Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Understanding How המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה/the Burden of Proof is on the Claimant Works

Since I brought up the topic of  המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה/the burden of proof is on the claimant, I thought it might be fun to spend some time on it.  There is a discussion among our sages for the source of this concept.  R' Shimon bar Nachmani says it is a "g'zeiras hakasuv" (divine decree).  No logic to it, just the way it is.  Not that it is illogical, mind you; just that logic isn't relevant.  The earth goes around the sun once every 365¼ days (approximately); atoms are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Neither logical nor illogical, just is. I can handle that.

Rav Ashi disagrees and says: Why do I need a pasuk?  It's logical; a person who is in pain goes to a doctor.  This Rav Ashi bothered me for weeks.  I couldn't quite put by finger on it, but something about the tzu shtel just bothered me.  Somehow having playing a tug of war with someone who has my stuff doesn't seem the same as having appendicitis and going to the doctor.  I asked around and basically got one of two answers (neither helpful):
  1. it's pshut; what's your question?
  2. hmm... interesting; that is strange.
The first was unhelpful davka because I couldn't explain (even to myself) what the problem was, the second didn't help because I wanted an answer, not reassurance that it was a good question.  So I just kept the question on my mind, waiting for something to gel.  I find it helps sometimes to just let a question sit; don't force an explanation, just wait and see what happens.

What happened was I heard an explanation of another gemara that discussed a case where someone threw his vase off a roof and before it hit the ground someone smashed the vase.  The p'sak fo the gemara was that the smasher was not obligated to pay because from the time it left the roof it was considered already broken.  Various m'forshim ask why the gemara needs to stretch like this to find an explanation.   Why not just say that when he threw the vase off the roof he was obviously declaring it ownerless and that's why the smasher is patur?  R' Shimon Shkop answers that the dinim of hefker (making something ownerless) and the dinim of hezek (damages) are different.  Since there is (say) a 90% chance the vase will break, the vase is considered broken.  However, since there is a 10% chance the vase won't break, you can't say with certainty that the owner gave up on his property.  Even though the property is not going back to the hapless original order in any case, the principle still applies.  Ah-hah, I thought!  Nice use of "ha'motzi mei'chaveiro, alav haraya".

On the heels of that thought was what bothered me by the tzu shtell of going to the doctor.  I thought Chazal were discussing how to get my property back; they're not.  Rather, Chazal are informing us that המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה is one factor is determining the actual ownership of an item.  How to get the object to its proper owner is a completely different question.

As usual, the problem resolved by looking at the world as Chazal do.  That's a lot of work, having grown up in America and being fed a steady diet of the wrong way to look at the world.  Live and learn.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aru...
Post a Comment
Read more