יום שלישי, ט״ו תמוז תשפ״וTuesday, June 30, 2026
Follow Us
Raphael Grunfeld received semicha in Yoreh Yoreh from Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem of America and in Yadin Yadin from Rav Dovid Feinstein. A partner at the Wall Street law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, Rabbi Grunfeld is the author of “Ner Eyal: A Guide to Seder Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, Taharot and Zerayim” and “Ner Eyal: A Guide to the Laws of Shabbat and Festivals in Seder Moed.” Questions for the author can be sent to rafegrunfeld@gmail.com.
Read More
After all Moshe was the most humble person ever; he had no ego and did not need an official title.
Bikurim are brought only after Eretz Yisrael has been conquered and the children of Israel are permanently settled in their allotted portions of land.
Modern poskim differ on whether and what type of Hallel should be recited on days of national celebration for recent miracles such as Yom Ha’Atzmaut (Israel Independence Day).
A litigant is allowed to explain what he said in court provided his explanation clarifies his initial statement rather than contradict it.
Accordingly, when the defendant changes his general denial in court that he never owed the plaintiff anything before witnesses contradict him, the court will not assume he is lying.
The rule with respect to a chashud al hashevuah is that the right to take an oath is transferred to the plaintiff.
There is no defense to a claim based on a properly-drawn up promissory note signed by witnesses who testify that the signatures on the note are theirs or whose signatures have been confirmed by the court comparing them to signatures it has on file.
It is dealing with the case of a defendant who had judgment entered against him because, like the defendant in our se’if, he made a statement that was subsequently contradicted by witnesses.
If he had known that witnesses were present who might subsequently contradict him, he would not have acted in this manner, he says – but he didn’t know.
The witnesses testify that they saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant but they don’t know the nature of the transaction.
By denying the existence of the loan altogether, the defendant in 79:1 admitted, by implication, that he did not repay it – because nobody repays a loan he says he never took.
If witnesses subsequently testify in court that the defendant indeed borrowed money but repaid it, the defendant has to pay if the plaintiff claims otherwise. Why?
As for the debtor’s statement that he never borrowed money from the plaintiff, it has been undermined by the two witnesses who testified that he did.
If chametz became mixed with non-chametz on Pesach, the mixture is prohibited on Pesach even if the ratio of the permitted non‑chametz to the forbidden chametz is 1,000 to 1.
By denying the existence of the loan, the debtor, by implication, also admits that he did not repay it.
May a person who wants to eat chametz that everybody else finds inedible do so?
The prohibition of bishul akum does not cover foods which have been prepared for eating by a process of salting or pickling rather than cooking and neither does it apply to smoked foods.
Yet, notwithstanding all of these arguments, cheese manufactured by non-Jews remains prohibited today by the halacha. Why?
The borrower claimed he repaid the debt and took back the promissory note from the lender and then lost it.
The heirs in the present situation are permitted to bring witnesses who testify to the fact that they saw the debtor repay the loan, before the maturity date, when he was still live.
According to Tosafot, the rabbis were concerned that if one would be allowed to benefit from non-Jewish wine at all, it might lead to participation in these idolatrous practices.
The Rambam describes the history of idolatry as beginning with the adulation of God’s creation and culminating in the erection of monuments to celebrate the heavenly hosts.
Any defendant who denies a claim in its entirety must take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial.
What happens if a Diaspora Jew refuses to appear before a Jewish court of law or refuses to honor its judgment?
Such a defense can only be raised at the end of the day because it is based on a migo. The migo is that if the borrower were lying, he could have come up with a better defense.
As we have seen, a debtor is not believed if he says he repaid the loan prior to the maturity date.
One cannot expect the defendant to bring negative proof – that is, proof he does not owe what he denies, because how do you prove what does not exist?
The justification for this is that a third-party purchaser has the ability to find out whether the land he is buying is encumbered by a lien.
There is nothing more stultifying to the presentation of one’s case than a judge who allows one party to talk as long as he or she likes and cuts the other party off after a few words.
As a result of a shevuah or a neder, things the person had no obligation to perform must now be performed and things that would otherwise have been permitted now become prohibited.
Rent money payable to a landlord at the end of the agreed period of tenancy is deemed a loan.
There are a number of conditions that must be met for a false oath to fall into the category of Shevuat Ha’eidut.
Generally speaking there is a rule that a debt cannot be enforced against minor heirs because they have no ability to defend themselves.
If the debtor claims to have repaid the loan so early that day, the only possible scenario is that he actually paid it yesterday, the day prior to the maturity date.
Why was King David denied the eternal honor of building the Beit HaMikdash? Did God not command him to fight wars?
Although Shimon’s right of collection against Reuven’s estate preceded Levi’s, Levi did not violate Shimon’s prior right to the assets of Reuven’s estate.
The Talmud tells us that a lamp is lit over the head of each unborn child in its mother’s womb, enabling it to perceive all the ways of God throughout the world.
The woman’s defense to the husband’s claim for reimbursement that she merely co-signed the note at his request but did not, in fact, receive any of the borrowed money, will be rejected unless she has a migo.
Once inside the ir miklat, the law prohibited the goel hadam from avenging the deceased’s blood.
In addressing the question of which devices may be used to remove one’s beard without violating the Torah prohibition, halachic literature focuses on the extent to which these devices function like a razor blade.
The husband or his heirs will then have the right to sue the wife as co-borrower for reimbursement of the money they repaid on her behalf.
The reason the defendant is entitled to refuse to repay the loan or to return the deposit to only one of its owners is that he accepted the money or the deposit from both.
In the case of eidei hachashah, however, the second pair of witnesses testifies that the crime never occurred.
The underlying loan survives as the obligation of the borrower even after the release of the first guarantor.
There are, however, times when the concern of Chillul Hashem is so paramount that one must choose to die rather than violate any prohibition in public.
The lender who sued must hold half of what he collected on trust for the other lender.
The authority to incarcerate a person and deny freedom in certain situations is part of halacha le Moshe Mi’Sinai, the Oral Law conveyed by God to Moshe and by Moshe to the people of Israel.
The borrower who paid the entire loan would, of course, have a claim for reimbursement against the co-borrower for the amount he repaid on his behalf.
A judge must open the proceedings by urging the litigants to settle the dispute by way of compromise.
The forgoing also applies to a plaintiff who sued two borrowers based upon a promissory note for the aggregate amount of the loan advanced to both of them and signed by them jointly.
In dinei nefashot – capital cases – the beit din will accept post verdict evidence to acquit but not to convict.
It is true that having been sued by Shimon, Levi had no choice but to pay off the whole loan.
If both sets of witnesses have withstood the rigor of the court’s cross examination, why, one might ask, does the beit din believe the evidence of the second set of witnesses more than the first?
The halacha is that the lender may proceed to collect the entire amount of the loan from one of the guarantors.
The Torah commands us to sit in the sukkah for seven days. Should we sit in the sukkah on a day that may be the eighth day when we are not commanded to sit in the sukkah at all?
Accordingly, the lender must first try to enforce the primary obligation against each borrower before he may sue the other borrower in his capacity as guarantor.
When Yom Tov begins on Wednesday night, the eruv tavshilin ceremony is performed on Wednesday and when Yom Tov begins on Thursday night it is performed on Thursday, in each case by the head of the household.
As if to emphasize the point, the Torah uses the phrase “be’etzem hayom hazeh” – “on this very day” – both in connection with fasting on Yom Kippur and with brit milah.
If, however, both borrowers have assets, all the laws of a guarantor apply and the lender may not collect the entire loan from the guarantor but must collect half from borrower.
He should have anticipated that the plaintiffs themselves might later forget who gave what.
On the night immediately following the 29th day of Elul and on the 30th day of Elul itself, people hedged their bets. They ceased work, went to the synagogue, recited the Rosh Hashanah prayers and blew the shofar, all in a tentative state of mind.
There was no basis for him to assume that the two plaintiffs trusted each other and that one of them would not claim the repayment of a loan he never lent.
