Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary http://www.daf-yomi.org
The Gemora cites a braisa: If someone found something without an identifying mark next to something with an identifying mark, he is required to announce it (everything).
The Ketzos Hachoshen asks: Isn’t there an established principle (Bava Basra 23b) that when a conflict arises between a “majority” and a “proximity,” we follow the majority!? If so, why do we assume that the produce originated from the barrel which is nearby, we should say that it fell from a passerby, for that is the majority!?
He answers according to the Ramban, who says that that where something is found in its actual place, that principle does not apply. Since the produce is found within four amos of the utensil, it is regarded as if it is resting in its place – we therefore follow the proximity.
The Chasam Sofer answers that besides the “proximity,” there is a definite claim from the claimant. Accordingly, we do not follow the majority in such cases.
The Chazon Ish answers that when the “proximity” is also a “probability,” we do not follow the majority. Since it is most probable that the produce originated from this container, we do not assume that it fell from a passerby.
The Gemora cites a braisa: If someone found something without an identifying mark next to something with an identifying mark, he is required to announce it (everything).
The Ketzos Hachoshen asks: Isn’t there an established principle (Bava Basra 23b) that when a conflict arises between a “majority” and a “proximity,” we follow the majority!? If so, why do we assume that the produce originated from the barrel which is nearby, we should say that it fell from a passerby, for that is the majority!?
He answers according to the Ramban, who says that that where something is found in its actual place, that principle does not apply. Since the produce is found within four amos of the utensil, it is regarded as if it is resting in its place – we therefore follow the proximity.
The Chasam Sofer answers that besides the “proximity,” there is a definite claim from the claimant. Accordingly, we do not follow the majority in such cases.
The Chazon Ish answers that when the “proximity” is also a “probability,” we do not follow the majority. Since it is most probable that the produce originated from this container, we do not assume that it fell from a passerby.
0 comments:
Post a Comment