964ac7f048156500a2e87f8f330660d8cdb0b9011c633637fe9233735251cb29

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Binyan Tziyon/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Binyan Tziyon",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "בנין ציון",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "...And behold, it seems to me in my humble opinion, that the reasoning of the rabbis: that even though our general principle is that there is nothing that stands in front of saving a life, and one does not follow the majority in matters involving saving a life (even if there is the slightest concern that the life of a Jew may be in danger, one takes all steps necessary to save him) - this applies specifically in cases where there is a clear and certain threat to life in front of us, like when a pile of stones have fallen upon someone, that then we are concerned even for the smallest minority of cases [to violate a prohibition to save a life], but in a moment where where is no threat to one's life (i.e. no obligation to save a life) but rather a concern that there would be a danger later on, we follow the majority, for if it were not so, how could it be permitted to go swimming or to go to the desert - places where one must thank God for being saved - and how could it be permitted to, at the outset, enter a dangerous situation and violate the commandment to protect our lives? Rather we must say that, since at that time, there is no imminent danger, we go according to the majority..."
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Borský Svätý Jur, Slovakia"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Binyan Tziyon/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.json

@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Binyan Tziyon",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "לקט השו״ת של ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "בנין ציון",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Rulings that are not intended practically (lo le-halakha le-ma’aseh)",
+            "Altona, Wednesday, 29 Marheshvan, 5621 (November 14, 1860)",
+            "To my friend and my relative by marriage,  the brilliant rabbi, our master and teacher, Shmaryahu Zuckermann, may his light shine:",
+            "That which you have written, namely, that you treat as forbidden wine that has been touched by a Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbat as he is an apostate against the entire Torah, proving this assertion from Responsa Mabit as cited in Nekudot Ha-kesef on Yoreh De’ah (124:2), which forbids the drinking of wine touched by Karaites as they desecrate the festivals, which makes them tantamount to Shabbat desecrators—indeed, there is someone who disputes this, and you therefore ask me for my opinion in this matter.",
+            "In my opinion, the law accords with you. Since one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is like an apostate against the entire Torah, he has the status of an idolater. It is even possible that Maharshal, cited in Nekudot Ha-kesef loc. cit., who maintains that Karaites do not render [wine] forbidden, concedes in the present case, as Karaites do not desecrate Shabbat, only the festivals, since they dispute our (calendrical) determinations. And he does not equate desecrating Shabbat with desecrating the festivals. However, in the case of a bona fide Shabbat desecrator, who all agree is an apostate against the entire Torah, it is possible that Maharshal concedes.",
+            "One cannot posit that since the decree against [gentile] is due to their daughters [i.e., intermarriage], and the daughters of Shabbat desecrators are not forbidden [therefore their wine should not be forbidden.] If that were the case, the wine of an apostate Jew who worships idols should not be forbidden to drink, yet according to what is stated in Hullin (4a), it is forbidden. It must be that, as Ran wrote in his novellae ad loc., and as you have also cited, since he behaves like a non-Jew, he is included in that decree, even though it is not forbidden to marry his daughter. If that is the case, the same applies to an apostate who publicly desecrates Shabbat. Rashba concurs in a responsum, as cited by Beit Yosef §119: The wine of an apostate who publicly desecrates Shabbat is libation wine (yeyn nesekh).",
+            "Thus far we have discussed, as a technical matter, how to deem one who publicly desecrates Shabbat. However, I do not know how to deem the Jewish sinners of our time. Due to our manifold sins, this sore lesion has spread so widely that, for most of them, the desecration of Shabbat has become like a permissible act. Do they not have the status of one who thinks [a particular transgression] is in fact permitted, which merely approximates intentional sin (mezid)? Some of them recite the Shabbat prayers and sanctify the day with Kiddush before they desecrate Shabbat through labors that are prohibited by the Torah and rabbinic law. A Shabbat desecrator is considered an apostate only because one who denies Shabbat denies the creation and Creator [of the world], yet this man acknowledges them through his prayer and Kiddush. What’s more, their children who grow up in their stead never knew and never heard the laws of Shabbat. They are truly similar to the Sadducees, who were not considered apostates even though they desecrated Shabbat since they followed the actions of their forebears. They are akin to an infant taken captive among the idolaters, as explained (§385). This is also stated by R. Moshe di Trani (Mabit §37). ",
+            "It is even possible that Sadducees who were not habituated amongst Jews and did not know the principles of the religion, yet who do not act brazenly against the Sages, were not considered intentional sinners. And many of the transgressors of our generation are similar to them and even better than them, for the reason that R. Shabtai  stringently considers the wine of Karaites to be yeyn nesekh is not only because they desecrate the festivals, which are similar to Shabbat, but also because they deny the major principles of the religion, for they circumcise but do not peel back the skin (por’in), and they do not have the laws of divorce and betrothal, rendering their children mamzerim. In this respect, most of our contemporaries have not breached.",
+            "Therefore, in my humble opinion, whoever acts stringently, considered the wine of these transgressors to be gentile wine (stam yeynam), is worthy of blessing. Yet those who are lenient also have grounds upon which to stand—unless it is clear to us that one knows the laws of Shabbat but brazenly desecrates it in the presence of ten Jews together, in which case he is certainly considered a bona fide apostate, and wine he touched is prohibited. This is correct in my humble opinion. The insignificant Yaakov. \n"
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "D.V. Altona, Wednesday, I Adar 25, 5619.",
+            "To the eminent etc. teacher and Rabbi Mendel Friedlander, head of the rabbinical court in Georgen, Hungary (Borský Svätý Jur, Slovakia)",
+            "Question:  Not long ago, an incident came before me that will cause the ears of all who hear it to ring. In one of the villages in my domain live two Jews who regularly take business trips extending several days, leaving their wives alone in the house with their sons and daughters and servants.  One day, when one of the men went as was his way on a business trip, another man came from Poland, with torn clothes, and asked the wife for a place to lodge.  The woman, who had always been exceedingly modest but whose piety was her folly,  took pity on him and gave him a place to sleep and also food and drink.  Yet that guest did not eat from her anything that had been alive, and drank nothing but water, and engaged in similar ascetic practices, afflicting himself with mortifications. All day he sat shut in his room with a book in hand, and also each night until midnight, upon which he would grieve over the destruction of God’s Temple. When he slept, he did not lie on a bed or bench, but rather on the ground, with rocks beneath his head. Each day he would immerse himself in the cold waters of the river twice, at the chilliest times. He behaved this way in the woman’s house from Sunday of Parashat Terumah until Shabbat of Parashat Tetzaveh. ",
+            "But on Friday night, after the meal was over, the children and the house servants all left the table and went to sleep in the other room while that fraudulent man remained seated at the table, alone with the woman. He entered into conversation with her to the point that she asked “Who are you?  Where do you come from?  Where are you going?” He replied “I am an emissary of the Merciful One, and my name is Eliyahu the Prophet. I seek my brethren, to gather them from the four corners of the earth—but this can be told only to the discreet.” The woman, in her great foolishness believed him. She went to sleep on her bed in the adjacent room, while that menace still sat at his place. He studied a book until midnight, and after midnight he arose, tiptoed over to the bed where the woman was lying, woke her up from her sleep, and said to her: Behold I have travelled from one end of the earth to the other, and I have found no righteous woman to compare to you who is worth to produce the Messiah. The obstacle is your husband, who is not suitable for such. To that end, I have been sent from heaven to sleep with you, and in nine months you will bear a son who will be the Messiah, son of David. He will redeem Israel. This is your sign that I am Eliyahu; this coming Tuesday, after I take leave of you, if you open the door to the closet that stands here in your bedroom, you will find there a great treasure of 400 golden ducats—but only on condition that you do not open the closet before the prescribed time. Thus spoke the adulterer to her, until he seduced her. He defiled her twice, on Friday night and Saturday night, and on Sunday before dawn the adulterer fled from there. His whereabouts are unknown.",
+            "This foolish woman quickly wrote to her husband that he hurry home, as God had granted prosperity to his household via a great treasure. He listened to her and returned on Tuesday. The woman then opened the closet and found nothing of the treasure of which the adulterer spoke. When she saw that he had lied, she screamed and wept with a bitter soul. She told her husband all about the abomination that this evildoer had perpetrated, and she spoke to [her husband’s heart saying: “I did not do this out of betrayal or sacrilege. With God as my witness, my intention was for the sake of heaven! Was not the adulterer a disgusting and ugly man? What could have lured me to commit infidelity with him?” But the husband was not assuaged by this. Instead, he came to me and told me everything, and asked me what to do about his wife. I sent for his wife and interrogated her in various ways, and she, too, recounted to me the above tale. I ordered them to separate until I could place the matter before your honor.",
+            "This is the content of the question from the aforementioned rabbi and rabbinical court head, may his light shine.",
+            "Response: I have reviewed all of the aspects, and it is very difficult to find a cure and a remedy for this plague of stupidity that would permit this woman to her husband. Her claim that she was unwitting, and that her intentions were for the sake of heaven, is not a claim that would permit her based on what Maharik wrote in §168, cited by Rema in Even Ha-ezer (§178), namely, that if a woman commits adultery thinking that it is permitted to commit adultery, she is considered to have sinned knowingly, and she is forbidden to her Jewish husband. This is in accordance with what you have noted yourself; we will discuss this further below.",
+            "It first glance, it would seem possible to find grounds for leniency since there are no witnesses to the act and no rumors have been spread. It is her word alone that she committed adultery, and we rule in accordance with the later Mishna, as explained in Even Ha-ezer 115:6: “If there are no witnesses that she committed adultery, but she says she committed adultery, we do not express concern for her claim by forbidding her to her husband, for we suspect that she may have become attracted to someone else [and makes this claim so that her husband must divorce her].” This being the case, we should have the same suspicions about this woman.",
+            "Yet she claims that she was unwitting and wishes to remain with her husband, so how can we say that perhaps she became attracted to someone else? Regarding the similar case in the writings of R. Yisrael Isserlein (Terumat Ha-deshen) §222, which states: \"Accordingly, we may posit that whenever she says “I am defiled,” she was attracted to someone else, and she later remembered, or was reminded or coached to say, that due to the great shame and taint caused to her and her family, she strengthened herself against her urges and her heart, and she shielded her eyes from the man who she had initially been attracted to, and she changed her claim. This case is irrelevant here, since in the present case she never changed her claim. In fact, immediately upon confessing her infidelity to her husband, she gave the excuse that she was unwitting and pled with him not to push her away. Thus, she was not attracted to someone else. Yet perhaps she is being deceitful, knowing that if she says that she knowingly committed adultery she will not achieve her goal of having him divorce her so she can marry the person to whom she has become attracted. She knows that he will suspect that she has become attracted to another, so she is apologetic toward him to make him believe that she committed adultery and divorces her. This reasoning is mentioned in Responsa Noda BiYehuda, Even Ha-ezer 1:71, and it is also implied by the language of Shulhan Arukh, which simply states “we do not express concern for her claim, for perhaps she has become attracted to someone else,” making no distinction between a case where she wishes to leave her husband and a case where she wishes to remain with him.",
+            "Similarly, regarding what you wrote, namely, that they told him that on Shabbat morning, the servants came into the room in which the woman was lying and found the adulterer lying on the ground. In that case, there is substance to the claim, since the man was secluded with the woman, and when the claim has substantiation, we no longer say “perhaps she was attracted to someone else,” as Beit Shmuel 115:23 states: “If it is known that she was secluded with someone, and she says that she committed adultery, then it seems that she is believed.” ",
+            "Yet even for this reason she should not be forbidden, based on Helkat Mehokek states there in the name of Rosh, namely, that if there is a reason to permit, such as the fact that he would have hid himself (had infidelity truly taken place), we do not prohibit her, even if there is substance to the claim. If so, this reason applies here as well, because if he indeed committed adultery, how could he lie on the floor of the room where the woman slept until the servants entered and saw him, and not return to the room where he sat until midnight or to his bedroom? Even though Beit Shmuel disagrees with Helkat Mehokek and rules stringently, in accordance with Tosafot in the chapter “Af al Pi,” that a reason to permit is of no help when there is substantiation, it nevertheless hinges on two opinions within Tosafot. And Noda Bi-Yehuda §70 upheld Helkat Mehokek against Beit Shmuel. Moreover, even without this, we can contend, as you noted, that such seclusion is not considered substantiation since there is no evidence that they secluded themselves for the purpose of infidelity, and since the door was unlocked for anyone in the household to enter.",
+            "It would have been possible to posit all of this if there were only the words of the woman to contend with. However, it seems, based on the text of the question, namely, from the fact that the husband screamed and wept over the act and his shame, that he believes her. It is clear from Shulhan Arukh §115 that if he believes her, and he relies upon her word, then he must divorce her. And even though Rema in §178 brings an opinion (yesh omrim) that nowadays, after the enactment of Rabbenu Gershom’s ban [on polygamy], he is not believed to say that he believes her, he nevertheless cites another opinion afterward, which maintains that he is believed even nowadays. It seems that he rules thus, since he cited this opinion last. Moreover, since he did not bring this view as a gloss in §115, where Shulhan Arukh ruled that he is required to divorce her, it implies that he agrees as a practical matter. All of the later authorities simply ruled that if the husband believes her, she is forbidden to him. I am astonished that you did not note this. ",
+            "Thus, there is no remedy for her on the grounds that we suspect that she became attracted to someone else.",
+            "However, after seeing what R. Yisrael Isserlein in §222 of his rulings, that R. Meir [of Rothenburg] was very lenient in order to avoid forbidding a wife to her husband, even though he regularly, in all places, would practice stringently here and stringently there, we must follow in his footsteps. Thus, I too sought a way to find grounds for permitting, based on my own humble reasoning. I will therefore speak, so that I may find relief. ",
+            "In the aforementioned responsum of Maharik, regarding Maharil’s question about whether woman who willingly committed adultery against her husband without knowing that it is forbidden is considered unwitting (shogeg), he responded: \"In my opinion, it appears that she is not considered unwitting in order to be permitted to her husband, since she intended to betray her husband and cheat on him. After all, Scripture does not say “A man whose wife strays, and betrays God,” which would imply that the law applies only when she intends to violate a prohibition, but “and betrays him.”\" Later he writes: \"It also seems, in my humble opinion, that there is another proof that the matter does not depend on intent to violate a prohibition, for we learn in the first chapter of Megilla (15a): “‘If I am lost, I am lost’ (ka’asher avadeti avadeti; Esther 4:16): just as I lost my father’s house, so too I will lose you.  Until now I have been compelled, but now I am willing.” We learn from this that from that time, she became forbidden to Mordechai. Now, it is clear that Esther did nothing prohibited, and there was not even a smidgen of transgression. Rather, she performed a great mitzva, for she saved all of Israel. Clearly that this is the case, for when she came before the king, the divine spirit rested upon her. But even so, she became forbidden to her husband, Mordechai, as a result of that willing act. Now we may reason a fortiori: if in that case, where there was not a smidgen of transgression, and, on the contrary, she did a mitzva, and yet she was still forbidden to her husband Mordechai, then certainly a woman who committed adultery against her husband, even if she does not know that this is prohibited, is forbidden to him because she nevertheless transgressed, and needs atonement, and is liable to bring an offering.\"",
+            "For this reason, Beit Shmuel states in §178: “If she willingly committed adultery to save lives, as in the case of Esther with Ahasuerus, she is forbidden to her husband, as the intercourse was willing.”",
