Gober Midterm Flashcards
לפי הספר החינוך, כמה מיני בתי דינין יש בהלכה? מה הם ומה ההבדל ביניהם?
Lowest level: 3 judges per village
Mid-level: 23 judges per city (בית דין קטנה)
Highest level: 70 judges + 1 nassi in Yerushalayim (סנהדרין גדולה)
למה חושבים שאין איסור ללכת לבית דין של מוסלמים? למה התשב״ץ אומר שלמעשה זה איסור?
We might think it’s okay because Muslims are not idolatrous but it isn’t actually about that. It’s bad because of putting a different system above the Torah’s. Going to ANY non-Jewish court is a חילול ה׳ for this reason
מה המחלוקת בין ר׳ מאיר וחכמים בנוגע לבחירת הדיינים?
R’ Meir: each litigant picks 1 judge and the two litigants together pick the third
Chachamim: each litigant picks one judge and the two judges together pick the third.
להלכה, מה עושים אם יהודי אחד רוצה ללכת לבית דין אבל בעל דינו היהודי לא מסכים? למה?
Obligation: summon him to court once, if he doesn’t show up you’ll receive approval to go to a secular court.
Common practice: summon three times before receiving approval for a secular court
לפי רש״י, מה ההגיון לאיסור ערכאות?
Rashi says that you must set up in every city in eretz yisroel a court system with shotrim and shoftim. The shoftim were the judges who decided the halacha and the shotrim were the ones who “hit” the people and basically enforced the law. Rashi says that judgements must take place in front of a Jewish court (and not a non-Jewish court) if the dispute is between Jews. And even if you know the law is exactly the same in the non-Jewish court (even if they rule the same way), you still must bring the case to a Jewish court.
״אסור לבצוע״- מהי בדיוק האיסור לפי ר״א בנו של ר׳ יוסי הגלילי? כיצד זה קשור למשה רבינו?
He says that a judge cannot compromise and must metaphorically “drill a hole through a mountain.” He says that Moshe would say that justice should “drill through the mountain.” (he also says that someone who blesses a judge who compromises- it is bad)
כיצד הסברנו ההגיון של השיטה שיש אסור לבצוע? לפי שיטה זו, כיצד הסברנו ההבדל בין משה ואהרון? (האם יש מחלוקת ביניהם?)
It is not allowed to compromise because that would sacrifice justice for peace when really, peace is a factor of true justice and strict justice leads to true justice because it creates a peaceful/just society, and therefore, a true society. Due to this, Moshe could not have compromised because he was THE judge and representation of the entire judicial system. If he were to compromise in court, he would end up compromising the value of truth and a model society. Aharon, on the other hand, had more leeway because he did not possess the same stigma as Moshe so he could go and promote peace beforehand.
כיצד הסברנו ההגיון של השיטה שיש מצוה לבצוע? כיצד הסברנו ״משפט שיש לו שלום״?
The logic of the opinion that you must compromise is that the truest form of justice must involve peace at the end and that the way to do it is by sacrificing “strict justice” for “overall justice.” We explained “Mishpat Sheyesh Bo Shalom” to be the most ideal because at the end of the day everyone is happy. Rashi argues that peace is a form of justice.
מה שאלנו על הסבר של רש״י של ״יצא דין לאמיתו״? כיצד הסברנו שיטנו?
Rashi commented that since having the two litigants appoint the judges would cause them to accept the verdict better, and the judges would be removed from bias because they knew everyone had an equal part in the process, then a greater truth can be achieved. We understood how the second answer, from the judge’s perspective, made sense; however, from the people’s perspective, how does accepting the verdict give a better truth? We answered that peace (i.e., litigants peacefully accepting the verdict) is part of a True Justice, which is made up of Peace + Justice. Therefore, by achieving peace between the two litigants, we help find a True Justice rather than just a strict one.
*** בנוסח הודוי של הרמב״ם, למה צריך לומר ״נחמתי ובשתי במעשי״? כיצד הסברנו החשיבות של שניהם?
Rambam’s guidelines for vidui say that we should have both regret and embarrassment. The difference between regret and shame is that regret is an intellectual feeling, whereas shame is an emotion. Regret is more along the lines of “I wish I hadn’t done that” or I recognize that my actions were wrong.” However, shame is a deep, internal feeling where we recognize that our actions were going against our image. By feeling disgusted and ashamed by what we’ve done, we can start to move toward truly never doing the action again
במצות הגדה עדות, מההבדל בין דיני נפשות ודיני ממונות?
The “laws of the nephashot” are criminal laws that merit the punishments of death or lashes, and you always need to be proactive as a witness if you have information pertaining to one of these cases and step forward. Monetary laws, on the other hand, are disputed; sefer hachinuch says you don’t need to step forward unless you’re summoned, but the Rambam says you are required to be proactive in these as well.
לפי הרמב״ם מה ההשואה בין נאמנות הנביא ונאמנות עדים בהלכה?
According to the Rambam, the comparison between the case of the navi and that of the witness is that we’ll never know 100% if either of them is true. We can put a Navi through the test, but they might pass through trickery and become certified even though they’re a false prophet. Despite this margin of error, we still have an obligation to follow prophets. So too, here, we never know for sure if a witness is lying but once they’ve passed through vetting we have an obligation to believe them.
תסביר שני פירושים ל״אין עוסקין ביישובו של עולם״ והנפקא מינה ביניהם:
The Meiri says that they’re not involved in the way of the world and so will not know business law. Additionally, they’’re comfortable with lying/bluffing from their profession and will not admit when they’re wrong or unsure. Rashi says that they’re not knowledgeable about or invested in society or its welfare and so, won’t care to rule correctly in this case. Both agree that by not having another profession, the gambler is isolating himself from the rest of society and creating his own rules to follow, such as lying.