Today, few people fast during the Days of Selichot, but the custom is to rise early to recite Selichot.
From the violator’s perspective, the prospect of death at the Hand of God may seem as dim as a cloudy star.
On that Yom Kippur, the shattered pieces of God’s faith in the Jews were restored and the twin tablets of their eternal relationship renewed
They did not want the borrower to assume they trusted each other. Their purpose in telling him who lent what was so the borrower should take note of it.
Before receiving two hundred dinarim, each lender must swear that he was the one who lent two hundred dinarim.
By stifling your testimony, you deny the litigant this evidentiary benefit.
The halacha is that first C must repay the two hundred dinarim that are not in dispute.
If the plaintiff lives in Chicago and the defendant lives in New York, the plaintiff may not summon the defendant to the bet din in Chicago but only to the bet din in New York.
Cases involving fines and punitive damages, kenas, required a court of three judges ordained with authentic semicha.
This will render any note the plaintiff may subsequently produce null and void...
Many contemporary Jews living outside of Israel might treat a summons from the bet din, the Jewish court of law in the Diaspora, like a letter that can be ignored.
If the defendant trusted the plaintiff with such a dangerous weapon as a promissory note, he only has himself to blame.
The door to our troubles first opened on that Seventeenth day of Tammuz when Moses walked in on the worshippers of the golden calf and shattered the tablets of the law.
Had the plaintiff brought two witnesses to testify in his favor, he would have won the case and judgment would have been entered against the defendant.
The Rambam, however, was of the opinion that hearsay evidence is not sufficient to require the defendant to take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial, even if it came from the plaintiff’s father.
The search continues on in this way up the paternal family tree until it finally locates a living relative.
When does the obligation of mitzvah lekayem divrei ha’met apply, and how could it have improved Jill’s position?
It should, therefore, be deemed insufficient to oblige the defendant to take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial.
Why does the halacha not recognize the validity of wills made in accordance with the law of the land?
Either way, the defendant does not have to take an oath to rebut the claim of an uncertain plaintiff.
Our rabbis, keenly aware of the often ephemeral nature of our resolutions, make us jump through some procedural hoops in order to ensure that we mean what we sell or give away.
Before the Torah obliges a defendant to take the Modeh Bemiktzat oath of partial admission, the defendant must admit at least one perutah of the claim and deny two maot.
A father may not transfer the bechor’s right to a double portion to a younger son.
It is the certainty with which the plaintiff presses his claim that obliges the defendant to take an oath and that saddles him with a moral obligation to pay.
A typical example of a chok is the prohibition against wearing sha’atnez, clothes made of wool and linen. A typical example of a mishpat is the prohibition against murder.
In order for an admission to be acceptable in court, it must be made in front of two witnesses appointed to hear it.
The case of yibum concerns the married man who dies without leaving any sons.
It is upon the plaintiff to bring the required evidence to prove his case.
There can be no experience so unequivocal and obvious as to conclusively prove the existence of God or the divine origin of His Torah.
The court is concerned the plaintiff might be exploiting the heir’s ignorance of his father’s business affairs and is trying to get paid a second time.
The identity of the heirs and their order of succession cannot be changed by testamentary disposition in a will.
The Torah does not impose an oath on a defendant in a dispute involving land, servants, or promissory notes.
Havdalah, according to most opinions, is of rabbinic origin. Accordingly, the rabbis have a more flexible approach.
Another example of a case in which the Modeh Bemikzat oath of partial admission imposed by the Torah does not apply is where the amount admitted is less than a minimum amount of two kesef silver coins.
The plaintiff is entitled to the entire maneh without having to swear.
The burden of proof required in dinei nefashot, capital cases, is heavier than the burden of proof required dinei mamonot, monetary cases.
In this case, if the defendant had wanted to lie, he could have – instead of admitting he snatched it and explaining that it was stolen from him – simply denied that he snatched it altogether.
Although it is preferable to live in Israel, there is no obligation to go. However, once you live in Israel, there is an obligation not to leave.
June 26, 2026 
