Resources for Kesubos 76
1. Much of what we have been learning doesn’t seem to be so נוגע למעשה, but there is an amazing חשוקי חמד that has a שאלה based on our גמרא that makes every last detail we learned incredibly נוגע למעשה and helps bring everything together. The question is as follows: A man walked into a Jewish store and bought a $30,000 fancy watch. He gets home and sometime later notices there is a scratch across the glass. He brings it back to the store and asks for a different one as this one is damaged. The worker argues that it did not have scratch when it left the store. What do we do? The ספק was נולד in the רשות of the לוקח, so perhaps the buyer should need to bring the ראיה that he bought it scratched. This would be like the שיטה of רבא who says כאן נמצא כאן היה so we should say the buyer should need to bring the ראיה. The store owner is also מוחזק but his טענה likely is a שמא. Even if the store clerk is a ברי, the חזקה of the worker would not necessarily help the owner like the ברי of the daughter doesn’t help the father according to the ריטב"א. Similarly, there is a חזקת הגוף that should help the store owner that the glass started out without a scratch, but perhaps the חזקה of the watch doesn’t help for the owner like the חזקה of the daughter doesn’t help the father according to רש"י. ע"ש ובאתי רק לעורר
2. The גמרא seems to come out למסקנא that the main סברא is that the proof must be brought by the person who’s רשות the ספק was נולד in. תוספות in ד"ה כל שנולד asks the following: the משנה we are all familiar with of מחליף פּרה בחמור in בבא מציעאon דף ק talks about a case where the פּרה was pregnant before the קנין and after the משיכת החמור we go and find the פּרה to have given birth and the ספק is who is the owner of the calf. In that case we pasken that if the calf was in the רשות of the בעל הפּרה, the בעל הפּרה would win because of המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה. So it seems מוחזק is the most important thing and not who’s רשות the ספק was נולד in. תוספות answers that we must be מחלק between a case of a ספק that was נולד לטובה such as by the birth of a cow vs. a ספק that was נולד that was נולד לגריעותא such as where the חמור dies. The שיטה מקובצת brings the ריב"א who explains that תוספות means that we only say כאן נמצא כאן היה where it prevents a קנין from being broken as opposed to where the קנין will be intact regardless. The שערי יושר in שער ב פּרק ט"ו explains תוספות as follows: the concept of כאן נמצא כאן היה is explained by the שב שמעתתא in שמעתתא ב פּרק ד to just be a שלילה that says אין מחזיקין ריעותא ממקום למקום. In other words, כאן נמצא כאן היה tells me that if I have an issue in one place I have no requirement to assume that the issue existed anywhere else at any previous time until proven otherwise. However, explains ר׳ שמעון זצ"ל, כאן נמצא כאן היה doesn’t tell us what happened. All it tells us is to leave things as they were originally. Consequently, it cannot create new חיובים. Therefore, we can’t use כאן נמצא כאן היה to say the calf must have been born later since that would be a new דין for a new calf. Similarly, if a woman borrowed a dress and then a כתם was found on it, we would not force the borrower to pay the cleaning bill of the dress because of כאן נמצא כאן היה because that would be creating a new דין and כאן נמצא כאן היה just tells us to leave things as they were originally.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos