Zechira and Sippur at the Seder
- Rabbi Mordechai I. Willig
- Date:
-
Venue:
Kehillat Haela (RBS)
Halacha: - Duration: 25 min
1 comment Leave a Comment
Author: False == 1 ? Anonymous : Shmuel Breban &##44;
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">I’d like to take a crack at pshat in the Rabbeinu Ya’akov Mi’Korville in Tosfos Yeshanim for which Rav Willig shlita has offered a prize. If anyone knows of a better pshat (or sees difficulties in mine), please post, because this is keeping up at night. Thanks!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’d like to suggest that: 1) He holds that Aylonis is no different than shar mumin, and that if a man doesn’t specify his objections against such a mum, and she turns out to have a mum, the problem with the transaction is of the type that in dinay mamonos would constitute ona’ah (like yafos v’nimtziu raos) and not mekach taos. 2) He holds that the parsha of ona’ah was bivaday never said outside of dinay mamonos; therefore, and that whatever would have been the svara chitzonah of ona’ah by dinay mamonos is the halacha (d’oraysa) by the “mekach” of ishus – I mean to say, what would be the din in cases of ona’ah by dinay mamonos if the parsha of ona’ah had never been given? Here’s where I think Rabbeinu Ya’akov has his chiddush. Pashut pshat (as suggested in Rav Schachter’s shiurim) is that without the din of ona’ah, cases that fit that bill would have been a mekach taos and batul limafreiah, but I’d like to suggest that this is not so according to Rabbeinu Ya’akov. He holds that the svara chitzonah of ona’ah by dinay mamonos, and the actual halacha by ishus, is that 3) The swindled party, using all of the information he has at the time that the deficiency in the mekach comes to light, gets to decide whether to uphold or cancel the ORIGINAL deal! And if he decides to do so, then the deal was chal at the time of the original kinyan. 4) Rabbeinu Ya’akov holds that if the deficiency is only revealed after the death of the swindled party, we are mi’shaer his da’as. For this, I believe that there is a shtickle diuk, because there’s a glaring, extra word in the Rabbeinu Yaakov. When he describes the kashya, that “if he would’ve known that she was an aylonis,” he doesn’t add the word “Bi’birur.” But in the answer, he says, “But if he would have known BI’BIRUR that he would die while she was a ketanah…” Maybe the word “bibirur” alludes to the fact that we, knowing that he died while she was a ketnah, are stepping into his shoes (and making the aforementioned decision) when it’s revealed that she’s an aylonis. Oh well, I gave it a shot. </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">[email protected]</span></p>