+            "In my humble opinion, there is a rebuttal to this. Although Maharik offers sound reasoning—even if she did not betray God, but still betrayed her husband, she is forbidden to him—in my opinion this only applies when she willingly committed adultery and intended to enjoy it, but was not aware that it is forbidden, because the nevertheless had intention to betray her husband. However, if she committed adultery for the sake of a mitzva, and her intent was solely for the sake of heaven, how can this be considered a betrayal of her husband? This would be especially challenging for Mordechai’s case, since he himself ordered her, against her will, to go to the king. How can this be considered a betrayal of him? Additionally, Maharsha and Rif in Ein Ya’akov already pointed out a contradiction in Esther’s words: to Mordechai she says “now I am willing,” yet in Megilla ad loc. it is stated: “R. Levi said: When she reached the chamber of idols, the divine presence left her, and she said, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (Tehilim 22:2) Do You judge unwitting acts as though they were done knowingly? Coerced acts as though they were done willingly?’” Rashi explains: “Although I go to him on my initiative, I am coerced.” Here, then, she called herself coerced! ",
+            "Therefore, it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that if her actions were definitely necessary to save Israel, then there is no greater compulsion than that. However, it seems from his words that Mordechai was uncertain about that, since he said: “If you are silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from somewhere else… and who knows whether you became royalty for a time like this?” (Esther 4:14) The meaning of his words is that he was confident that God would send deliverance to the Jews, but he was uncertain whether it would come via Esther or from somewhere else. Thus he asks “Who knows” whether you became queen in order to save Israel—as Ibn Ezra explains. Thus, from the perspective of prohibited adultery of a married woman, despite the uncertainty, it was permitted, for we desecrate Shabbat even for the possibility of saving a life. But with regard to the question of whether she remains permitted to her husband, the uncertainty remains, since indeed, it may have been possible to save them another way, so perhaps she committed adultery willingly and unnecessarily. Thus, Esther said “If I am lost, I am lost,” that now she was going willingly, and due to the uncertainty, she would be forbidden to her husband. But when she reached the chamber of idols, and the divine presence left her, she asked, “Why have You forsaken me? Do You judge unwitting acts as though they were done knowingly? Coerced acts as though they were done willingly?” She was not really wondering about this, since the Torah is explicit that God does not judge coerced acts like those done willingly. Rather, she was wondering: “Are You thus, perhaps, telling me that I should not go? That I am not compelled? That You do not want to save Israel through me?” Therefore, when the divine presence returned to her, she knew that this came from God, and that He wished to rescue Israel only through her. And therefore, for this truly righteous woman, it indeed was not considered adultery—which would have made her forbidden to her husband—since she was entirely coerced.",
+            "The upshot is that if we accept this, then if a woman committed adultery for God’s sake, it would not be considered a betrayal of her husband. ",
+            "I am indeed unworthy of disputing Maharik and Beit Shmuel, of contravening them to permit what they prohibit. However, I have seen Responsa Shvut Ya’akov 2:117. The question was about a man who went with his wife and with others through a forest. They were attacked by murderous men. The only way they knew of to save themselves was that the wife surrendered herself to them, with her husband’s willing consent. Is she permitted to her husband? He responded with the words of Maharik but then questioned what the difference is, in Esther’s case, between the situation up to that point, when she was coerced, and the new situation, after which she is considered willing even though she was acting only to deliver Israel. He answered with a sound rationale: if she is compelled to have intercourse, as it was when she was taken to Ahasuerus, then the adultery is considered under coercion, and she is permitted [to her husband]. However, if the coercion is not related to the intercourse, but instead, because of some external threat, she goes to him and willingly accedes to the intercourse in order to effect deliverance, then even though she did the right thing in saving herself and the masses, and she is considered to have been coerced, she is nevertheless forbidden to her husband because the intercourse itself was voluntary. With this, he also answers the contradiction about whether Esther considered herself willing or coerced. Thus, he made the following distinction: If the intercourse was not coerced, but she engaged in it in order to effect deliverance, she is forbidden to her husband. But if the intercourse itself was coerced, she is permitted to him.",
+            "Now, in the present case, in which the adulterer, may his name be blotted out, told her that he is Eliyahu the prophet, and that he was sent from the heavens to sleep with her, and this foolish woman was so credulous that she summoned her husband to receive his wealth as though it was already in her hand, then according to her folly the intercourse itself was commanded by the heavens. There is no greater coercion than this. She did not intend, with this intercourse, to betray her husband. Rather, as she said, with God as her witness, that her intention was for the sake of heaven. As such, there are grounds to consider that even according to Maharik and latter-day authorities, this is a case of bona fide coercion, and she is permitted to her husband. This is indeed my humble opinion, but do not rely on my instruction unless two other decisors agree to this, in which case I will join them to permit this woman to her husband, especially since, as stated in the query, she has always been an upstanding woman, and they have children. This is my humble opinion, ",
+            "the insignificant Yaakov. "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Binyan Tziyon/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+{
+    "title": "Binyan Tziyon",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Binyan_Tziyon",
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Rulings that are not intended practically (lo le-halakha le-ma’aseh)",
+            "Altona, Wednesday, 29 Marheshvan, 5621 (November 14, 1860)",
+            "To my friend and my relative by marriage,  the brilliant rabbi, our master and teacher, Shmaryahu Zuckermann, may his light shine:",
+            "That which you have written, namely, that you treat as forbidden wine that has been touched by a Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbat as he is an apostate against the entire Torah, proving this assertion from Responsa Mabit as cited in Nekudot Ha-kesef on Yoreh De’ah (124:2), which forbids the drinking of wine touched by Karaites as they desecrate the festivals, which makes them tantamount to Shabbat desecrators—indeed, there is someone who disputes this, and you therefore ask me for my opinion in this matter.",
+            "In my opinion, the law accords with you. Since one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is like an apostate against the entire Torah, he has the status of an idolater. It is even possible that Maharshal, cited in Nekudot Ha-kesef loc. cit., who maintains that Karaites do not render [wine] forbidden, concedes in the present case, as Karaites do not desecrate Shabbat, only the festivals, since they dispute our (calendrical) determinations. And he does not equate desecrating Shabbat with desecrating the festivals. However, in the case of a bona fide Shabbat desecrator, who all agree is an apostate against the entire Torah, it is possible that Maharshal concedes.",
+            "One cannot posit that since the decree against [gentile] is due to their daughters [i.e., intermarriage], and the daughters of Shabbat desecrators are not forbidden [therefore their wine should not be forbidden.] If that were the case, the wine of an apostate Jew who worships idols should not be forbidden to drink, yet according to what is stated in Hullin (4a), it is forbidden. It must be that, as Ran wrote in his novellae ad loc., and as you have also cited, since he behaves like a non-Jew, he is included in that decree, even though it is not forbidden to marry his daughter. If that is the case, the same applies to an apostate who publicly desecrates Shabbat. Rashba concurs in a responsum, as cited by Beit Yosef §119: The wine of an apostate who publicly desecrates Shabbat is libation wine (yeyn nesekh).",
+            "Thus far we have discussed, as a technical matter, how to deem one who publicly desecrates Shabbat. However, I do not know how to deem the Jewish sinners of our time. Due to our manifold sins, this sore lesion has spread so widely that, for most of them, the desecration of Shabbat has become like a permissible act. Do they not have the status of one who thinks [a particular transgression] is in fact permitted, which merely approximates intentional sin (mezid)? Some of them recite the Shabbat prayers and sanctify the day with Kiddush before they desecrate Shabbat through labors that are prohibited by the Torah and rabbinic law. A Shabbat desecrator is considered an apostate only because one who denies Shabbat denies the creation and Creator [of the world], yet this man acknowledges them through his prayer and Kiddush. What’s more, their children who grow up in their stead never knew and never heard the laws of Shabbat. They are truly similar to the Sadducees, who were not considered apostates even though they desecrated Shabbat since they followed the actions of their forebears. They are akin to an infant taken captive among the idolaters, as explained (§385). This is also stated by R. Moshe di Trani (Mabit §37). ",
+            "It is even possible that Sadducees who were not habituated amongst Jews and did not know the principles of the religion, yet who do not act brazenly against the Sages, were not considered intentional sinners. And many of the transgressors of our generation are similar to them and even better than them, for the reason that R. Shabtai  stringently considers the wine of Karaites to be yeyn nesekh is not only because they desecrate the festivals, which are similar to Shabbat, but also because they deny the major principles of the religion, for they circumcise but do not peel back the skin (por’in), and they do not have the laws of divorce and betrothal, rendering their children mamzerim. In this respect, most of our contemporaries have not breached.",
+            "Therefore, in my humble opinion, whoever acts stringently, considered the wine of these transgressors to be gentile wine (stam yeynam), is worthy of blessing. Yet those who are lenient also have grounds upon which to stand—unless it is clear to us that one knows the laws of Shabbat but brazenly desecrates it in the presence of ten Jews together, in which case he is certainly considered a bona fide apostate, and wine he touched is prohibited. This is correct in my humble opinion. The insignificant Yaakov. \n"
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "...And behold, it seems to me in my humble opinion, that the reasoning of the rabbis: that even though our general principle is that there is nothing that stands in front of saving a life, and one does not follow the majority in matters involving saving a life (even if there is the slightest concern that the life of a Jew may be in danger, one takes all steps necessary to save him) - this applies specifically in cases where there is a clear and certain threat to life in front of us, like when a pile of stones have fallen upon someone, that then we are concerned even for the smallest minority of cases [to violate a prohibition to save a life], but in a moment where where is no threat to one's life (i.e. no obligation to save a life) but rather a concern that there would be a danger later on, we follow the majority, for if it were not so, how could it be permitted to go swimming or to go to the desert - places where one must thank God for being saved - and how could it be permitted to, at the outset, enter a dangerous situation and violate the commandment to protect our lives? Rather we must say that, since at that time, there is no imminent danger, we go according to the majority..."
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "D.V. Altona, Wednesday, I Adar 25, 5619.",
+            "To the eminent etc. teacher and Rabbi Mendel Friedlander, head of the rabbinical court in Georgen, Hungary (Borský Svätý Jur, Slovakia)",
+            "Question:  Not long ago, an incident came before me that will cause the ears of all who hear it to ring. In one of the villages in my domain live two Jews who regularly take business trips extending several days, leaving their wives alone in the house with their sons and daughters and servants.  One day, when one of the men went as was his way on a business trip, another man came from Poland, with torn clothes, and asked the wife for a place to lodge.  The woman, who had always been exceedingly modest but whose piety was her folly,  took pity on him and gave him a place to sleep and also food and drink.  Yet that guest did not eat from her anything that had been alive, and drank nothing but water, and engaged in similar ascetic practices, afflicting himself with mortifications. All day he sat shut in his room with a book in hand, and also each night until midnight, upon which he would grieve over the destruction of God’s Temple. When he slept, he did not lie on a bed or bench, but rather on the ground, with rocks beneath his head. Each day he would immerse himself in the cold waters of the river twice, at the chilliest times. He behaved this way in the woman’s house from Sunday of Parashat Terumah until Shabbat of Parashat Tetzaveh. ",
+            "But on Friday night, after the meal was over, the children and the house servants all left the table and went to sleep in the other room while that fraudulent man remained seated at the table, alone with the woman. He entered into conversation with her to the point that she asked “Who are you?  Where do you come from?  Where are you going?” He replied “I am an emissary of the Merciful One, and my name is Eliyahu the Prophet. I seek my brethren, to gather them from the four corners of the earth—but this can be told only to the discreet.” The woman, in her great foolishness believed him. She went to sleep on her bed in the adjacent room, while that menace still sat at his place. He studied a book until midnight, and after midnight he arose, tiptoed over to the bed where the woman was lying, woke her up from her sleep, and said to her: Behold I have travelled from one end of the earth to the other, and I have found no righteous woman to compare to you who is worth to produce the Messiah. The obstacle is your husband, who is not suitable for such. To that end, I have been sent from heaven to sleep with you, and in nine months you will bear a son who will be the Messiah, son of David. He will redeem Israel. This is your sign that I am Eliyahu; this coming Tuesday, after I take leave of you, if you open the door to the closet that stands here in your bedroom, you will find there a great treasure of 400 golden ducats—but only on condition that you do not open the closet before the prescribed time. Thus spoke the adulterer to her, until he seduced her. He defiled her twice, on Friday night and Saturday night, and on Sunday before dawn the adulterer fled from there. His whereabouts are unknown.",
+            "This foolish woman quickly wrote to her husband that he hurry home, as God had granted prosperity to his household via a great treasure. He listened to her and returned on Tuesday. The woman then opened the closet and found nothing of the treasure of which the adulterer spoke. When she saw that he had lied, she screamed and wept with a bitter soul. She told her husband all about the abomination that this evildoer had perpetrated, and she spoke to [her husband’s heart saying: “I did not do this out of betrayal or sacrilege. With God as my witness, my intention was for the sake of heaven! Was not the adulterer a disgusting and ugly man? What could have lured me to commit infidelity with him?” But the husband was not assuaged by this. Instead, he came to me and told me everything, and asked me what to do about his wife. I sent for his wife and interrogated her in various ways, and she, too, recounted to me the above tale. I ordered them to separate until I could place the matter before your honor.",
+            "This is the content of the question from the aforementioned rabbi and rabbinical court head, may his light shine.",
+            "Response: I have reviewed all of the aspects, and it is very difficult to find a cure and a remedy for this plague of stupidity that would permit this woman to her husband. Her claim that she was unwitting, and that her intentions were for the sake of heaven, is not a claim that would permit her based on what Maharik wrote in §168, cited by Rema in Even Ha-ezer (§178), namely, that if a woman commits adultery thinking that it is permitted to commit adultery, she is considered to have sinned knowingly, and she is forbidden to her Jewish husband. This is in accordance with what you have noted yourself; we will discuss this further below.",
+            "It first glance, it would seem possible to find grounds for leniency since there are no witnesses to the act and no rumors have been spread. It is her word alone that she committed adultery, and we rule in accordance with the later Mishna, as explained in Even Ha-ezer 115:6: “If there are no witnesses that she committed adultery, but she says she committed adultery, we do not express concern for her claim by forbidding her to her husband, for we suspect that she may have become attracted to someone else [and makes this claim so that her husband must divorce her].” This being the case, we should have the same suspicions about this woman.",
+            "Yet she claims that she was unwitting and wishes to remain with her husband, so how can we say that perhaps she became attracted to someone else? Regarding the similar case in the writings of R. Yisrael Isserlein (Terumat Ha-deshen) §222, which states: \"Accordingly, we may posit that whenever she says “I am defiled,” she was attracted to someone else, and she later remembered, or was reminded or coached to say, that due to the great shame and taint caused to her and her family, she strengthened herself against her urges and her heart, and she shielded her eyes from the man who she had initially been attracted to, and she changed her claim. This case is irrelevant here, since in the present case she never changed her claim. In fact, immediately upon confessing her infidelity to her husband, she gave the excuse that she was unwitting and pled with him not to push her away. Thus, she was not attracted to someone else. Yet perhaps she is being deceitful, knowing that if she says that she knowingly committed adultery she will not achieve her goal of having him divorce her so she can marry the person to whom she has become attracted. She knows that he will suspect that she has become attracted to another, so she is apologetic toward him to make him believe that she committed adultery and divorces her. This reasoning is mentioned in Responsa Noda BiYehuda, Even Ha-ezer 1:71, and it is also implied by the language of Shulhan Arukh, which simply states “we do not express concern for her claim, for perhaps she has become attracted to someone else,” making no distinction between a case where she wishes to leave her husband and a case where she wishes to remain with him.",
+            "Similarly, regarding what you wrote, namely, that they told him that on Shabbat morning, the servants came into the room in which the woman was lying and found the adulterer lying on the ground. In that case, there is substance to the claim, since the man was secluded with the woman, and when the claim has substantiation, we no longer say “perhaps she was attracted to someone else,” as Beit Shmuel 115:23 states: “If it is known that she was secluded with someone, and she says that she committed adultery, then it seems that she is believed.” ",
+            "Yet even for this reason she should not be forbidden, based on Helkat Mehokek states there in the name of Rosh, namely, that if there is a reason to permit, such as the fact that he would have hid himself (had infidelity truly taken place), we do not prohibit her, even if there is substance to the claim. If so, this reason applies here as well, because if he indeed committed adultery, how could he lie on the floor of the room where the woman slept until the servants entered and saw him, and not return to the room where he sat until midnight or to his bedroom? Even though Beit Shmuel disagrees with Helkat Mehokek and rules stringently, in accordance with Tosafot in the chapter “Af al Pi,” that a reason to permit is of no help when there is substantiation, it nevertheless hinges on two opinions within Tosafot. And Noda Bi-Yehuda §70 upheld Helkat Mehokek against Beit Shmuel. Moreover, even without this, we can contend, as you noted, that such seclusion is not considered substantiation since there is no evidence that they secluded themselves for the purpose of infidelity, and since the door was unlocked for anyone in the household to enter.",
+            "It would have been possible to posit all of this if there were only the words of the woman to contend with. However, it seems, based on the text of the question, namely, from the fact that the husband screamed and wept over the act and his shame, that he believes her. It is clear from Shulhan Arukh §115 that if he believes her, and he relies upon her word, then he must divorce her. And even though Rema in §178 brings an opinion (yesh omrim) that nowadays, after the enactment of Rabbenu Gershom’s ban [on polygamy], he is not believed to say that he believes her, he nevertheless cites another opinion afterward, which maintains that he is believed even nowadays. It seems that he rules thus, since he cited this opinion last. Moreover, since he did not bring this view as a gloss in §115, where Shulhan Arukh ruled that he is required to divorce her, it implies that he agrees as a practical matter. All of the later authorities simply ruled that if the husband believes her, she is forbidden to him. I am astonished that you did not note this. ",
+            "Thus, there is no remedy for her on the grounds that we suspect that she became attracted to someone else.",
+            "However, after seeing what R. Yisrael Isserlein in §222 of his rulings, that R. Meir [of Rothenburg] was very lenient in order to avoid forbidding a wife to her husband, even though he regularly, in all places, would practice stringently here and stringently there, we must follow in his footsteps. Thus, I too sought a way to find grounds for permitting, based on my own humble reasoning. I will therefore speak, so that I may find relief. ",
+            "In the aforementioned responsum of Maharik, regarding Maharil’s question about whether woman who willingly committed adultery against her husband without knowing that it is forbidden is considered unwitting (shogeg), he responded: \"In my opinion, it appears that she is not considered unwitting in order to be permitted to her husband, since she intended to betray her husband and cheat on him. After all, Scripture does not say “A man whose wife strays, and betrays God,” which would imply that the law applies only when she intends to violate a prohibition, but “and betrays him.”\" Later he writes: \"It also seems, in my humble opinion, that there is another proof that the matter does not depend on intent to violate a prohibition, for we learn in the first chapter of Megilla (15a): “‘If I am lost, I am lost’ (ka’asher avadeti avadeti; Esther 4:16): just as I lost my father’s house, so too I will lose you.  Until now I have been compelled, but now I am willing.” We learn from this that from that time, she became forbidden to Mordechai. Now, it is clear that Esther did nothing prohibited, and there was not even a smidgen of transgression. Rather, she performed a great mitzva, for she saved all of Israel. Clearly that this is the case, for when she came before the king, the divine spirit rested upon her. But even so, she became forbidden to her husband, Mordechai, as a result of that willing act. Now we may reason a fortiori: if in that case, where there was not a smidgen of transgression, and, on the contrary, she did a mitzva, and yet she was still forbidden to her husband Mordechai, then certainly a woman who committed adultery against her husband, even if she does not know that this is prohibited, is forbidden to him because she nevertheless transgressed, and needs atonement, and is liable to bring an offering.\"",
+            "For this reason, Beit Shmuel states in §178: “If she willingly committed adultery to save lives, as in the case of Esther with Ahasuerus, she is forbidden to her husband, as the intercourse was willing.”",
+            "In my humble opinion, there is a rebuttal to this. Although Maharik offers sound reasoning—even if she did not betray God, but still betrayed her husband, she is forbidden to him—in my opinion this only applies when she willingly committed adultery and intended to enjoy it, but was not aware that it is forbidden, because the nevertheless had intention to betray her husband. However, if she committed adultery for the sake of a mitzva, and her intent was solely for the sake of heaven, how can this be considered a betrayal of her husband? This would be especially challenging for Mordechai’s case, since he himself ordered her, against her will, to go to the king. How can this be considered a betrayal of him? Additionally, Maharsha and Rif in Ein Ya’akov already pointed out a contradiction in Esther’s words: to Mordechai she says “now I am willing,” yet in Megilla ad loc. it is stated: “R. Levi said: When she reached the chamber of idols, the divine presence left her, and she said, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? (Tehilim 22:2) Do You judge unwitting acts as though they were done knowingly? Coerced acts as though they were done willingly?’” Rashi explains: “Although I go to him on my initiative, I am coerced.” Here, then, she called herself coerced! ",
+            "Therefore, it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that if her actions were definitely necessary to save Israel, then there is no greater compulsion than that. However, it seems from his words that Mordechai was uncertain about that, since he said: “If you are silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from somewhere else… and who knows whether you became royalty for a time like this?” (Esther 4:14) The meaning of his words is that he was confident that God would send deliverance to the Jews, but he was uncertain whether it would come via Esther or from somewhere else. Thus he asks “Who knows” whether you became queen in order to save Israel—as Ibn Ezra explains. Thus, from the perspective of prohibited adultery of a married woman, despite the uncertainty, it was permitted, for we desecrate Shabbat even for the possibility of saving a life. But with regard to the question of whether she remains permitted to her husband, the uncertainty remains, since indeed, it may have been possible to save them another way, so perhaps she committed adultery willingly and unnecessarily. Thus, Esther said “If I am lost, I am lost,” that now she was going willingly, and due to the uncertainty, she would be forbidden to her husband. But when she reached the chamber of idols, and the divine presence left her, she asked, “Why have You forsaken me? Do You judge unwitting acts as though they were done knowingly? Coerced acts as though they were done willingly?” She was not really wondering about this, since the Torah is explicit that God does not judge coerced acts like those done willingly. Rather, she was wondering: “Are You thus, perhaps, telling me that I should not go? That I am not compelled? That You do not want to save Israel through me?” Therefore, when the divine presence returned to her, she knew that this came from God, and that He wished to rescue Israel only through her. And therefore, for this truly righteous woman, it indeed was not considered adultery—which would have made her forbidden to her husband—since she was entirely coerced.",
+            "The upshot is that if we accept this, then if a woman committed adultery for God’s sake, it would not be considered a betrayal of her husband. ",
+            "I am indeed unworthy of disputing Maharik and Beit Shmuel, of contravening them to permit what they prohibit. However, I have seen Responsa Shvut Ya’akov 2:117. The question was about a man who went with his wife and with others through a forest. They were attacked by murderous men. The only way they knew of to save themselves was that the wife surrendered herself to them, with her husband’s willing consent. Is she permitted to her husband? He responded with the words of Maharik but then questioned what the difference is, in Esther’s case, between the situation up to that point, when she was coerced, and the new situation, after which she is considered willing even though she was acting only to deliver Israel. He answered with a sound rationale: if she is compelled to have intercourse, as it was when she was taken to Ahasuerus, then the adultery is considered under coercion, and she is permitted [to her husband]. However, if the coercion is not related to the intercourse, but instead, because of some external threat, she goes to him and willingly accedes to the intercourse in order to effect deliverance, then even though she did the right thing in saving herself and the masses, and she is considered to have been coerced, she is nevertheless forbidden to her husband because the intercourse itself was voluntary. With this, he also answers the contradiction about whether Esther considered herself willing or coerced. Thus, he made the following distinction: If the intercourse was not coerced, but she engaged in it in order to effect deliverance, she is forbidden to her husband. But if the intercourse itself was coerced, she is permitted to him.",
+            "Now, in the present case, in which the adulterer, may his name be blotted out, told her that he is Eliyahu the prophet, and that he was sent from the heavens to sleep with her, and this foolish woman was so credulous that she summoned her husband to receive his wealth as though it was already in her hand, then according to her folly the intercourse itself was commanded by the heavens. There is no greater coercion than this. She did not intend, with this intercourse, to betray her husband. Rather, as she said, with God as her witness, that her intention was for the sake of heaven. As such, there are grounds to consider that even according to Maharik and latter-day authorities, this is a case of bona fide coercion, and she is permitted to her husband. This is indeed my humble opinion, but do not rely on my instruction unless two other decisors agree to this, in which case I will join them to permit this woman to her husband, especially since, as stated in the query, she has always been an upstanding woman, and they have children. This is my humble opinion, ",
+            "the insignificant Yaakov. "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "בנין ציון",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chakham Tzvi/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Chakham Tzvi",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "חכם צבי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "The following occurred: a young girl had opened the stomach of a [properly slaughtered] chicken in order to clean it out, on the edge of a table. A cat stood below, anticipating that might eat whatever would fall to the ground. Afterwards, the girl claimed that she did not find the chicken's heart. The mother of the girl said it was possible - in fact, almost certain - that the heart had been [accidentally] thrown to the ground and eaten by the cat, which was  excited to eat whatever came close to it. The girl insisted that she did not give the heart to the cat. The chicken was fat, healthy, and good; there was nothing abnormal, nor was anything torn in its innards. There was no indication that its heart had shrunk or melted - nothing at all was abnormal in all of its innards. While it had been alive, it was strong, healthy, and had all the normal koach, eating and drinking, walking and flying. It had all of its normal function, was at full strength: in short, it was as healthy as all other healthy chickens. However, the girl insisted that she did not find the heart. ",
+            "This case came before the sages, and they deemed the chicken \"treif\", for the reason that it was missing its heart. We would ask of the Teacher, what is the ruling regarding this chicken?",
+            "Answer: All those who claim that the chicken was treif are in error. For it is clear to all whose hearts are wise, and whose brains are sharp, that it is impossible for any animal in the world to live, for even a moment, without a heart, as if they were healthy. One cannot imagine such a situation. Rather, as soon as the heart is cut out of a creature, they have been slaughtered. And what about the possibility that there had been sickness? It is impossible to say that the heart had shrunk, or melted, without the creature having been incredibly sickly. And yet this chicken wasn't sickly or ill; on the contrary - it was fat, healthy, good, and normally functioning! The matter is clear, that the heart fell out of the opening in the stomach, and that the cat ate it. This is indeed so obvious, that it does not require proof. ",
+            "However, to silence the mouths of the idiots who are so eager to rule in this case, I cite the ruling of the Kessef Mishna, the Laws of Slaughter (10), who gives a reason why Maimonides did not list \"missing heart\" or \"born without a heart\": limbs which, were they to be removed, the animal could not live for even a moment, [Maimonides] did not list them."
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chakham Tzvi/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.json

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Chakham Tzvi",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "לקט השו״ת של ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "חכם צבי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "You have asked: How should people from outside Eretz Yisrael (hutz la-aretz) who temporarily visit there practice during the three festivals, as residents of Eretz Yisrael or as residents of hutz la-aretz?",
+            "Response: In my humble opinion, on matters of festivals they must practice like a resident of Eretz Yisrael. This is not in the category of “the stringencies of the locale one left” [which must be observed]. This goes without saying with regard to the blessings, prayers, and Torah reading, which are not essentially stringencies, for if one practices stringency by reciting the blessings and prayers of the festival on a day that is not a festival, he has transgressed. However, it is even permissible for them to perform melakhot (labors forbidden on Shabbat and festivals), for if all of the people from the locale they left would move here permanently, it is obvious that they would not be allowed to observe more than one day, as this would violate “you shall not add on” (bal tosif). After all, one who sleeps in the sukkah on the eighth day incurs lashes. Similarly, on Pesah and Shavu’ot, one who observes one festival day more than is commanded violates bal tosif. [The Sages] did not say that “we impose upon him the stringencies of the locale he left” except with regard to a stringency that the people from the community one left may practice in a locale that practices leniently even if they would establish permanent residence in the latter locale. However, when it comes to something that the people from the stringent locale would be forbidden to practice if they were to establish residence in the lenient locale, [the Sages] did not make their ruling about such a case. And although “they sent [a message] from there: be careful about the practices of your fathers, lest there be decrees of persecution that will be ruinous” (Beitza 4b), this ruin itself is only relevant when they are in their place, in hutz la-aretz. However, while they are in Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply. And since in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden to add a day to the mitzva, and the people of Eretz Yisrael do not have the capability of adding a day to what the Torah states and thus be stringent, even those who come from hutz la-aretz may not practice the second festive day of Diaspora communities while they are in Eretz Yisrael, even if they are there only temporarily, since the determining factor is the locale, and it is not in the category of “stringencies of the locale he left.” ",
+            "I have written my humble opinion. Tzvi Ashkenazi \n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chakham Tzvi/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+{
+    "title": "Chakham Tzvi",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Chakham_Tzvi",
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "The following occurred: a young girl had opened the stomach of a [properly slaughtered] chicken in order to clean it out, on the edge of a table. A cat stood below, anticipating that might eat whatever would fall to the ground. Afterwards, the girl claimed that she did not find the chicken's heart. The mother of the girl said it was possible - in fact, almost certain - that the heart had been [accidentally] thrown to the ground and eaten by the cat, which was  excited to eat whatever came close to it. The girl insisted that she did not give the heart to the cat. The chicken was fat, healthy, and good; there was nothing abnormal, nor was anything torn in its innards. There was no indication that its heart had shrunk or melted - nothing at all was abnormal in all of its innards. While it had been alive, it was strong, healthy, and had all the normal koach, eating and drinking, walking and flying. It had all of its normal function, was at full strength: in short, it was as healthy as all other healthy chickens. However, the girl insisted that she did not find the heart. ",
+            "This case came before the sages, and they deemed the chicken \"treif\", for the reason that it was missing its heart. We would ask of the Teacher, what is the ruling regarding this chicken?",
+            "Answer: All those who claim that the chicken was treif are in error. For it is clear to all whose hearts are wise, and whose brains are sharp, that it is impossible for any animal in the world to live, for even a moment, without a heart, as if they were healthy. One cannot imagine such a situation. Rather, as soon as the heart is cut out of a creature, they have been slaughtered. And what about the possibility that there had been sickness? It is impossible to say that the heart had shrunk, or melted, without the creature having been incredibly sickly. And yet this chicken wasn't sickly or ill; on the contrary - it was fat, healthy, good, and normally functioning! The matter is clear, that the heart fell out of the opening in the stomach, and that the cat ate it. This is indeed so obvious, that it does not require proof. ",
+            "However, to silence the mouths of the idiots who are so eager to rule in this case, I cite the ruling of the Kessef Mishna, the Laws of Slaughter (10), who gives a reason why Maimonides did not list \"missing heart\" or \"born without a heart\": limbs which, were they to be removed, the animal could not live for even a moment, [Maimonides] did not list them."
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "You have asked: How should people from outside Eretz Yisrael (hutz la-aretz) who temporarily visit there practice during the three festivals, as residents of Eretz Yisrael or as residents of hutz la-aretz?",
+            "Response: In my humble opinion, on matters of festivals they must practice like a resident of Eretz Yisrael. This is not in the category of “the stringencies of the locale one left” [which must be observed]. This goes without saying with regard to the blessings, prayers, and Torah reading, which are not essentially stringencies, for if one practices stringency by reciting the blessings and prayers of the festival on a day that is not a festival, he has transgressed. However, it is even permissible for them to perform melakhot (labors forbidden on Shabbat and festivals), for if all of the people from the locale they left would move here permanently, it is obvious that they would not be allowed to observe more than one day, as this would violate “you shall not add on” (bal tosif). After all, one who sleeps in the sukkah on the eighth day incurs lashes. Similarly, on Pesah and Shavu’ot, one who observes one festival day more than is commanded violates bal tosif. [The Sages] did not say that “we impose upon him the stringencies of the locale he left” except with regard to a stringency that the people from the community one left may practice in a locale that practices leniently even if they would establish permanent residence in the latter locale. However, when it comes to something that the people from the stringent locale would be forbidden to practice if they were to establish residence in the lenient locale, [the Sages] did not make their ruling about such a case. And although “they sent [a message] from there: be careful about the practices of your fathers, lest there be decrees of persecution that will be ruinous” (Beitza 4b), this ruin itself is only relevant when they are in their place, in hutz la-aretz. However, while they are in Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply. And since in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden to add a day to the mitzva, and the people of Eretz Yisrael do not have the capability of adding a day to what the Torah states and thus be stringent, even those who come from hutz la-aretz may not practice the second festive day of Diaspora communities while they are in Eretz Yisrael, even if they are there only temporarily, since the determining factor is the locale, and it is not in the category of “stringencies of the locale he left.” ",
+            "I have written my humble opinion. Tzvi Ashkenazi \n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "חכם צבי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chakham Tzvi/Hebrew/Hakham Tzvi, Lviv, 1900.json

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Chakham Tzvi",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001835624 ",
+    "versionTitle": "Hakham Tzvi, Lviv, 1900",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "חכם צבי, לבוב, תר\"ס",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "חכם צבי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "קסז שאלת בני ח\"ל העולם לא\"י דרך ארעי האיך יתנהגו בשלש רגלים אם כבני ארץ ישראל או כבני ח\"ל:",
+            "תשובה נלע\"ד דצריכים הם להתנהג בעניני המועדים בא' מבני א\"י התושבים ואין זה בכלל חומרי מקום שיצא משם לא מבעיא בתפלות וברכות וקריאת ס\"ת שאינן חומרות בעצם שהרי אם בא להחמיר לברך ולהתפלל תפלת המועדים בזמן שאינו מועד עבירה היא בידו אלא אפי' במלאכה מותרים הם שאילו היו כל אנשי המקום שיצאו משם כאן בקביעותא פשיטא שאסורים היו לעשות יותר מיום אחד משום בל תוסיף שהרי הישן בשמיני בסוכה לוקה וכן בפסח ושבועות העושה יום א' מועד יותר מהמצות עובר על ב\"ת ולא אמרו נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם אלא בחומרא שרשאין בני המקום שיצא זה משם לנהוג חומרתם במקום הנוהגין קולא אף אם יקבעו דירתם במקום הלז אבל בדבר שאילו באו בני מקום החומרא למקום הקולא וקבעו דירתם בו היו אסורין לנהוג חומרתם בזה לא אמרו ואף דשלחי מתם הזהרו במנהג אבותיכם דילמא גזרו שמדא ואתי לאקלקולי הך קלקלה גופה לא שייכא אלא כסתם במקומם בח\"ל אבל בהיותם בא\"י לא שייכא וכיון שבא\"י איסור הוא להוסיף יום א' על המצות ואין ביד אנשי א\"י להוסיף יום א' יותר מהכתוב בתורה ולהחמיר אף הבאים מח\"ל אסורים הם לנהוג שני י\"ט של גליות כל זמן שהם בא\"י אפי' דרך ארעי כיון שהמקום גורם ואין זה בכלל חומרי מקום שיצא משם.",
+            "והנלע\"ד כתבתי צבי אשכנזי ס\"ט:\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chazeh Hatenufa/Hebrew/Chaim Shaal, Lemberg, 1886.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Chazeh Hatenufa",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001141485",
+    "versionTitle": "Chaim Shaal, Lemberg, 1886",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "versionNotes": "",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "חזה התנופה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        "<b>חדיא דארמותא</b><br>אמר הצעיר וזעיר <b>חדי\"א</b> דארמותא ידעי רבנן אשר מרן בבית יוסף מעלה בזכור\"ו כמה זמני ספר <b>חזה התנופה</b>. ונעלם דבר למאן אימ\"ר והאי ספרא היולדה והמחזיקה גלגלת א' שצפ\"ה ברוח חכמה מאן ניהו מר דן את הדין אפיק שפ\"ה. איכו השתא תא חז\"ה התנופה על יד חדי\"א דארמות' דאפיק לחירות\"א חרות על הלוחות פוריה וענפה.<br><b>הגדתי</b> היום כי ספר זה קראו בשמו מחברו הרב <b>ר' משה ברושיליי\"ש זלה\"ה</b> יען כי קצר קצר שו\"ת <b>הרא\"ש</b> ז\"ל לפום חורפא. המורם מהם כותב ומעלה ויהי הקצר אמיץ הכי קרא שמו <b>חזה התנופה</b> אשר הורם מזבחי תורת שלמי רבינו אדונינו <b>הרא\"ש</b> ז\"ל אגב אסיפ\"ה. ועל כל תשובה כתב ראיה או סברא לרמוז אם תשו' זו הביא עליה ראיה או דן כן מסבר' גל\"י ומלפ'. וקיצורי התשובות אשר ישנם באורך בדפוס אינם נצרכים לא נצרכה אלא לקונטריס אשר בסוף הס' קיצור תשובות הרא\"ש שלא נדפסו ולא אתנו יודע חבל על אילפ\"א. ומהקונטרס הזה זמנין דמייתי מיניה מרן בבית יוסף ויען בל ימצא אף בב\"י כי אם לאחד בריבוא נפשי אוותה משום כיסופ\"א. אמרתי אעלה חז\"ה הוית על מזבח הדפוס כאן ברדופה. וראה בעיניך מ\"ש מרן בב\"י י\"ד סי' רכ\"ח קודם דין נדר שעל דעת רבים שכ' וז\"ל כתוב בס\"ד דינים שבסוף ס' חזה התנופה ע\"ש וקונטריס זה ישנו בהקפה. והרב המקצר הרב ר' משה ברושילייש ז\"ל זכרו כיין לבנון בשאלת הריב\"ש סימן ר\"ט לקבל אלפ\"א.<br><b>סימן א</b><br>ראובן תבע לשמעון מנה וכפר בו שמעון והביא ראובן עדים וראיה לדבריו ואומר שמעון שהעדים אלו הודו בפני עדים שיש להם חלק בחוב זה שתובע ראובן לשמעון. אם נודע דקודם שהעידו לראובן הודו שיש להם חלק בחוב זה אז אין עדותם עדות כי הם נוגעים בעדותם והנה הא' בע\"ד וב' עדים. אבל אם כבר העידו לראובן קודם (שהודו) שאין להם חלק בחוב הזה, שוב אינם נאמנים לומר שיש להם חלק בחוב זה כדי להפסיד זכותו של ראובן בעדות זה אחר שבתחילה העידו כדברי ראובן. סברא",
+        "<b>סימן ב</b><br>לוי יש לו שטר על בת שמעון ומכר שמעון לראובן ביתו לפני לוי וראובן סתר ובנה בו לפני לוי ולוי עצמו הי' ממונה על אותו בנין בכל זה לא הפסיד לוי זכותו ויכול להוצי' שטרו המוקדם למקחו של ראובן וינכ' חובו מהבית ההוא. כי יכול להיות שלא מצא מקום לנכות חובו עד עתה לאיזה סבה שתהי' ובהתאחר הזמן לא הפסיד לוי זכותו וכן כל כיוצ' בזה. ראיה מדברי אדמון פ' ב' דייני:",
+        "<b>סימן ג</b><br>מי שקבל עליו להחזיק לחבירו על עצמו שטר בסך ידוע ושיתן לו ערב בשטר ואם לא יעשה כן שיפרע כך וכך קנס והחזי' עליו בשטר. שכנגדו טוען שלא נתן לו ערב ולכן יתחייב בקנס והלוה טוען שנתן לו ערב בשטר מבלעדי השטר הא' שהחזיק על עצמו ושהערב הלך למדינת הים אם יש בעיר עדים ידועים וסופרים ידועים שלא יכתב ולא יחתם שום דבר חזוק זולתי על ידיהם אף זה הדבר יתברר על ידיהם אם כנים דבריו שנתן ערב בשטר ואין כאן מקום להשביעו. אבל אם אין עדים וסופרים מיוחדים בעיר אז צריך להזכיר שם הערב שאומר שנתן ושם הסופר והעדים שעש' שטר על ידם וישבע שהוא כדברי' אם לא מצא אותם באות' שעה ויפטר מן הקנס כי אין אדם נאמן לו' לחבירו פרעתיך בפני פ' ופ' והלכו למדינ' הים. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ד</b><br>אעפ\"י שהנותן גט לאשתו בתנאי שלא תלכי לבית אביך הגט כשר והתנאי קיים, אפ\"ה אין לשום אדם להשתדל בגט שינתן בתנאי כזה כי אין ספק שלא יתקיים תנאי זה שא\"א לה שתעמוד על נפשה מלכת לבית אביה ונמצ' גט בטל ובני' ממזרים. ואם המגרש הזה הוא מאלו שכופין לגרש ולא רצה לגרש רק בתנאי זה אין שומעין לו וכופין אותו לגרש בלא תנאי זה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ה</b><br>ראובן נכנס לדור בבית שמעון שלא מדעתו כי ראה שהיה הבית רעוע נטוי ליפול והחזיק בו ובנה בו והצילו מסכנת נפילה גם ציירו וכיירו. אם בא עתה שמעון להוציאו מביתו אינו יכול להוציאו מסכנת נפילה וע\"פ שומת הבנאין שיראו הבנין שבנה ויראו איזה בנין בנה לצורך הבי' להצילו מנפילה וישומו דמי ההוצאה ויפרענהשמעון לראובן ואז יוציאנו מן הבית. אבל אם בנה ראובן חדרים ועליות להנאתו וצייר וכייר ושאר דברים שלא היו צריכים לבית להצילו מן הנפיל' אין שמעון חייב לפרוע לו דבר אלא אומר לו טול עציך ואבניך וציוריך וכיוריך ואף אם הי' הבית מצוייר ומכויר מתחילתו כי הציור והכיור אינו לחזק הבנין כי אם לנוי בעלמ' לכן אין שמעון מחוייב לפרוע לו דבר מההוצא' ההיא שהוציא מעצמו ומדעתו ויקח ציורו וכיורו וילך לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ו</b><br>מי שהוצי' שטר על חבירו ואין השטר ההוא מתקיים בב\"ד אלא ע\"פ עדים החתומים לפי שאין כ\"י יוצא ממקום אחר וגם אין עדים להכיר חתימת ידיהם וא מן העדים אומר שעל כך וכך או על תנאי כו\"ך חתם השטר ההוא ובאותו הדעת או אותו תנאי מתבטל השטר ההוא שנעש' סתם. השטר הזה בטל לגמרי ולא יגבה דבר מאותו שטר כשיקיים זה הלוה ויכופו המלו' לקרוע השטר ההוא כי העד עקר השטר לגמרי בתנאי זה והוא נאמן אחר שאין השטר הזה יכול להתקיים זולתו ולכן השטר הזה בטל וכ\"ש אם יש עדים שהוד' המלו' שלא נעש' השטר ההוא רק על אותו תנאי או על אותו דעת שאמ' העד כי הודא' בע\"ד כק' עדים דמי וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ז</b><br>מי שנשבע לפרוע לחברו ממון לזמן ידוע ובעל הממון מתירא שמא יעבור על שבועתו שלא יפרענו בזמנו ויש אמתלא ורגלים לדבר ויש מקום לחששה זו. דין הוא שיטילו קנס על הנשבע הזה גם לאיימו באיום גדול שיפרע בזמנו שלא יעבור על שבועתו ויכו אותו עד שתצא נפשו ויקיים שבועתו כי עונשי השבוע' חמור מאוד כחייבי כריתות ומיתות בית דין שהרי נזדעזע העולם בשעה שנאמר לא תשא. סברא וראיה פ\"ב דיומא:",
+        "<b>סימן ח</b><br>מה שפסקו רוב החכמים שמסדרין לבע\"ח ה\"ד בשלא נשבע לפרוע אבל אם נשבע לפרוע לד\"ה אין מסדרין לו והוא בעצמו חיי' למכור כל מה שיש לו אפי' חלוק ומכנסיים ואבנט שלו לפרוע לבע\"ח ויתפלש באפר ולא יעבור על שבועתו ואם לא עשה כן הרי זה עבריין ולא יקרא אונס להיפטר משבוע' בעוד שיש לו איזה דבר ברשותו שימכור אפי' עד שוה פרוט'. סברא: (עיין ב\"י חו\"מ סוף סימן צ\"ז)",
+        "<b>סימן ט</b><br>ראובן שיש לו שטר על שמעון בסך זהובים ונתפשרו ביחד שיותרו מהם מקצתם על תנאי שהנשאר מן החוב יפרע לג' או ד' זמנים ידועים והושם השטר ע\"י שליש שאם לא יפרע בכל זמן וזמן מה שהתנ' עמו שיחזיר השליש השטר למלוה ויגבהו מושלם ולא ינכה לו מחובו מה שפרע כבר. ופרע שמעון מהחוב למועד אשר יעדו ובזמן א' מן הזמנים לא פרע אותו סך שהי\"ל לפרוע והמלו' תובע מהשליש השטר כפי תנאו, תנאי ממון הוא זה ואין כאן אסמכת' ויקיי�� השליש שלישותו כפי מה שהושלש בידו ויחזירהו למלו' שטרו ויגבהו מושלם. כי לא מחל לו המותר אלא על דעת שיקיים תנאו שהתנ' עמו, וכן כל כיוצ' בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן י</b><br>ראובן, שמעון לוי שהי' לכל א' מהם לבדו חוב ידוע על גוי וכל א' שלח האינטריג אדור לבית הגוי הזה ועשה מעש' ומשכן בבית אותו הגוי משכון ואין אנו יודעים מי הוא המוקדם והמאוחר באותו אינטריג' זולתי עפ\"י הגוי הממשכן שמשכן תחלה בעדו זה המשכון והמשכון אינו תחת יד שום א' מהם, כל מי שיאמר הגוי הממשכן שהוא הראשון שמשכן תחל' בעדו זכה במשכון ההוא כי הוא וגם סופרי הגוים שהולכים עמו ממונים ע\"ז מפי המלך ודינא דמלכותא דינא ולכן הוא נאמן בכל מה שיאמר בנדון הזה אחר שאין לנו מקום לדעת אמיתות דבר בעדי ישראל, וכן כל כיוצ' בזה:",
+        "<b>סימן יא</b><br>הנשבע שלא ישחוק בשום שחוק. הנקר' בלעז אפושטאר ובערבי כטאר הוא מכלל השחוק כי כל השחוק של קוביא הוא בכלל ועיקר השבוע' היתה להמנע מכל שחוק המביא לידי הפסד ממון, ראיה פ' זה בורר:",
+        "<b>סימן יב</b><br>ההקדש שמפקיע מידי שעבוד היינו הקדש קדושי הגוף למזבח וכן הקונמות וכל איסור הנאסר לכל ואין לו התר עולמית כגון הכלים שהם הבגדים הפורשי' על המת כל אלו מפקיעין מידי שעבוד אבל המקדיש קדוש' דמים כגון שהקדיש לבדק הבית אותו הקדש אינו מפקיע מידי שעבו'. ראיה פ' אלמנ' לכ\"ג ומציע' פ' הזהב:",
+        "<b>סימן יג</b><br>מי שיש לו עליו כתובת אשה ובע\"ח שזמנם שוה ויש לו קרקע ומעות, ואין בקרקע לבדו ולא במעות לבדם כדי לפרוע ב'. הדין הוא שיחלק לב\"ח במעות ולכתובת אשה קרקע. ואם אין בכל נכסיו רק כדי לפרוע לא' מהם לבד וגם אין בהן קדימה ינתן הכל לבע\"ח משום נעילת דלת בפני לווין ולא ינתן לאשה כי יותר משהאיש רוצה לישא אשה רוצה להינשא, ראיה פ' הכותב:",
+        "<b>סימן יד</b><br>לוה שקבל על עצמו ליאסר בבית האסורים, אסור למלו' למוסרו בידי גוים להאסר ביד גוים כי אף שיכול האדם להתנות למחול צער גופו כדא' בקמא פ' החובל ה\"ד ליפטר החובל או המזיק מהתשלומין אם הזיקו. אבל אין שום תנאי מועיל לגוף שיהי' מותר לכתחיל' לשום יהודי לסגף גוף חברו או לעשות לו שום צער בגופו, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן טו</b><br>דבר ידוע וברור שכל אדם יכול לצאת מן העיר שדרכו ללכת ולדור בעיר אחרת. ושאין בני העיר האחרת יכולים לעכב עליו מלבא לדור אצלם כי לא קנאוהו בחזקה ויבא מי שיבא ויתעסק ברבית או באיזה סחורה או באיזה מלאכ' שירצ', ואין בני העיר יכולים לדחותם מעל גבולם בטענה שהוא מונע ומפסיד חנותם כי לא לבדם נתנה הארץ. ואינו דומה לבר מבוי הנכנס למבוי אחר שיוכל למונעו שלא יכנס באותו מבוי לעשות חנות אצל חנותו כשאינו פורע מס בעיר ההיא אבל אם רוצה לפרוע ולדור עמהם פשיט' שאינם יכולים לעכבו. ובארץ שכול' לשר א' שכולם פורעים לו המס המוטל עליהם, בני עיר א' יכולים לעשות עסקם בעיר אחרת אף שאינם דרים שם. סברה ( עיין ב\"י חו\"מ סימן ק\"ט):",
+        "<b>סימן טז</b><br>נשבע להשאיל לחבירו ס' אינו יכול להתיר' בלי דעת חבירו ואם לא השאילו הרי הוא עבריין. והמוצי' שום לעז על שום חכם מפורסם או מחבר לו' שמתוך ספריו למד לעבור על שבוע' זו או לבטל' מוציא לעז ודבה וראוי לנדותו ולייסרו:",
+        "<b>סימן יז</b><br>איש ואשה שכתבו כל נכסיהם לבן קטן שלהם והחזיקוהו בהם חזקה גדול' והבן נתן לאביו ולאמו רשות לדור בקרקעותיו ולתקן אותם ולהוצי' כל מה שיהי' צריך ולפרוע המס המוטל עליהם ומשכנו הם הבתים האלו או הקרקע��ת לשמעון אחר שגדל הבן. ועתה בא הבן בכח מתנתו לערער על שמעון באומרו שלא הי' אביו או אמו יכולים למשכן את שלו, השטר הזה שטר אמנה וגזל הוא ואביו ואמו רשעים וגזלנים הם והשטר הזה שעשו לבנים הוא שטר הברח' כדי לרמות בני אדם ולהפסיד ממונם וחייבי' ב\"ד לנדותם עד שיביאו השטר ההוא לידם ויקרעוהו וכן כל כיוצ' בזה, סברא גם ראיות רבות מתשובות אחרות על כיוצ' בזה:",
+        "<b>סימן יח</b><br>הבא מעצמו מטענתו או מטענת מורשיו לטרוף מב\"ח או מיורשי ב\"ח או מבא כוחו של בעל חובו אינה טריפ', ומוציאין אותו ב\"ד מיד זה שטרף ומעמידין אותה ביד זה שטרפוה ממנו עד שיעמדו ב' לדין ויקוב הדין את ההר וכן כל כיוצ' בזה, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן יט</b><br>לדעת רי\"פ כל משכנתא אסורה לבד משכנת' דסורא שהיא ע\"ד זה שיאריך זמן המשכונ' כל אותם שנים שהסכימו ב' ובהשלם הזמן ההוא תצא המשכונ' מתחת יד המלו' ותחזור לבעל' בלי שום נתינת דמים ושגם הלוה יכול לסלק המלו' בתוך עת שירצ' אף בתוך הזמן שקבעו כשיתן לו מעותיו וינכ' לו המלו' מההלוא' לפי השנים שדר בו. ומשכנת' בנכייתא רש\"י ז\"ל התירה בשדות, לפי שהוא קרוב לשכר וגם להפסד כי פעמים רבות תשתדף השדה ויפסיד הכל, ואסר' בבתים לפי שעל הרוב הבית קיים ועומד והוא קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד. ור\"י ור\"ת מתירין בבית ובשדה:",
+        "<b>סימן כ</b><br>המשאיל או משכן חפץ לחבירו כשירצ' להחזירו לו צריך שיחזירנו הוא בעצמו למי שנתנו לו ואם החזירו על יד אחר אפי' על יד בנו או בתו הגדולים של המפקיד או נפקד אין זה חזרה עד שיגיע ליד המפקיד ואם נאבד או נאנס ביד א' מאלו באחריות הנפקד הוא וחייב לשלמו אם לא שיאמר לו המפקיד שלחה לי בידו ושהי' בו דעת וכ\"ש אם החזירו ע\"י בנו הקטן של מפקיד או של נפקד ונאבד שהוא חייב שזו אבידה מדעת היא שידוע הוא שאין לקטן דעת לשמור. ראיה במציע' פ' המפקיד:",
+        "<b>סימן כא</b><br>אף שאמרו שהמוכר שט\"ח לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואף יורש מוחל, המוכר שטר משכונ' לחבירו וחזר הוא או יורשיו ומחלו אינו מחול אף באתרא דמסלקי. כי כמו שגוף הקרקע קנוי לזה המלוה כך הוא קנוי לזה שמכר' לו והמשכונ' הזו מוחזקת ביד זה המלו' המוכר ואין שטר המשכונ' כשטר חוב כי שטר המשכונ' אינו אלא לראיה בעלמ' לזכרון דברים אבל עיקר המשכונה הוא ביד זה הקונה והוא מוחזק בה והו\"ל למשכון שמשכן ראובן לשמעון ושמעון משכנו ללוי שאין שמעון יכול למחול לראובן שעבוד דמי אותו משכון שכבר זכה בו לוי כשבא לידו. וסתם משכנתא לשנה ראשונ' וכיון שנכנס' לשנה ב' נקראת אתרא דמסלקי ויכול לסלקו בכל עת שירצ' מכאן ולהבא:",
+        "<b>סימן כב</b><br>מי שנשא אשה שידע בה שאינ' בת בנים ונשבע לה שלא לישא אחרת עליה אינו יכול להתיר שבועתו שלא מדעתה כדי לקיים פו\"ר מאחר שכבר ידע בה שפסקה מלדת ונשאה. וכ\"ש אם מחמת רוב ממון נשאה שלא חש בעת ההיא על פו\"ר. ראיה בנדרים:",
+        "<b>סימן כג</b><br>הנשבע להביא לפני ב\"ד כל נכסיו בכתב צריך להביא כל נכסיו באר היטיב ואם לא עשה כן הרי הוא עבריין ופסול לעדות. אם לא מה ששייר מלכתוב הוא דבר מועט שיש מקום לטעון בעדו ולדונו בשוגג. וגם דין הוא שיכלול בשבועתו שיכתוב כל מה שירויח מכאן ולהבא ואם לא כלל זה בשבועתו יכול המלוה להשביעו בכל עת שירצה על העתיד להרויח שיכתבנו ויודיענו לו או לב\"ד. ואם הי' לזה הלוה שטרות על גוים ולא הביאם בכתבו לפי שהיו ביד שליש בעבור עסק או חכירות שיש לו עם שותפו הדין הוא שיעכב השליש השטרות שבידו עד שיעש' הלוה חש' עם השותפין שלו ואם נותר לו דבר אחר שעשו החש' ינתן לב\"ח של זה בעל השטרות ואם השותפים אינם רוצים לבא חש' ולברר דבריהם אז יתן השליש השטרות לבע\"ח של זה ע\"פ ב\"ד וינכה מהשטרות ההם שעל הגוים כי השטרות בכלל נכסים הם. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כד</b><br>פסק רי\"פ דנאמנות שבשטרות אינו מועיל להוציא מיד הלקוחות ולא ינכה המלוה מהם אלא בשבוע' ואין חילוק בזה בין אם קדם הנאמנות ללקוחות ובין שקדם המכר לנאמנות כ\"ש עכשיו שרבו הרמאים. אבל לגבות מיתומים מועיל הנאמנות וגובי' מהם שלא בשבוע' אע\"פי שרבו הלוקחים כן ראוי לדון. ועכ\"ז אם מת ראובן זה המלוה הבא לגבו' מהלקוחות בלי שבו' אחרי ששמעון הלוה המוכר קרקעו עדיין היה קיים בשעת המלוה וכשם שאלו המלוה היה חי היה גובה משמעון בלא שבו' כן בניו גובין ממנו בלא שבו' ועכשיו שמת המלוה ישבעו בניו שבועת היורשים שהיא שבו' שלא פקדנו אבא ויגבו אפי' מהלקוחו'. ואין כאן מקום לומר אין אדם מוריש שבוע' לבניו לפי שהי' המלוה יכול לגבות עיקר הממון מן הלוה שהוא עיקר החיוב בלא חיוב שום שבוע' אלא שאין מוצאין לו מה לגבות וצריך לטרוף מן הלקוחות ולכן לא יאמר בנדון זה אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו. סברא וראיה פ' כל הנשבעין:",
+        "<b>סימן כה</b><br>אחר שאמרו ז\"ל דמשכנתא לית בה דינא דבר מצרא וה\"ט משום דשכונא גביה ואחר שהלו' מעותיו על המשכונה הרי הוא שוכן בה יותר מכל השכנים ולפ\"ז אין חילוק בין שהי' המלוה מוחזק בה ובין שאינו מוחזק כיון שהיא ממושכנת לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כו</b><br>כשם שאין חזקה לקוטר' ובה\"כ לפי שהן נזקין בה גדולים ואין הדעת סובלתן כך אין חזק' לכל נזק גדול בין שיהי' הנזק ההוא כולל את הרבים בין שלא יהא כולל אלא אותו האיש לבדו לפי שאין דעתו סובל הנזק ההוא ומסלקין אותו אעפ\"י שמקום הנזק ההוא ברשות הרבים שהחזיקו בו מעצמן אלו בעלי הנזק או אפי' שיהי' ברשות אלו הגורמים הנזק וכ\"ש אם קבעוהו ברשות זה המערער ושלא מדעתו או אפי' מדעתו שיש לו לסלקו וריח היוצא ממקום הקצבים הרי הוא כקוטרא ובה\"כ. ראיה פ' לא יחפור:",
+        "<b>סימן כז</b><br>אף על גב דיש תקנה דכל חזוקי מקח וממכר ומתנות והלוואות שלא יעשה שום שטר מהם אלא מכ\"י הסופרים שבעיר אין בכלל תקנה זו שטרי מחילה שאנו רואים בכל יום שהמוחל כותב כתב ידו וחותם. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כח</b><br>ראובן שהוציא שט\"ח על שמעון חתום בשני עדים וא' מהם הוא עכשיו חתנו של ראובן ובשעת החיתום לא היה חתנו אם השטר זה היה מקויים או כ\"י של זה העד שהוא עתה חתנו של ראובן נמצא ממקום אחר בענין שאין אנו צריכים לזה העד בעצמו להכיר חתימת ידו השטר כשר ואין אומרים שמא כתבוהו עתה והקדימו הזמן ונמצא שחתמו אחר שנעש' חתנו אין חוששין לזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כט</b><br>מה שהצריך ר\"י לכתוב בגיטין ודין דלהוי ליכי מנאי הוא לב' דברים א' להורות שמגרשה בגט זה ולא בדבור בעלמא ולכן כ' ודין וכן להודיע שהוא מגרשה ולא איש אחר לכן כתב ליכי מנאי ובזו אין הלכ' כר' יהוד' דפשיטא שאינו מגרש אשה שאינ' שלו ומ\"מ נהגו לכותבו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ל</b><br>השטרות שכותבין בני אדם כשמתנין זל\"ז בסך מעות אם יעשו כך וכך או לא יעשו או משלשין אותן ביד שליש ע\"מ שכל מי שלא מקיים התנאי המותנה ביניהם שיתנם השליש לשכנגדו שטר גמור הוא זה ואינו אסמכתא כלל ויגבה הגובה בו כי החיוב בשטר זה הוא בלא תנאי והם האמינו לשליש בדבר הזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לא</b><br>שטר שכתבו בו שפ' בן פ' הכהן לוה מפ' כו\"ך. אין חתימת העדים בשטר ההוא ראיה להחזיקו בכהן אם קראו ערעור על כהונתו. כי אין חשש למלוה אם הלוה הזה כהן או ישראל ולכן לא דקדקו העדים ועל כזה נאמר אין מעלין משטר ליוחסין. וה\"מ לענין כהונה אבל לענין חירות ושחרור אם נכתב השטר על מי שהי' מוחזק לעבד פ' גר צדק לזה מפ' מעלין אותו משטר זה לשחרור והרי הוא בן חורין דודאי דקדקו העדים קודם שחתמו שטר זה כדי שלא להפסידו על אדונו בחתימתן. כי דרך העדים לחקור הענינים יפה קודם שיחתמו עליהם כי כן אמרו חזקה שאין העדים חותמין על השטר אא\"כ נעש' גדול וכן בכל דבר וכשכתבו פ' גר צדק יפה דקדקו קודם שחתמו והרי העידו עליו שהוא בן חורין. וכ\"ש אם אדונו של זה העב' ראה וידע בשט\"ז ולא מיחה שהרי הודה ולכן אם אחר זה טען רבו שהוא מעולם לא שחררו אין שומעין לו אבל כופין אותו לכתוב לו שטר שחרור כדי שלא יפגע בו למחר בשוק ויאמר לו עבדי אתה. והשטרות שמשעבדין העבדים על עצמן עבדים לאדוניהם בסך גדול קודם שחרורם אינו אלא אסמכתא בעלמ' כדי לאיים עליהם כדי שיעבדו אותם אחר שנשתחררו כי כן המנהג ולכן אין גובין מהן שטרות כאלו אחר שיצאו לחירות. ראיה פ' מי שמת ופ' ב' דייני גזילות וקדושין:",
+        "<b>סימן לב</b><br>שתי אחיות שותפות בכל ממונם וחלתה א' וצותה מחמת מיתה ובכלל דבריה צותה לאחותה שתתן כל הבתים שלהן להקדש אחר פטירת עצמה וקבלה עליה לעשות כן וקנו מידה על כן ובאחריות על יורשיה ונתרפאה החולה וחזרה מדבריה ומתה הבריאה אין להקדש זכות בחלק הבריאה שהיתה שמתה עתה עד שתמות זאת שהיתה חולה ונתרפאה כי לא היתה כוונת שום אחת מהן להקדיש הבתים האלו עד אחר מיתת שתיהן והבריא' שמת' צותה מה שצות' על דעת אחות' החול' וכשעמדה הא' מחולייה וחזרה בה בטלה צואתה גם צואת אחות' שנעשית על דעתה עד שימותו שתיהן וכן כל כיוצא בהן. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לג</b><br>אף שהלכ' כאדמון בההיא דהפוסק מעות לחתנו שיכולה הארוס' לומר או כנוס או פטור ושכופין הארוס להוציא' לא מנו כפייה זו בכלל דברים שכופין להוציא לפי שאין הגירוש זה מחמת הבעל כשאר דברים שכופין להוציא רק בסבת חמיו שלא נתן מה שפסק לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לד</b><br>הבעל שאמר לאשתו שתעש' בבגדיה ותכשיטיה שהכניס' לו מאביה או שקנאן הוא לה שתעש' מה שתרצ' אם מכרתן או נתנתן לאחר לא עשתה כלום כי הבעל צריך לכסות אשתו וכשתתן בגדיה הרי הזקיק' לבעל לקנות לה מלבושים אחרים והרי מפסידתו הדמים ההם ולאו כל כמינה לתת בגדיה ולגרום הפסד לבעלה ואין כח בלשון הגרוע הזה שאמר לה להפקיע בגדיה מתחת שעבוד הבעל מכל וכל אם לא שכתב לה בעודה ארוסה כדין נכסי מלוג ומ\"מ מועיל לה לשון זה שתוכל להשאילם או להשכירם או להפקידם ביד אחר אם היא ירצה שמא יקחם הבעל. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לה</b><br>ראובן הוחזק כאן בכנוי א' כאלו תאמר בן שושן או בן יעיש וכיוצא באלו ובארץ מולדתו יש לו כנוי אחר והחזיק על עצמו שטר וכתב בו הכנוי שהוחזק כאן לדבר יכולין עדים לכתוב שטר אחר ע\"ש הכנוי הידוע לו בארצו אף שלא הכיר בו הלוה כנוי זה מעולם ואין אומרים בזה שכבר עשו העדים שליחותן ולא יכתבו עוד שטר אחר מחוב זה אבל כותבין אפי' ק' פעמים אף שלא טעו בשליחותם כי לא נאמר טענת עשו עדים שליחותן כל זמן שלא טעו רק בענין הגט אבל צא [לא] בדברים אחרים והשטר האחרון כשר ויקרעו הא'. סברא.",
+        "<b>סימן לו</b><br>אין להשביע לשום אדם שבוע' לבטל' עד שיתאמ' הדבר שיש לו להשביע עליו בעתו. ולכן ראובן האומר לשמעון שותפו טעי��י עמך בחשבון כו\"ך ושמעון משיבו כבר תבעתני ורציתיך בכו\"ך ופטרתני. שמעון זה נאמן בשבועתו שריצהו ואם הפך השבוע' הזו על ראובן התובע שישבע שלא ריצהו התובע יכול לומר לשמעון תן בב\"ד על מה שאשבע ואשבע וצריך ליתן בב\"ד על מה שישבע התובע שלא ריצהו או ישבע שמעון שריצהו לראובן על תביעה זו ופטרו וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לז</b><br>ראובן אמר לשמעון החליף לי בגד בחתיכ' טובה שיש לך למכור ואני ואתה נתפשר ביחד ונתנ' לו קודם שנתפשרו וגם לא קנו על ענין הפשרה ושמעון תובע תן לי כו\"ך זהובים כי כך נתפשרנו. וראובן טוען כי לא הית' הפשר' הזו בשע' מעשה רק אחריו וגם לא קנו מידו לקיים הפשרה ההיא ואין כאן דין פשרה אם נודע הדבר שהפשרה היתה אחר המעשה וגם לא קנו מידו יכול ראובן לחזור בו מן הפשרה ההיא וידון עמו על תביעתו וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לח</b><br>ראובן נתן לשמעון ואשתו חדר בביתו שידור בו אף שכתוב בשטר שישתמש שמעון ואשתו בחצר ובבור שבחצר וב\"הכ עם שאר בני הבית מעכשיו ועד עולם אם שמעון מת לא ירשו בניו זכותו אחריו מדהוצרך להזכיר בשטר שמעון ואשתו יראה שבא למעט בניהם אחריהם שלא ירשו הזכות ההוא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לט</b><br>כל הבא מעצמו בטענתו או בטענת מורישו (כתוב לעיל סי' י\"ח)",
+        "<b>סימן מ</b><br>ראובן ושמעון שבאו לדין זע\"ז בפני ב\"ד ויצא האחד זכאי ושוב חזר בעל דינו ותבעו לפני ב\"ד אחר אינו זקוק לירד עמו לדין ולא להשיב על טענותיו וגם אין הב\"ד השני רשאי לשמוע דבריו כלל אחר שיצא זכאי מב\"ד הא'. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מא</b><br>יחצאל מצא שטר כתוב על שם ראובן בן יעקב ואינו יודע מה טיבו ישאר השטר בידו עד שיבא אליהו ז\"ל כי אולי של אדם אחר הוא והכתיבו בשם ראובן בן יעקב ולכן אם נתנו יחצאל לראובן בן יעקב וראובן מודה לו יחזירנו ליחצאל ויהא מונח אצלו עד שיבא אליהו ז\"ל ואם ראובן מכחיש דברי יחצאל ואומר שהוא של אביו יגבה השטר ההוא ראובן מאחר שהוא בידו וכתוב ע\"ש אביו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מב</b><br>ראובן שהלוה לגוי מעות ברבית על משכנותיו ובשעת ההלואה הי' שם שמעון ולאחר זמן בא שמעון לבדו ונתן הקרן והרבית לראובן ולקח המשכונות ההם אין כאן חשש רבית כי שלוחו של גוי ומעשה קוף בעלמא הוא במה שנטל המעות מן הגוי ונתן לישראל. ובלבד שלא תהיה שם הערמת רבית ואם יש שם הערמת רבית אסור לעשות כן ועכ\"ז אם כבר נתן שמעון המעות אין ב\"ד מוציאין אותן מידו כלל. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מג</b><br>לא שייך לומר דין קדימה בדבר שאינו בעולם עתה ועתיד לבוא אחר זמן המוקדם והמאוחר שוה בהם ויחלוקו זה הריוח הבא אח\"כ ואם קודם שבא הריוח הזה לעולם נשבע לתת אותו לבע\"ח המאוחר צריך לקיים שבועתו ולתתו לו כי מאותה שעה שנשבע לתת לו קודם זכה בכח ההוא למעכשיו ולכשיבוא, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מד</b><br>גט שיש לו מחקים וקיומים כשר דלא עדיף מס\"ת דאינו נפסל במחקים ותלויות. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מה</b><br>ראובן שמכר לשמעון שטר משכונה שיש לו על לוי וחזר ומחלה ללוי אין מחילתו מחילה כי המשכונה הזו היא כמשכון ודבר פשוט הוא שהמוחל חוב שיש לו על המשכון ומשכנו ביד אחר שאינו מחול, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מו</b><br>אין הקונה קונה במשיכה והגבהה אלא מדעת המוכר ואפי' הוא לבוש המלבוש ההוא או מחזיק החפץ ההוא ולכן ראובן שנתן חפץ לסרסור למכור ומכר הסרסור החפץ ללוי על תנאי ידוע שיתן לוי ערב לקיים תנאו ואם לאו שיחזיר לוי לסרסור החפץ ההוא ולבש לוי המלבוש ��הוא קודם שנתן הערב ואח\"כ בא שמעון ונעש' ערב ללוי וברח לוי אין שמעון יכול לטעון זה הערבות הוא אחר שלבש שמעון המלבוש ההוא והוה ליה כערב דלאחר מתן מעות דאינו משתעבד שאינו חייב כלום שלא על אמונתו הלוהו ויפטר גם הוא מערבות זה כי מאחר שלא רצה ראובן למוכרו ללוי עד שיהי' בטוח במעותיו לא קנאו לו אף שהוא לבוש בו עד שיתערב שמעון בעדו לראובן ולכן הוי שמעון כערב דבשעת מתן מעות דלא בעי קנין ויפרע שמעון זה דמי החפץ ההוא לראובן כפי תנאו, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מז</b><br>שמעון שכתב כל נכסיו לאשתו שתפרע מהם דברים שהיו מוטלות עליו לפרעם בכל שנה ושנה וגם שתתן מה שאמר מנכסיו לעניי' בשביל נפשו ולא הניח ליורשים כלום פריעת החובות האלו ונתינת הצדקה ההיא לא יקרא שיור. ולכן המתנה הזאת היא מתנה בכל בלי שיור ואשתו אינה אלא אפטרופא כמו שאמרו אשתו ואחר לאחר במתנ' ואשתו אפטרופ' אם יש להוכיח מתוך תוספ' לשון השטר שהי' בדעתו ליתן לה במתנה גמור' בטל אומדנא שאנו אומדין שלא עשאה אלא אפטרופא בשביל שיכבדוה והמתנה היא מתנה גמורה וזכתה האשה בכל. ראיה פ' מי שמת וסברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מח</b><br>חכמי אשכנז וצרפת הסכימו שאין לכפות שום אדם לגרש את אשתו בטענת מאיס עלי ולכן אין לשום דיין לכוף לגרש באותה טענה אבל הטוענת שיכופו את בעלה לגרשה מפני שהוא מוכתב למלכות מעירו והוא בורח ממקום למקום להמלט על נפשו מזאת כופין אותו לגרשה וכן בכל אונס שיארע לאדם שאינו יכול להיות עם אשתו בעיר לקיים לה עונתה כופין אותו לגרש וכ\"ש אם עדיין היא ארוסה שלא תנשא לו בעל כרחה. אבל אם רשאי להיות בעירו אף אם מוכתב למלכות בעיר אחרת אין כופין אותו להוציא והבת שאינה רוצה להנשא לארוס שלה בסבת איזו טענה שתהיה אין אב הבת חייב ליתן לארוס שום דבר ממה שפסק עמו שהדברים מוכיחים שלא פסק עמו אלא על דעת שתנשא בתו עמו והרי לא נשאתו והיא אינה ברשותו לכופה שתנשא לו. סברא וראיות רבות בתלמוד:",
+        "<b>סימן מט</b><br>ראובן שמשכן בית לשמעון בנכיתא או הלוה לו על המשכון ובא ראובן מעצמו לשמעון ואמר לו קח מן הבית הזה או מן המשכון כשיעור חובך והשאר החזיר לי אין שומעין לו ויכול שמעון לומר לו מכור את שלך ותתן לי מעותי או תשאר המשכון כמו שהיא ואוכל פירותיה בנכיתא וישאר המשכון עד שתפדנו כי איני רוצה להפקיע שעבודי ואין או' ממארי רשותך אפי' פארי אפרע רק כשהמלוה נוגש ללוה שיפרעהו ואז יקח ממנו המלוה סובין אם נודע שאין לו מעות כי שוה כסף ככסף ואין הלוה בעצמו צריך שימכו' הסובין רק ישומו כמה הן שוים ויקח' המלוה בדמי חובו ולא מבעיא אם הבית שוה יותר מדמי המשכונה שאין הלוה יכול לכוף המלוה שיקחנו בעד חובו ויתן לו המותר אלא אפי' אם אין הבית שוה יותר מכדי דמי החוב אינו יכול לכופו שיקח הבית ממנו בחובו ויחזיר לו שטרו כי יכול לומר איני נוגש אותך לפרוע וגם איני רוצה לקנות קרקע אבל אתה מכור ביתך ופרעני בזה יפו חז\"ל כחו של מלוה כמו שעשו בדברים הרב' מפני נעילת דלת בפני לווין ואם יכריחנו הלוה לקחת קרקע במעותיו שלא כרצונו אין נעילת דלת גדול מזה וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ראיה פ' ד' אבות ופ' הגוזל בתרא:",
+        "<b>סימן נ</b><br>ראובן הי\"ל ב' בתים מב' צידי ר\"ה זה כנגד זה הא' שלו מזמן קדום, הבית הב' שכנגדו קנאו משמעון ואותו הבית פתוח לגנתו של לוי לפי שהחזיקו בכך מימי שמעון ונפל בית זה שהי' של שמעון ועתה רואה ראובן בגנתו של לוי מחלוני בית הא'. אין לוי בעל הגנה יכול לו' לראובן סתום חלונותיך שעתה אתה מזיקיני בזו ראיה חדשה לפי שס\"ס יש לראובן חזקת ראיה על גנתו של לוי מכח הבית שקנ' משמעון ומ\"ל שיראנו מחלוני בית זה או מאחר הרי החזיק עליו בראיה ואין כאן הזק ולא תוס' הזק ראיה שאלו רצה ראובן לחזור ולבנות הבית הזה שנפל שקנה משמעון כבתחילה ולראות בגנה הרשות בידו ודוקא בענין כזה שב' הבתים של ראובן אבל אם אין הבית שכנגד ביתו של ראובן ונפל ורואה בגנה הרי זה הזק חדש וצריך ראובן לסתום חלונותיו כי על המזיק להרחיק עצמו אף שלא פשע בהזק זה לפי שהם גירי דיליה ובכל פעם ופעם עושה לו היזק בראייתו, ראיה פ' לא יחפור:",
+        "<b>סימן נא</b><br>אחז\"ל שדיני ממונות א\"צ דרישה וחקירה כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין אף שכך היה מדין תורה כמ\"ש משפט אחד יהיה לכם ועכ\"ז אם יראה לדיינים באמת לאות מוכיחות קצת שיש צד עדות שקר בעדות העדים צריך לחקור ולדרוש בעדותן כפי עיקר דין תורה. ולכן ראובן שנתחזק לו שטר על שמעון לפרוע לו סך מעות מחציתו לשלשה חדשים ומחציתו לסוף ו' חדשים ונפטר המלוה תוך זמן הפירעון הא' וכשתבעו יורשיו לשמעון החייב הוציא שמעון כתב פירעון חתום בעדים שפרע כל חובו לראובן קודם מותו ודאי העדים אלו צריכים דרישה וחקירה שיש קצת אמתלא שהם עידי שקר שחזק' שאין דרך בני אדם לפרוע חובו קודם הזמן הקצוב לו לפרוע ולכן צריך לחקרם יפה אולי יתברר שקרותם, אחר החקירה אין כח באמתלא זו ולא בחזקה זו לבטל תרי עדים כשירים ועדותן עדות והפרעון פרעון כי אולי נזדמן לו מעות ורוצה לפרוע לו חובו ויכופו ב\"ד ליורשי ראובן להחזיר לשמעון שטרותיו לפי שאסור להשהות שטר פרוע שהוא עולה בתוך ביתו משום שנאמר ואל תשכן באהליך עולה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נב</b><br>המוכר ש\"ח לחבירו בכתיבה ומסירה וסלק עצמו מכח החוב ההוא לגמרי וריקן כל כחו בשט' ההוא ליד הקונה אפ\"ה אם מחלו מחול דלא דמי למעמד שלשתן והמוחל צריך לפרוע לזה הקונה המעות שקבל הימנו ומה שנהגו לכתוב בכל השטרות ולכל מוציא שטר זה אין זה אלא יפוי כח בעלמא הוא ואין זה נקרא דאתי מחמתיה ואין זה המוציא אלא כשליחות בעלמא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נג</b><br>גדולי (מחב\"ר סי' ל\"ט אות ל\"ו) אשכנז הקדמונים אמרו בשם הגאונים שאם נדבקה כל הריאה לדופן בלא פילוש ופרוד ובלי צמחים ואבעבועות סביב לדבוק שהבהמה מותרת בענין שאם יפרידנה מן הדופן בנחת ויבדקנה אם היא עולה בנפיחה כי א\"א שתנקב כל הריאה לארכה כי אז א\"א לחיו' רגע אלא ודאי זה הדבוק היה מחמת מכה שהיתה בדופן ויצאה ממנו לחה ונתיבשה ואז נדבקה הריאה בדופן וכן היו נוהגים באשכנז בימים קדמונים קודם שפשטו שם בעלי התוס'. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נד</b><br>חילוק הסדרים וחיבוריהם הוא כדי שתעלה קריא' כל התור' בשנה אחת ולכן כל חכם בעירו או בארצו חיבר והפריד הסדרים כפי הסדר שראה שהוא הנאות ואין הסדור ההוא הלכה קבועה רק מנהג ואינו חובה לשנות מנהג הנהוג בברכה לקיים סי' סגרו ופסחו וכן כל כיוצא בזה בשאר הסימנין, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נה</b><br>לטייל בשבת במבוי שיש בו ערוב בלי כסוי הראש ובלי סרבל כמו בחול תלוי במנהג ואם נהגו לטייל מנהג יפה הוא ואין להקל בו כי מנהג כשר הוא לשנות עטיפת שבת מעטיפת של חול ומנהג אבותינו תורה היא. ראיה פ' מקום שנהגו:",
+        "<b>סימן נו</b><br>שבת שבתוך ז' ימי החופה הוא כפנים חדשות ומברכין בו ז' ברכות וכל שבת שיש בו ב' פרשיות לעולם מפטירין מענין אותה פ' שקורין באחרונה וכן הדין בסדרים שמפטירין מעין סדר האחרון. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נז</b><br>מבואות היהודים המתוקני' כהלכתן במקומות שהן פתוחין לבין הגוים בצורת פתח וכן מבואות היהודים המפולשים ופתוחים זל\"ז ומתוקני' כהלכתן מדין מבוי מעוק' מותר לטלטל בכל המבואות כאשר ישתתפו יחד הבתי' והחצירות כדין שתופי מבואות, ואין צריך לעשות דקה לפני ביתו של מי שלא ערב להפרידו מן האחרים כדי שלא יאסור עליהן כי אין זה דומה לעיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים וכן אם הגוים הדרים חוץ למגרש היהודים אוסרים על היהודים שבמגרש שנתקן כהלכ' כי אין כל העיר חשוב' כחצר א' לאסור אלו על אלו אע\"פי שהכל תחת הקף חומה אחת. סברא: (הביאה ב\"י א\"ח סי' שצ\"ב ויש ט\"ס כאן ע\"ש)",
+        "<b>סימן נח</b><br>נתברר מדברי רבינו מאיר מרוטנבורק שבירר מתוספתא דמקוואות שבנקב כל שהוא שניקב הכלי בתחתיתו שנתבטל מתורת כלי לענין שאוב' שאין המים שבתוכו נקראי' עוד שאובי' ולפ\"ז היה אפ' לעשות לכתחילה מקוה ולהביא כל מימיו על ידי כלי מנוקב משוליו בנקב כל שהוא אחרי שהכלי ההיא אינו מחזיק מימיו ועכ\"ז א' הרב שלא רצה לעשות מעשה. ואני הכותב אומר שראוי לסמוך על הוראה זו לשעת הדחק במקום שא\"א לעשות בענין אחר ראיה בתוספתא דמקוואות מקסטלון המקלח בכרכים וממעין היוצא לתלמיד וכו':",
+        "<b>סימן נט</b><br>הדג המתוקן בשמן ובצלים ודבש הכל חשוב כתבשיל א' ומותר לאוכלו בערב ט' באב בסעוד' המפסקת ואין כאן משום ב' תבשילין סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ס</b><br>מי שיש לו כאב בגרונו מותר לסוכו בשמן חזירא כי לא נאמר סיכה בכלל שתייה רק בסיכה של תענוג וזו אינה של תענוג. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סא</b><br>מי שיש לו ב' בתים מב' צידי ר\"ה ומתחת א' הוא מרתף או אצטבה וכותליו הם של איש אחר ורוצה בעל ב' הבתים לבנות גשר מבית לבית וסותר הכותל ופותח פתח ומוציא מן הכותל אבנים ועפר כשיעור גובה השער ורוחבו ומניח ראשי קורותיו על פתיחת כותל בית זה מצד אחד וראשיהן הב' על פתיחת כותל בית זה הב' ואם בעל המרתף או אצט' בא לומר שאינו רוצה שיונחו ראשי הקורות ההם בפתיחת הכותל ההיא לפי שהוא מרתף או אצט' שלו רואין אם יש בכובד ראשי הקורות ההם והנמשך אחריהם נותר מכובד אבנים ועפר המוציאין מן הכותל הדין עם בעל המרתף או האצטבא ואם יש בעפר או באבנים המוציאים כשיעור כובד הקורות והנמשך אחריהם או יותר אז אין כח לבעל המרתף או האצטבא לעכב לבעל הגשר לבנות בנינו כי מה שמכביד בהנחת הקורות על הכותל מקל בהסרת האבנים והעפר שלו מן הכותל שהוא על האצטבא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סב</b><br>בע\"ח המוקדם הבא לב\"ד להגבות לו חובו ושמו והחליטו לו ב\"ד קרקעות של לוה בחובו, ובא אח\"כ בע\"ח המאוחר וא' שרוצה להעלות על דמי השומא ההיא יותר ממה ששמוה על פי ב\"ד ויוציא הקרקע מיד בע\"ח המוקדם ויפרע לו חובו אין שומעין לו שמאחר שבא קרקע זה ליד בע\"ח המוקדם ע\"י שומא והכרזה והחלטת ב\"ד הרי זה כמכר גמור ודומה שגבה קרקע זה בחובו וקנאו קנין גמור וא\"צ להחזירו כי לא יבטל מקחו של זה המוקדם בשביל עלוי דמים של זה המאוחר וכן הדין בעצמו באפטר' שמכר קרקע יתומים בדמי שיוויה של אותה שעה לפרוע חוב קדום ובא בע\"ח מאוחר להוסיף על דמי המקח ההוא כדי להוציאו מתחת יד הלוקח שאין שומעין לו לפי שהפסיד ונזק גדול הוא ללוקח כשמסלקין אותו בדמים מן הקרקע שקנה לפי שהוכרח למכור חפציו או קרקעותיו בזול כדי לקנות קרקע זה ואפי' לא הוצרך למכור הרי הגיע לו הפסד ונזק במה שהי' יכול להרויח במעותיו כל אותו הזמן שה��' ביד המוכר ונזק גמור הוא ואין אומרים לזה הלוקח שיקבל שום נזק כדי להרויח לבע\"ח המאוחר. וכן מי שקנה קרקע באלף זהובים ופרע מקצתם וחזר בו המוכר צריך שיחזיר לו מעותיו בעין או יתן לו קרקע מעידית שבנכסיו לפי שהמוכר הזה הוא המזיק ואינו כשאר בע\"ח להגבות בבינונית וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ראיה פ' מי שהי' נשוי ופרק האומנין. אבל אם בע\"ח המאוחר בא לב\"ד קודם שהחליטו קרקעות הלזה לבע\"ח המוקדם ואומר למוקדם אם שוה לך קרקעות בדמי חובך וחובי טול הקרקע ותן לי מעותי או אני אטול אותו בדמי חובך וחובו ואתן לך מעותיך שומעין לו כי עד עתה אין כאן מכר גמור בקרקע זה למוקדם אחר שלא הספיקו ב\"ד להחליטו לו טרם בא זה ולכן לא נקרא לו שם לוקח על קרקע זה וגם אין לבע\"ח המוקד' שום הפסד בזה כי ס\"ס הרי הוא גובה כל חובו משלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ראיה פ' מי שהיה נשוי:",
+        "<b>סימן סג</b><br>מה שאחז\"ל שהשומא חוזרת ללוה לעולם משום ועשית הישר והטוב ה\"ד כשתשאר נחלתו בידו כגון שטרח והביא מעות ופדה נחלתו שנשאר מאבותיו או שדה שקנה או טרח בעבודתו שחביבה עליו כנחלת אבות דאז הוא הישר והטוב שישאר בשלו אבל אם בא איש אחר וא' ללוה החזיר השומא אליך ואני אקחנה בכפלים ממה ששמוה ונתרצה הלוה בכך אין בע\"ח ששמוה לו חייב להחזי' לו כי לא תקנו הישר והטוב כדי להרויח ללוה הדמים יתרים. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סד</b><br>הלוה שמכר מעצמו קרקעו לבע\"ח בגביי' חובו שלא בב\"ד ומכרה בכדי שוויה בענין שלא יראה שום תחבולה במכירה זו להפקיע זכותו של בע\"ח המאוחר שוב אינו מחזיר' ללוה אחר שהוא מכר' בעצמו לבעל חובו, ראיה מהרי\"ף פרק המפקיד:"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Siman"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Chazeh Hatenufa/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+    "title": "Chazeh Hatenufa",
+    "language": "he",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Chazeh_Hatenufa",
+    "text": [
+        "<b>חדיא דארמותא</b><br>אמר הצעיר וזעיר <b>חדי\"א</b> דארמותא ידעי רבנן אשר מרן בבית יוסף מעלה בזכור\"ו כמה זמני ספר <b>חזה התנופה</b>. ונעלם דבר למאן אימ\"ר והאי ספרא היולדה והמחזיקה גלגלת א' שצפ\"ה ברוח חכמה מאן ניהו מר דן את הדין אפיק שפ\"ה. איכו השתא תא חז\"ה התנופה על יד חדי\"א דארמות' דאפיק לחירות\"א חרות על הלוחות פוריה וענפה.<br><b>הגדתי</b> היום כי ספר זה קראו בשמו מחברו הרב <b>ר' משה ברושיליי\"ש זלה\"ה</b> יען כי קצר קצר שו\"ת <b>הרא\"ש</b> ז\"ל לפום חורפא. המורם מהם כותב ומעלה ויהי הקצר אמיץ הכי קרא שמו <b>חזה התנופה</b> אשר הורם מזבחי תורת שלמי רבינו אדונינו <b>הרא\"ש</b> ז\"ל אגב אסיפ\"ה. ועל כל תשובה כתב ראיה או סברא לרמוז אם תשו' זו הביא עליה ראיה או דן כן מסבר' גל\"י ומלפ'. וקיצורי התשובות אשר ישנם באורך בדפוס אינם נצרכים לא נצרכה אלא לקונטריס אשר בסוף הס' קיצור תשובות הרא\"ש שלא נדפסו ולא אתנו יודע חבל על אילפ\"א. ומהקונטרס הזה זמנין דמייתי מיניה מרן בבית יוסף ויען בל ימצא אף בב\"י כי אם לאחד בריבוא נפשי אוותה משום כיסופ\"א. אמרתי אעלה חז\"ה הוית על מזבח הדפוס כאן ברדופה. וראה בעיניך מ\"ש מרן בב\"י י\"ד סי' רכ\"ח קודם דין נדר שעל דעת רבים שכ' וז\"ל כתוב בס\"ד דינים שבסוף ס' חזה התנופה ע\"ש וקונטריס זה ישנו בהקפה. והרב המקצר הרב ר' משה ברושילייש ז\"ל זכרו כיין לבנון בשאלת הריב\"ש סימן ר\"ט לקבל אלפ\"א.<br><b>סימן א</b><br>ראובן תבע לשמעון מנה וכפר בו שמעון והביא ראובן עדים וראיה לדבריו ואומר שמעון שהעדים אלו הודו בפני עדים שיש להם חלק בחוב זה שתובע ראובן לשמעון. אם נודע דקודם שהעידו לראובן הודו שיש להם חלק בחוב זה אז אין עדותם עדות כי הם נוגעים בעדותם והנה הא' בע\"ד וב' עדים. אבל אם כבר העידו לראובן קודם (שהודו) שאין להם חלק בחוב הזה, שוב אינם נאמנים לומר שיש להם חלק בחוב זה כדי להפסיד זכותו של ראובן בעדות זה אחר שבתחילה העידו כדברי ראובן. סברא",
+        "<b>סימן ב</b><br>לוי יש לו שטר על בת שמעון ומכר שמעון לראובן ביתו לפני לוי וראובן סתר ובנה בו לפני לוי ולוי עצמו הי' ממונה על אותו בנין בכל זה לא הפסיד לוי זכותו ויכול להוצי' שטרו המוקדם למקחו של ראובן וינכ' חובו מהבית ההוא. כי יכול להיות שלא מצא מקום לנכות חובו עד עתה לאיזה סבה שתהי' ובהתאחר הזמן לא הפסיד לוי זכותו וכן כל כיוצ' בזה. ראיה מדברי אדמון פ' ב' דייני:",
+        "<b>סימן ג</b><br>מי שקבל עליו להחזיק לחבירו על עצמו שטר בסך ידוע ושיתן לו ערב בשטר ואם לא יעשה כן שיפרע כך וכך קנס והחזי' עליו בשטר. שכנגדו טוען שלא נתן לו ערב ולכן יתחייב בקנס והלוה טוען שנתן לו ערב בשטר מבלעדי השטר הא' שהחזיק על עצמו ושהערב הלך למדינת הים אם יש בעיר עדים ידועים וסופרים ידועים שלא יכתב ולא יחתם שום דבר חזוק זולתי על ידיהם אף זה הדבר יתברר על ידיהם אם כנים דבריו שנתן ערב בשטר ואין כאן מקום להשביעו. אבל אם אין עדים וסופרים מיוחדים בעיר אז צריך להזכיר שם הערב שאומר שנתן ושם הסופר והעדים שעש' שטר על ידם וישבע שהוא כדברי' אם לא מצא אותם באות' שעה ויפטר מן הקנס כי אין אדם נאמן לו' לחבירו פרעתיך בפני פ' ופ' והלכו למדינ' הים. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ד</b><br>אעפ\"י שהנותן גט לאשתו בתנאי שלא תלכי לבית אביך הגט כשר והתנאי קיים, אפ\"ה אין לשום אדם להשתדל בגט שינתן ב��נאי כזה כי אין ספק שלא יתקיים תנאי זה שא\"א לה שתעמוד על נפשה מלכת לבית אביה ונמצ' גט בטל ובני' ממזרים. ואם המגרש הזה הוא מאלו שכופין לגרש ולא רצה לגרש רק בתנאי זה אין שומעין לו וכופין אותו לגרש בלא תנאי זה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ה</b><br>ראובן נכנס לדור בבית שמעון שלא מדעתו כי ראה שהיה הבית רעוע נטוי ליפול והחזיק בו ובנה בו והצילו מסכנת נפילה גם ציירו וכיירו. אם בא עתה שמעון להוציאו מביתו אינו יכול להוציאו מסכנת נפילה וע\"פ שומת הבנאין שיראו הבנין שבנה ויראו איזה בנין בנה לצורך הבי' להצילו מנפילה וישומו דמי ההוצאה ויפרענהשמעון לראובן ואז יוציאנו מן הבית. אבל אם בנה ראובן חדרים ועליות להנאתו וצייר וכייר ושאר דברים שלא היו צריכים לבית להצילו מן הנפיל' אין שמעון חייב לפרוע לו דבר אלא אומר לו טול עציך ואבניך וציוריך וכיוריך ואף אם הי' הבית מצוייר ומכויר מתחילתו כי הציור והכיור אינו לחזק הבנין כי אם לנוי בעלמ' לכן אין שמעון מחוייב לפרוע לו דבר מההוצא' ההיא שהוציא מעצמו ומדעתו ויקח ציורו וכיורו וילך לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ו</b><br>מי שהוצי' שטר על חבירו ואין השטר ההוא מתקיים בב\"ד אלא ע\"פ עדים החתומים לפי שאין כ\"י יוצא ממקום אחר וגם אין עדים להכיר חתימת ידיהם וא מן העדים אומר שעל כך וכך או על תנאי כו\"ך חתם השטר ההוא ובאותו הדעת או אותו תנאי מתבטל השטר ההוא שנעש' סתם. השטר הזה בטל לגמרי ולא יגבה דבר מאותו שטר כשיקיים זה הלוה ויכופו המלו' לקרוע השטר ההוא כי העד עקר השטר לגמרי בתנאי זה והוא נאמן אחר שאין השטר הזה יכול להתקיים זולתו ולכן השטר הזה בטל וכ\"ש אם יש עדים שהוד' המלו' שלא נעש' השטר ההוא רק על אותו תנאי או על אותו דעת שאמ' העד כי הודא' בע\"ד כק' עדים דמי וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ז</b><br>מי שנשבע לפרוע לחברו ממון לזמן ידוע ובעל הממון מתירא שמא יעבור על שבועתו שלא יפרענו בזמנו ויש אמתלא ורגלים לדבר ויש מקום לחששה זו. דין הוא שיטילו קנס על הנשבע הזה גם לאיימו באיום גדול שיפרע בזמנו שלא יעבור על שבועתו ויכו אותו עד שתצא נפשו ויקיים שבועתו כי עונשי השבוע' חמור מאוד כחייבי כריתות ומיתות בית דין שהרי נזדעזע העולם בשעה שנאמר לא תשא. סברא וראיה פ\"ב דיומא:",
+        "<b>סימן ח</b><br>מה שפסקו רוב החכמים שמסדרין לבע\"ח ה\"ד בשלא נשבע לפרוע אבל אם נשבע לפרוע לד\"ה אין מסדרין לו והוא בעצמו חיי' למכור כל מה שיש לו אפי' חלוק ומכנסיים ואבנט שלו לפרוע לבע\"ח ויתפלש באפר ולא יעבור על שבועתו ואם לא עשה כן הרי זה עבריין ולא יקרא אונס להיפטר משבוע' בעוד שיש לו איזה דבר ברשותו שימכור אפי' עד שוה פרוט'. סברא: (עיין ב\"י חו\"מ סוף סימן צ\"ז)",
+        "<b>סימן ט</b><br>ראובן שיש לו שטר על שמעון בסך זהובים ונתפשרו ביחד שיותרו מהם מקצתם על תנאי שהנשאר מן החוב יפרע לג' או ד' זמנים ידועים והושם השטר ע\"י שליש שאם לא יפרע בכל זמן וזמן מה שהתנ' עמו שיחזיר השליש השטר למלוה ויגבהו מושלם ולא ינכה לו מחובו מה שפרע כבר. ופרע שמעון מהחוב למועד אשר יעדו ובזמן א' מן הזמנים לא פרע אותו סך שהי\"ל לפרוע והמלו' תובע מהשליש השטר כפי תנאו, תנאי ממון הוא זה ואין כאן אסמכת' ויקיים השליש שלישותו כפי מה שהושלש בידו ויחזירהו למלו' שטרו ויגבהו מושלם. כי לא מחל לו המותר אלא על דעת שיקיים תנאו שהתנ' עמו, וכן כל כיוצ' בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן י</b><br>ראובן, שמעון לוי שהי' לכל א' מהם לבדו חוב ידוע על גוי וכ�� א' שלח האינטריג אדור לבית הגוי הזה ועשה מעש' ומשכן בבית אותו הגוי משכון ואין אנו יודעים מי הוא המוקדם והמאוחר באותו אינטריג' זולתי עפ\"י הגוי הממשכן שמשכן תחלה בעדו זה המשכון והמשכון אינו תחת יד שום א' מהם, כל מי שיאמר הגוי הממשכן שהוא הראשון שמשכן תחל' בעדו זכה במשכון ההוא כי הוא וגם סופרי הגוים שהולכים עמו ממונים ע\"ז מפי המלך ודינא דמלכותא דינא ולכן הוא נאמן בכל מה שיאמר בנדון הזה אחר שאין לנו מקום לדעת אמיתות דבר בעדי ישראל, וכן כל כיוצ' בזה:",
+        "<b>סימן יא</b><br>הנשבע שלא ישחוק בשום שחוק. הנקר' בלעז אפושטאר ובערבי כטאר הוא מכלל השחוק כי כל השחוק של קוביא הוא בכלל ועיקר השבוע' היתה להמנע מכל שחוק המביא לידי הפסד ממון, ראיה פ' זה בורר:",
+        "<b>סימן יב</b><br>ההקדש שמפקיע מידי שעבוד היינו הקדש קדושי הגוף למזבח וכן הקונמות וכל איסור הנאסר לכל ואין לו התר עולמית כגון הכלים שהם הבגדים הפורשי' על המת כל אלו מפקיעין מידי שעבוד אבל המקדיש קדוש' דמים כגון שהקדיש לבדק הבית אותו הקדש אינו מפקיע מידי שעבו'. ראיה פ' אלמנ' לכ\"ג ומציע' פ' הזהב:",
+        "<b>סימן יג</b><br>מי שיש לו עליו כתובת אשה ובע\"ח שזמנם שוה ויש לו קרקע ומעות, ואין בקרקע לבדו ולא במעות לבדם כדי לפרוע ב'. הדין הוא שיחלק לב\"ח במעות ולכתובת אשה קרקע. ואם אין בכל נכסיו רק כדי לפרוע לא' מהם לבד וגם אין בהן קדימה ינתן הכל לבע\"ח משום נעילת דלת בפני לווין ולא ינתן לאשה כי יותר משהאיש רוצה לישא אשה רוצה להינשא, ראיה פ' הכותב:",
+        "<b>סימן יד</b><br>לוה שקבל על עצמו ליאסר בבית האסורים, אסור למלו' למוסרו בידי גוים להאסר ביד גוים כי אף שיכול האדם להתנות למחול צער גופו כדא' בקמא פ' החובל ה\"ד ליפטר החובל או המזיק מהתשלומין אם הזיקו. אבל אין שום תנאי מועיל לגוף שיהי' מותר לכתחיל' לשום יהודי לסגף גוף חברו או לעשות לו שום צער בגופו, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן טו</b><br>דבר ידוע וברור שכל אדם יכול לצאת מן העיר שדרכו ללכת ולדור בעיר אחרת. ושאין בני העיר האחרת יכולים לעכב עליו מלבא לדור אצלם כי לא קנאוהו בחזקה ויבא מי שיבא ויתעסק ברבית או באיזה סחורה או באיזה מלאכ' שירצ', ואין בני העיר יכולים לדחותם מעל גבולם בטענה שהוא מונע ומפסיד חנותם כי לא לבדם נתנה הארץ. ואינו דומה לבר מבוי הנכנס למבוי אחר שיוכל למונעו שלא יכנס באותו מבוי לעשות חנות אצל חנותו כשאינו פורע מס בעיר ההיא אבל אם רוצה לפרוע ולדור עמהם פשיט' שאינם יכולים לעכבו. ובארץ שכול' לשר א' שכולם פורעים לו המס המוטל עליהם, בני עיר א' יכולים לעשות עסקם בעיר אחרת אף שאינם דרים שם. סברה ( עיין ב\"י חו\"מ סימן ק\"ט):",
+        "<b>סימן טז</b><br>נשבע להשאיל לחבירו ס' אינו יכול להתיר' בלי דעת חבירו ואם לא השאילו הרי הוא עבריין. והמוצי' שום לעז על שום חכם מפורסם או מחבר לו' שמתוך ספריו למד לעבור על שבוע' זו או לבטל' מוציא לעז ודבה וראוי לנדותו ולייסרו:",
+        "<b>סימן יז</b><br>איש ואשה שכתבו כל נכסיהם לבן קטן שלהם והחזיקוהו בהם חזקה גדול' והבן נתן לאביו ולאמו רשות לדור בקרקעותיו ולתקן אותם ולהוצי' כל מה שיהי' צריך ולפרוע המס המוטל עליהם ומשכנו הם הבתים האלו או הקרקעות לשמעון אחר שגדל הבן. ועתה בא הבן בכח מתנתו לערער על שמעון באומרו שלא הי' אביו או אמו יכולים למשכן את שלו, השטר הזה שטר אמנה וגזל הוא ואביו ואמו רשעים וגזלנים הם והשטר הזה שעשו לבנים הוא שטר הברח' כדי לרמות בני אדם ו��הפסיד ממונם וחייבי' ב\"ד לנדותם עד שיביאו השטר ההוא לידם ויקרעוהו וכן כל כיוצ' בזה, סברא גם ראיות רבות מתשובות אחרות על כיוצ' בזה:",
