יום ראשון, 22 במרץ 2015
יום חמישי, 19 במרץ 2015
this is the full list of shiurim in kol tachkemoni
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XiOEL4TWFjf_oBJraCOi0oVmUdVaphqmo1DxAtYN1mc/edit?usp=sharing
the list keeps on getting updated so please take a look once a week for new shiurim in various topics.
i hope דאימא מילתא דתתקבל
יום חמישי, 19 ביולי 2012
ראה זה חדש!! הפך בה והפך בה דכלא בה
במקום הזה יתקשרו כל מסכתות הש"ס זו עים זו!! בדרך
זה: אים יש במסכת שבת משהו על "גט" כגון "כל היוצא למלחמת בית דוד גט כריתות כותב לאשתו" (דף56א) כותבין כך: שבת 56א--גט
אים נמצא במסכת עירובין על גט, כותבין כך: ערב 92א--גט
כל אחד יכול להוסיף מה שרוצה ובלבד שיהא כל "קישור וקישור" בשורה מיוחדת
??אים ה"קישור" היא קצת "רחוק" יש להוסיף
!!אים הקישור "טוב מאד" כלומר משהו לא-רגיל..יש להוסיף
וזה החלי בעזר צורי וגואלי
ברכות 56א--גט!!
ברכות 56א--גט!!
פסח 87ב--גט
ר"ה 9ב--גט??
ימא 13א--גט
סכה 24ב--גט
בצה 36ב--גט
תענ 30ב--גט??
מגל 15א--גט??
מ"ק 18ב--גט
חגג 16ב--גט???
ב"ק 87א נתגרשה האשה חייבין לשלם--גט
ב"מ
נדה 70 בעת התחייה נשאל למשה את ספיקותינו
א"א להיות חכם ועשיר, כי חכם "ממעט בסחורה" " "עשיר" מרבה בסחורה
יום שלישי, 29 בנובמבר 2011
יום ראשון, 10 ביולי 2011
Mr. David is selling goods for Mr. Gross.
Mr. T"b placed a big order by Mr. David---but did not give any money yet--and is heavily relying on the goods, now Mr. David find out that Mr. T"b is a serious competition for Mr. Gross and he sees that it was a bad move, but Mr. T"b insists that he needs the goods.
Is there any "moral obligation" that Mr. David delivers the goods he promised?
Ans: according to Rema 204 end "it involves a breach of faith" although it went up in price. But many commentators agree otherwise, so either way can be considered "right"!!
Mr. T"b placed a big order by Mr. David---but did not give any money yet--and is heavily relying on the goods, now Mr. David find out that Mr. T"b is a serious competition for Mr. Gross and he sees that it was a bad move, but Mr. T"b insists that he needs the goods.
Is there any "moral obligation" that Mr. David delivers the goods he promised?
Ans: according to Rema 204 end "it involves a breach of faith" although it went up in price. But many commentators agree otherwise, so either way can be considered "right"!!
Courtesy of Harav Yaakov Markowitz
Question: how can i have my store/company open on Shabbos without any Chashash?
Answer: when we calculate ALL jewish days that are Ossur to operate business we come to 21%.
let us assume that the value of the "company" is $100,000. Take a Goy and tell him: I am giving you a loan of $21,000 and the goy takes that money and buys a 21% share in the co. so the goy owns everything of the co. on the Yomim Tovim
But the goy must pay 14% interest on the loan, so he must pay me yearly $2940. Now say i "take out" from the co. 20,000 yearly, the goy deserves 21% of that=4200-2940=1260. So you pay him $1260 yearly.
Also you can stipulate: the principal can not be repaid only after 30 years, and if the goy does not have ALL of the principal (21,000) within 30 days (after the 30 years) the the "loan with interest" automatically is revived for another 30 years etc.
Question: how can i have my store/company open on Shabbos without any Chashash?
Answer: when we calculate ALL jewish days that are Ossur to operate business we come to 21%.
let us assume that the value of the "company" is $100,000. Take a Goy and tell him: I am giving you a loan of $21,000 and the goy takes that money and buys a 21% share in the co. so the goy owns everything of the co. on the Yomim Tovim
But the goy must pay 14% interest on the loan, so he must pay me yearly $2940. Now say i "take out" from the co. 20,000 yearly, the goy deserves 21% of that=4200-2940=1260. So you pay him $1260 yearly.
Also you can stipulate: the principal can not be repaid only after 30 years, and if the goy does not have ALL of the principal (21,000) within 30 days (after the 30 years) the the "loan with interest" automatically is revived for another 30 years etc.
Courtesy of Harav Yaakov Markowitz
Question: Mrs. A asked Mrs. B "can i borrow your make-up kit?" Sure, she replied! and as she entered her bungalow Mrs. B sent her 10 year old boy "b" with the make-up, to give it to Mrs A.
b saw "a" (Mrs. A 10 year old boy) next to his bungalow and said to him: "give this to mommy". A saw the kit and decided not to use it, she sent it right back with "a". The next morning, B asked A where is my kit? A said didn't you get it yesterday? B said no!
now the $200 kit is lost, who is responsible?
Answer: We learn in BB that one who sends his friend's object with a minor and it gets lost, the sender is liable, provide he simply "returns exactly what was sent" . Say R sends his boy to W with a pot, so that W fills it with rice. W took the pot filled it with rice and the boy broke the pot on his way home, W can say "you used this boy, so why are blaming me for sending him back to you!!" but if W gets beans and refills it with rice, he must pay for the rice---it is utter negligence to send a kid with rice!
In this case i suppose, if "a" received the kit outside the bungalow, A can say "i returned it, the way i got it" but if b delivered it "inside A's bungalow" although a was the one to bring it to mom-B can say "who gave you the right to return my object in a negligent manner?!
Question: Mrs. A asked Mrs. B "can i borrow your make-up kit?" Sure, she replied! and as she entered her bungalow Mrs. B sent her 10 year old boy "b" with the make-up, to give it to Mrs A.
b saw "a" (Mrs. A 10 year old boy) next to his bungalow and said to him: "give this to mommy". A saw the kit and decided not to use it, she sent it right back with "a". The next morning, B asked A where is my kit? A said didn't you get it yesterday? B said no!
now the $200 kit is lost, who is responsible?
Answer: We learn in BB that one who sends his friend's object with a minor and it gets lost, the sender is liable, provide he simply "returns exactly what was sent" . Say R sends his boy to W with a pot, so that W fills it with rice. W took the pot filled it with rice and the boy broke the pot on his way home, W can say "you used this boy, so why are blaming me for sending him back to you!!" but if W gets beans and refills it with rice, he must pay for the rice---it is utter negligence to send a kid with rice!
In this case i suppose, if "a" received the kit outside the bungalow, A can say "i returned it, the way i got it" but if b delivered it "inside A's bungalow" although a was the one to bring it to mom-B can say "who gave you the right to return my object in a negligent manner?!
הירשם ל-
רשומות (Atom)