״מומר אוכל נבילות לתיאבון…״ - מה המקרה? מה הדין? למה?
Someone who eats non-kosher meat out of desire. Everyone agrees that he’s pasul for being a witness, which according to rashi, is because he put his desire for money (non-kosher meat is cheaper) ahead of torah law.
״מומר אוכל נבילות להכעיס…״- מה המקרה? מה הדין לפי רבא? למה?
Someone who eats non-kosher meat out of spite. Rabah says that he’s allowed to testify because the standard for being disqualified is not simply being a rashah, but but being a rashah d’chamas. He’ a bad person, but not for monetary reasons.
לפי רבא, מה בדיוק ההסבר במילים של המשנה? ״מלטה בריבית״?
According to rabah, the interpretation is “A loan paid with interest,” which then includes both the loaner and the borrower in being pasul l’edut.
מה הספור עם בר בניתוס? מה רבא פסק ולמה?
Two men come to testify against Bar Beinitus. Witness #1 says that he saw Bar Bneitus lend money to someone with interest; Witness #2 says that Bar Beinitus lent to him with interest. According to Rabah’s interpretation, this should then disqualify witness #2’s testimony. However, Rabah had previously ruled that you cannot self-incriminate because there’s a prohibition for relatives to testify and who are you more related to than yourself?
במקרה של ״טבחא דאישתכח דנפקא טריפותא…״ מה התקנה לפי רב אידי בר אבין? למה?
In the case of the butcher who sold non-kosher meat, the remedy according to R’ Adi bar Abin is that he has to go to a place where he is not recognized and either return something of value or dispose of large amount, profitable of non-kosher meat. This is because his transgression in the first place was putting profit over the Torah’s laws; in return, he has to actually go out and do an action that proves that he’s willing to put Torah over profit. Just making a show about wanting to do Teshuva isn’t enough.
מה המקרה שבו חולקים עליו רבא ורב יוסף? מהי המחלוקת ביניהם?
The case in the Rabah and Rav Yosef debate is that of two men who have homosexual sex (ploni and his partner.) Can ploni’s partner testify against ploni about this act, or does his testimony disqualify himself? Rabah says confession can’t incriminate, but R’ Yosef says that he’s made himself pasul by his testimony.
לפי הרמב״ם, מה 2 טעמים שאין אדם משים עצמו רשע?
According to the Rambam, two reasons that someone cannot incriminate himself is because he might have gone crazy or become suicidal. In either case, he might come to not care whether or not he dies and will confess to something he didn’t do
מה שאלנו על הסבר הרמב״ם ל״אין עוסקין בישובו של עולם״? מה ענינו?
Why would the Rambam say that we should lessen our involvement in deeds that improve the world in favor of working on personal wisdom? We answered that wisdom is an ends onto itself. It’s the reason that our souls were created, and we should always be working toward that ends goal. Business that improves society is a means: it’s there to create a better environment for us in order to allow us to become better people. We should devote more of our time to working on an ends than a means.
כיצד הסברנו המחלוקת בין רב יוסף ורבא בנוגע ל״אין אדם משים עצמו רשע״? (נקודת המח׳!)
We explained the argument between R’ Yosef and Rabah as debating who exactly you’re relate to. Everyone agrees that a relative cannot testify for a relative, for better or worse. Rabah says that there’s nobody you’re more related to than yourself (a.k.a confession.) R’ Yosef says that you’re not related to yourself because in order to truly be related to someone there has to be a second party involved-and you- versus-yourself only has one subject. Therefore, confession is a different category than testimony and is therefore, allowed.
כיצד הסברנו ההבדל בין דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות בנוגע ל״אין אדם משים עצמו רשע״?
We said in class that confessing about monetary means is not a confession; it’s accepting an obligation- a debt upon yourself. One can accept an obligation at any time, in any case, so it doesn’t count as incriminating oneself. On the other hand, confession in a case of dinei nephashot is forbidden because bringing lashes or death upon yourself is outside of your jurisdiction; as we learned from the Radbaz, our lives are not ours to give up. One cannot incriminate themselves because as the Rambam says, one might have gone crazy, or it might be Rabah’s reasoning thatyou’re related to yourself and therefore can’t testify. The reason why is debated, but the bottom line is that one would be forbidden from testimony in dinei nephashot.
כיצד הסברנו המחלוקת בין רב יוסף ורבא בנוגע ל״אין אדם משים עצמו רשע״? (נקודת המח׳!)
We explained the argument between R’ Yosef and Rabah as debating who exactly you’re related to. Everyone agrees that a relative cannot testify for a relative, for better or worse. Rabah says that there’s nobody you’re more related to than yourself (a.k.a confession.) R’ Yosef says that you’re not related to yourself because in order to truly be related to someone there has to be a second party involved-and you- versus-yourself only has one subject. Therefore, confession is a different category than testimony and is, therefore, allowed.
כיצד הסברנו ההבדל בין דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות בנוגע ל״אין אדם משים עצמו רשע״?
We said in class that confessing about monetary means is not a confession; it’s accepting an obligation- a debt upon yourself. One can accept an obligation at any time, in any case, so it doesn’t count as incriminating oneself. On the other hand, confession in a case of dinei nephashot is forbidden because bringing lashes or death upon yourself is outside of your jurisdiction; as we learned from the Radbaz, our lives are not ours to give up. One cannot incriminate themselves because as the Rambam says, one might have gone crazy, or it might be Rabah’s reasoning that you’re related to yourself and therefore can’t testify. The reason why is debated, but the bottom line is that one would be forbidden from testimony in dinei nephashot.
משום
Because
