Resources for Rosh Hashana daf 2
Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman
- The גמרא says that שטרי חוב המוקדמים are פּסולים. See the בעל המאור here who brings a ירושלמי that asks how would we ever know if a שטר is מוקדם or not? We could not believe the witnesses who signed the שטר to say the loan happened on a date other than the one written in the שטר. Once עדים sign a שטר, it’s as if they gave testimony in court about everything written in the שטר including the date and since witnesses cannot retract their testimony, we should not believe them. The ירושלמי answers that witnesses are in-fact believed to say “we meant to sign on this aspect but not on that aspect”. The בעל המאור understands the ירושלמי to mean that עדים are believed when they contradict only a portion of the שטר, as long as it is an item about which it makes sense for a witness to make a mistake. This is not considered being חוזר ומגיד. The בעל המאור adds that ב"ד would need to think deeply about each case before allowing it. See the ריטב"א here who brings the רמב"ן who says that the ירושלמי must be talking about a case where we can’t independently verify the signatures of the עדים. If we could verify them, the עדים would certainly not be believed. The ריטב"א goes on to quote his רבי the רשב"א who strongly disagrees and says that even if their signatures are notיוצא ממקום אחר, they are still not believed to contradict something as fundamental as the date. However, he says that there are cases where a שטר could be מוקדם and yet the עדים would not be contradicting the שטר with their testimony. For instance, if a loan was agreed to by both parties and the witnesses signed a שטר, but the loan and שטר were given over at a later date, the witness would be believed about the correct date of the actual loan. In such a case, even if their signatures were independently verifiable, we could still believe them. See the רמ"א חו"מסימן מ"ג סעיף ח who brings both opinions.
- The גמרא says in a case where a king is appointed to replace his father before him (מלך בן מלך), we might have thought that his reign starts from the date of his appointment rather than the date that he actually becomes king. קמ"ל, even a מלך בן מלך does not start his official reign until his formal coronation. The question many of the אחרונים grapple with is why is there a concept of מינוי of a prince (מלך בן מלך)? There is no election--a king’s son becomes king מכח ירושה. רש"י explains this clearly in ד"ה ומלך בן מלך. If so, a formal מינוי should not be necessary. See the חתם סופר או"ח סימן י"ב who says that אין הכי נמי, our גמרא is proof that even a prince needs to be appointed by the ציבור. In other words, even though a king’s son has a right to be king מכח ירושה, it is nonetheless limited to a case where the son is fit to lead. If he is not ראוי, then he would not be appointed as king. However, this leaves us with a question: If this is all true, once the king is indeed appointed, one would think it is at that point automatic מדין ירושה. See the שו"ת אבני נזר יו"ד סימן שי"ב (starting from אות י"א) who says that even though the ציבור is supposed to appoint the son of a king as king due to ירושה, it’s just a מצוה, and it’s not an automatic transfer of authority like a Bonafide ירושה. Therefore, until he actually takes office, he is not king. See the מאירי here who says explicitly that until the king takes office, the ציבור has the right to install someone other than the prince on the throne (even though under normal circumstances they ought not to). However, see the נודע ביהודה חו"מ in סימן א who seems to disagree with all of this and says that a prince does not need appointment at all and becomes king automatically. The גמרא is only stating that for the purposes of שטרות we follow when he actually became king, even if the process had started a month earlier.
-------------------------------------------------------
Click below to download daf summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulowitz (in PDF)