction to Masechet Sanhedrin. The mishnayot of the first perek explain both what issues are brought to which size courts and how the number of judges in each court can be derived from the Torah. The gemara starts to deal with the first item on the list – robbery and damages to a person. The assumption is that loans and admissions are excluded – why and what are they excluded from?
Today’s shiur was sponsored by Ilana Kurshan and Daniel Feldman in honor of the siyum.
What are the differences between a loan with a contract and a loan with an oral agreement? If a guarantor signs after the loan takes place, can one collect from the guarantor? An interesting exchange between Rabbi Yishmael and ben Nanas may shed light on the masechet as a whole.
Daniel Mann, Esq. speaks about how halacha in modern times grapples with the issue of wills. He begins with the halacha in the Torah which dictates how property should be distributed and how it developed in the mishna/gemara and through to the shulchan aruch and Rema and then to modern day poskim. What rabbinic attempts were made to find solutions to create a system that better matches common law? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each solution?
More discussions regarding different types of guarantors for different types of situations. In which cases do we assume the guarantor will have to pay and in which do we not assume? Do we take into consideration whether or not the debtor had money at the time of the transaction? If one says on one’s deathbed that money is owed to someone – is that statement believed or should we assume that the person was only trying to make it look like his/her sons don’t have a lot of money. Would the same apply in a case where all the money was dedicated to the temple rather than to his sons? Another law is brought regarding the inheritor’s ability to claim that the bequeather may have said he/she owed someone money but then said that they had paid them back – in what case are they believed and in what case are they not believed.
Laws regarding a guarantor of a loan are discussed. When can one collect from a guarantor?
If a property is left to siblings and they disagree about whether to keep the property, rent it out or sell, can one force the other to implement his position? If there are two people with the same name, can they collect loans from others, can others collect loans from them and can they collect a loan one loaned to the other. There is a three-way debate regarding these issues between our mishna and 2 other braitot. The logic behind each of the opinions is discussed.
If one pays back part of a loan, what should be done? Three opinions are brought and discussed. The connection between whether or not one can write a receipt and whether or not one can post date a contract is discussed.
A braita is brought regarding one who comes to court claiming one has proof of ownership of the land both in the form of a shtar and a chazaka (lived on the land for 3 years without the owner protesting). There is a debate between Rebbi and Rashbag about whether one needs to bring the shtar or the chazaka as proof (or either or). The gemara brings 5 explanations as to what the case is and therefore what is at the root of the debate. If one pays back half of a loan – what is do
In a case of a lost document, can one write up a new document to replace the old one? In which cases is this ok? And in which cases are we worried one may pull out the old document at a later time and claim land that doesn’t belong to him/her? Two very basic disagreements are discussed – is a guarantee a basic part of any sale – meaning that if it isn’t written in the document does one assume that it was sold with a guarantee? And does passing on a shtar (deed of sale) to another affect a kinyan – is the item acquired by the receiver, even though the name on the deed is the one who gave it to him/her?