+        "<b>סימן יח</b><br>הבא מעצמו מטענתו או מטענת מורשיו לטרוף מב\"ח או מיורשי ב\"ח או מבא כוחו של בעל חובו אינה טריפ', ומוציאין אותו ב\"ד מיד זה שטרף ומעמידין אותה ביד זה שטרפוה ממנו עד שיעמדו ב' לדין ויקוב הדין את ההר וכן כל כיוצ' בזה, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן יט</b><br>לדעת רי\"פ כל משכנתא אסורה לבד משכנת' דסורא שהיא ע\"ד זה שיאריך זמן המשכונ' כל אותם שנים שהסכימו ב' ובהשלם הזמן ההוא תצא המשכונ' מתחת יד המלו' ותחזור לבעל' בלי שום נתינת דמים ושגם הלוה יכול לסלק המלו' בתוך עת שירצ' אף בתוך הזמן שקבעו כשיתן לו מעותיו וינכ' לו המלו' מההלוא' לפי השנים שדר בו. ומשכנת' בנכייתא רש\"י ז\"ל התירה בשדות, לפי שהוא קרוב לשכר וגם להפסד כי פעמים רבות תשתדף השדה ויפסיד הכל, ואסר' בבתים לפי שעל הרוב הבית קיים ועומד והוא קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד. ור\"י ור\"ת מתירין בבית ובשדה:",
+        "<b>סימן כ</b><br>המשאיל או משכן חפץ לחבירו כשירצ' להחזירו לו צריך שיחזירנו הוא בעצמו למי שנתנו לו ואם החזירו על יד אחר אפי' על יד בנו או בתו הגדולים של המפקיד או נפקד אין זה חזרה עד שיגיע ליד המפקיד ואם נאבד או נאנס ביד א' מאלו באחריות הנפקד הוא וחייב לשלמו אם לא שיאמר לו המפקיד שלחה לי בידו ושהי' בו דעת וכ\"ש אם החזירו ע\"י בנו הקטן של מפקיד או של נפקד ונאבד שהוא חייב שזו אבידה מדעת היא שידוע הוא שאין לקטן דעת לשמור. ראיה במציע' פ' המפקיד:",
+        "<b>סימן כא</b><br>אף שאמרו שהמוכר שט\"ח לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואף יורש מוחל, המוכר שטר משכונ' לחבירו וחזר הוא או יורשיו ומחלו אינו מחול אף באתרא דמסלקי. כי כמו שגוף הקרקע קנוי לזה המלוה כך הוא קנוי לזה שמכר' לו והמשכונ' הזו מוחזקת ביד זה המלו' המוכר ואין שטר המשכונ' כשטר חוב כי שטר המשכונ' אינו אלא לראיה בעלמ' לזכרון דברים אבל עיקר המשכונה הוא ביד זה הקונה והוא מוחזק בה והו\"ל למשכון שמשכן ראובן לשמעון ושמעון משכנו ללוי שאין שמעון יכול למחול לראובן שעבוד דמי אותו משכון שכבר זכה בו לוי כשבא לידו. וסתם משכנתא לשנה ראשונ' וכיון שנכנס' לשנה ב' נקראת אתרא דמסלקי ויכול לסלקו בכל עת שירצ' מכאן ולהבא:",
+        "<b>סימן כב</b><br>מי שנשא אשה שידע בה שאינ' בת בנים ונשבע לה שלא לישא אחרת עליה אינו יכול להתיר שבועתו שלא מדעתה כדי לקיים פו\"ר מאחר שכבר ידע בה שפסקה מלדת ונשאה. וכ\"ש אם מחמת רוב ממון נשאה שלא חש בעת ההיא על פו\"ר. ראיה בנדרים:",
+        "<b>סימן כג</b><br>הנשבע להביא לפני ב\"ד כל נכסיו בכתב צריך להביא כל נכסיו באר היטיב ואם לא עשה כן הרי הוא עבריין ופסול לעדות. אם לא מה ששייר מלכתוב הוא דבר מועט שיש מקום לטעון בעדו ולדונו בשוגג. וגם דין הוא שיכלול בשבועתו שיכתוב כל מה שירויח מכאן ולהבא ואם לא כלל זה בשבועתו יכול המלוה להשביעו בכל עת שירצה על העתיד להרויח שיכתבנו ויודיענו לו או לב\"ד. ואם הי' לזה הלוה שטרות על גוים ולא הביאם בכתבו לפי שהיו ביד שליש בעבור עסק או חכירות שיש לו עם שותפו הדין הוא שיעכב השליש השטרות שבידו עד שיעש' הלוה חש' עם השותפין שלו ואם נותר לו דבר אחר שעשו החש' ינתן לב\"ח של זה בעל השטרות ואם השותפים אינם רוצים לבא חש' ולברר דבריהם אז יתן השליש השטרות לבע\"ח של זה ע\"פ ב\"ד וינכה מהשטרות ההם שעל הגוים כי השטרות בכלל נכסים הם. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כד</b><br>פסק רי\"פ דנאמנות שבשטרות אינו מועיל להוציא מיד הלקוחות ולא ינכה המלוה מהם אלא בשבוע' ואין חילוק בזה בין אם קדם הנאמנות ללקוחות ובין שקדם המכר לנאמנות כ\"ש עכשיו שרבו הרמאים. אבל לגבות מיתומים מועיל הנאמנות וגובי' מהם שלא בשבוע' אע\"פי שרבו הלוקחים כן ראוי לדון. ועכ\"ז אם מת ראובן זה המלוה הבא לגבו' מהלקוחות בלי שבו' אחרי ששמעון הלוה המוכר קרקעו עדיין היה קיים בשעת המלוה וכשם שאלו המלוה היה חי היה גובה משמעון בלא שבו' כן בניו גובין ממנו בלא שבו' ועכשיו שמת המלוה ישבעו בניו שבועת היורשים שהיא שבו' שלא פקדנו אבא ויגבו אפי' מהלקוחו'. ואין כאן מקום לומר אין אדם מוריש שבוע' לבניו לפי שהי' המלוה יכול לגבות עיקר הממון מן הלוה שהוא עיקר החיוב בלא חיוב שום שבוע' אלא שאין מוצאין לו מה לגבות וצריך לטרוף מן הלקוחות ולכן לא יאמר בנדון זה אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו. סברא וראיה פ' כל הנשבעין:",
+        "<b>סימן כה</b><br>אחר שאמרו ז\"ל דמשכנתא לית בה דינא דבר מצרא וה\"ט משום דשכונא גביה ואחר שהלו' מעותיו על המשכונה הרי הוא שוכן בה יותר מכל השכנים ולפ\"ז אין חילוק בין שהי' המלוה מוחזק בה ובין שאינו מוחזק כיון שהיא ממושכנת לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כו</b><br>כשם שאין חזקה לקוטר' ובה\"כ לפי שהן נזקין בה גדולים ואין הדעת סובלתן כך אין חזק' לכל נזק גדול בין שיהי' הנזק ההוא כולל את הרבים בין שלא יהא כולל אלא אותו האיש לבדו לפי שאין דעתו סובל הנזק ההוא ומסלקין אותו אעפ\"י שמקום הנזק ההוא ברשות הרבים שהחזיקו בו מעצמן אלו בעלי הנזק או אפי' שיהי' ברשות אלו הגורמים הנזק וכ\"ש אם קבעוהו ברשות זה המערער ושלא מדעתו או אפי' מדעתו שיש לו לסלקו וריח היוצא ממקום הקצבים הרי הוא כקוטרא ובה\"כ. ראיה פ' לא יחפור:",
+        "<b>סימן כז</b><br>אף על גב דיש תקנה דכל חזוקי מקח וממכר ומתנות והלוואות שלא יעשה שום שטר מהם אלא מכ\"י הסופרים שבעיר אין בכלל תקנה זו שטרי מחילה שאנו רואים בכל יום שהמוחל כותב כתב ידו וחותם. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כח</b><br>ראובן שהוציא שט\"ח על שמעון חתום בשני עדים וא' מהם הוא עכשיו חתנו של ראובן ובשעת החיתום לא היה חתנו אם השטר זה היה מקויים או כ\"י של זה העד שהוא עתה חתנו של ראובן נמצא ממקום אחר בענין שאין אנו צריכים לזה העד בעצמו להכיר חתימת ידו השטר כשר ואין אומרים שמא כתבוהו עתה והקדימו הזמן ונמצא שחתמו אחר שנעש' חתנו אין חוששין לזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן כט</b><br>מה שהצריך ר\"י לכתוב בגיטין ודין דלהוי ליכי מנאי הוא לב' דברים א' להורות שמגרשה בגט זה ולא בדבור בעלמא ולכן כ' ודין וכן להודיע שהוא מגרשה ולא איש אחר לכן כתב ליכי מנאי ובזו אין הלכ' כר' יהוד' דפשיטא שאינו מגרש אשה שאינ' שלו ומ\"מ נהגו לכותבו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ל</b><br>השטרות שכותבין בני אדם כשמתנין זל\"ז בסך מעות אם יעשו כך וכך או לא יעשו או משלשין אותן ביד שליש ע\"מ שכל מי שלא מקיים התנאי המותנה ביניהם שיתנם השליש לשכנגדו שטר גמור הוא זה ואינו אסמכתא כלל ויגבה הגובה בו כי החיוב בשטר זה הוא בלא תנאי והם האמינו לשליש בדבר הזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לא</b><br>שטר שכתבו בו שפ' בן פ' הכהן לוה מפ' כו\"ך. אין חתימת העדים בשטר ההוא ראיה להחזיקו בכהן אם קראו ערעור על כהונתו. כי אין חשש למלוה אם הלוה הזה כהן או ישראל ולכן לא דקדקו העדים ועל כזה נאמר אין מעלין משטר ליוחסין. וה\"מ לענין כהונה אבל לענין חירות ושחרור אם נכתב השטר על מי שהי' מוחזק לעבד פ' גר צדק לזה מפ' מעלין אותו משטר זה לשחרור והרי הוא בן חורין דודאי דקדקו העדים קודם שחתמו שטר זה כדי שלא להפסידו על אדונו בחתימתן. כי דרך העדים לחקור הענינים יפה קודם שיחתמו עליהם כי כן אמרו חזקה שאין העדים חותמין על השטר אא\"כ נעש' גדול וכן בכל דבר וכשכתבו פ' גר צדק יפה דקדקו קודם שחתמו והרי העידו עליו שהוא בן חורין. וכ\"ש אם אדונו של זה העב' ראה וידע בשט\"ז ולא מיחה שהרי הודה ולכן אם אחר זה טען רבו שהוא מעולם לא שחררו אין שומעין לו אבל כופין אותו לכתוב לו שטר שחרור כדי שלא יפגע בו למחר בשוק ויאמר לו עבדי אתה. והשטרות שמשעבדין העבדים על עצמן עבדים לאדוניהם בסך גדול קודם שחרורם אינו אלא אסמכתא בעלמ' כדי לאיים עליהם כדי שיעבדו אותם אחר שנשתחררו כי כן המנהג ולכן אין גובין מהן שטרות כאלו אחר שיצאו לחירות. ראיה פ' מי שמת ופ' ב' דייני גזילות וקדושין:",
+        "<b>סימן לב</b><br>שתי אחיות שותפות בכל ממונם וחלתה א' וצותה מחמת מיתה ובכלל דבריה צותה לאחותה שתתן כל הבתים שלהן להקדש אחר פטירת עצמה וקבלה עליה לעשות כן וקנו מידה על כן ובאחריות על יורשיה ונתרפאה החולה וחזרה מדבריה ומתה הבריאה אין להקדש זכות בחלק הבריאה שהיתה שמתה עתה עד שתמות זאת שהיתה חולה ונתרפאה כי לא היתה כוונת שום אחת מהן להקדיש הבתים האלו עד אחר מיתת שתיהן והבריא' שמת' צותה מה שצות' על דעת אחות' החול' וכשעמדה הא' מחולייה וחזרה בה בטלה צואתה גם צואת אחות' שנעשית על דעתה עד שימותו שתיהן וכן כל כיוצא בהן. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לג</b><br>אף שהלכ' כאדמון בההיא דהפוסק מעות לחתנו שיכולה הארוס' לומר או כנוס או פטור ושכופין הארוס להוציא' לא מנו כפייה זו בכלל דברים שכופין להוציא לפי שאין הגירוש זה מחמת הבעל כשאר דברים שכופין להוציא רק בסבת חמיו שלא נתן מה שפסק לו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לד</b><br>הבעל שאמר לאשתו שתעש' בבגדיה ותכשיטיה שהכניס' לו מאביה או שקנאן הוא לה שתעש' מה שתרצ' אם מכרתן או נתנתן לאחר לא עשתה כלום כי הבעל צריך לכסות אשתו וכשתתן בגדיה הרי הזקיק' לבעל לקנות לה מלבושים אחרים והרי מפסידתו הדמים ההם ולאו כל כמינה לתת בגדיה ולגרום הפסד לבעלה ואין כח בלשון הגרוע הזה שאמר לה להפקיע בגדיה מתחת שעבוד הבעל מכל וכל אם לא שכתב לה בעודה ארוסה כדין נכסי מלוג ומ\"מ מועיל לה לשון זה שתוכל להשאילם או להשכירם או להפקידם ביד אחר אם היא ירצה שמא יקחם הבעל. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לה</b><br>ראובן הוחזק כאן בכנוי א' כאלו תאמר בן שושן או בן יעיש וכיוצא באלו ובארץ מולדתו יש לו כנוי אחר והחזיק על עצמו שטר וכתב בו הכנוי שהוחזק כאן לדבר יכולין עדים לכתוב שטר אחר ע\"ש הכנוי הידוע לו בארצו אף שלא הכיר בו הלוה כנוי זה מעולם ואין אומרים בזה שכבר עשו העדים שליחותן ולא יכתבו עוד שטר אחר מחוב זה אבל כותבין אפי' ק' פעמים אף שלא טעו בשליחותם כי לא נאמר טענת עשו עדים שליחותן כל זמן שלא טעו רק בענין הגט אבל צא [לא] בדברים אחרים והשטר האחרון כשר ויקרעו הא'. סברא.",
+        "<b>סימן לו</b><br>אין להשביע לשום אדם שבוע' לבטל' עד שיתאמ' הדבר שיש לו להשביע עליו בעתו. ולכן ראובן האומר לשמעון שותפו טעיתי עמך בחשבון כו\"ך ושמעון משיבו כבר תבעתני ורציתיך בכו\"ך ופטרתני. שמעון זה נאמן בשבועתו שריצהו ואם הפך השבוע' הזו על ראובן התובע שישבע שלא ריצהו התובע יכול לומר לשמעון תן בב\"ד על מה שאשבע ואשבע וצריך ליתן בב\"ד על מה שישבע התובע שלא ריצהו או ישבע שמעון שריצהו לראובן על תביעה זו ופטרו וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לז</b><br>ראובן אמר לשמעון החליף לי בגד בחתיכ' טובה שיש לך למכור ואני ואתה נתפשר ביחד ונתנ' לו קודם שנתפשרו וגם לא קנו על ענין הפשרה ושמעון תובע תן לי כו\"ך זהובים כי כך נתפשרנו. וראובן טוען כי לא הית' הפשר' הזו בשע' מעשה רק אחריו וגם לא קנו מידו לקיים הפשרה ההיא ואין כאן דין פשרה אם נודע הדבר שהפשרה היתה אחר המעשה וגם לא קנו מידו יכול ראובן לחזור בו מן הפשרה ההיא וידון עמו על תביעתו וכן כל כיוצא בזה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לח</b><br>ראובן נתן לשמעון ואשתו חדר בביתו שידור בו אף שכתוב בשטר שישתמש שמעון ואשתו בחצר ובבור שבחצר וב\"הכ עם שאר בני הבית מעכשיו ועד עולם אם שמעון מת לא ירשו בניו זכותו אחריו מדהוצרך להזכיר בשטר שמעון ואשתו יראה שבא למעט בניהם אחריהם שלא ירשו הזכות ההוא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן לט</b><br>כל הבא מעצמו בטענתו או בטענת מורישו (כתוב לעיל סי' י\"ח)",
+        "<b>סימן מ</b><br>ראובן ושמעון שבאו לדין זע\"ז בפני ב\"ד ויצא האחד זכאי ושוב חזר בעל דינו ותבעו לפני ב\"ד אחר אינו זקוק לירד עמו לדין ולא להשיב על טענותיו וגם אין הב\"ד השני רשאי לשמוע דבריו כלל אחר שיצא זכאי מב\"ד הא'. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מא</b><br>יחצאל מצא שטר כתוב על שם ראובן בן יעקב ואינו יודע מה טיבו ישאר השטר בידו עד שיבא אליהו ז\"ל כי אולי של אדם אחר הוא והכתיבו בשם ראובן בן יעקב ולכן אם נתנו יחצאל לראובן בן יעקב וראובן מודה לו יחזירנו ליחצאל ויהא מונח אצלו עד שיבא אליהו ז\"ל ואם ראובן מכחיש דברי יחצאל ואומר שהוא של אביו יגבה השטר ההוא ראובן מאחר שהוא בידו וכתוב ע\"ש אביו. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מב</b><br>ראובן שהלוה לגוי מעות ברבית על משכנותיו ובשעת ההלואה הי' שם שמעון ולאחר זמן בא שמעון לבדו ונתן הקרן והרבית לראובן ולקח המשכונות ההם אין כאן חשש רבית כי שלוחו של גוי ומעשה קוף בעלמא הוא במה שנטל המעות מן הגוי ונתן לישראל. ובלבד שלא תהיה שם הערמת רבית ואם יש שם הערמת רבית אסור לעשות כן ועכ\"ז אם כבר נתן שמעון המעות אין ב\"ד מוציאין אותן מידו כלל. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מג</b><br>לא שייך לומר דין קדימה בדבר שאינו בעולם עתה ועתיד לבוא אחר זמן המוקדם והמאוחר שוה בהם ויחלוקו זה הריוח הבא אח\"כ ואם קודם שבא הריוח הזה לעולם נשבע לתת אותו לבע\"ח המאוחר צריך לקיים שבועתו ולתתו לו כי מאותה שעה שנשבע לתת לו קודם זכה בכח ההוא למעכשיו ולכשיבוא, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מד</b><br>גט שיש לו מחקים וקיומים כשר דלא עדיף מס\"ת דאינו נפסל במחקים ותלויות. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מה</b><br>ראובן שמכר לשמעון שטר משכונה שיש לו על לוי וחזר ומחלה ללוי אין מחילתו מחילה כי המשכונה הזו היא כמשכון ודבר פשוט הוא שהמוחל חוב שיש לו על המשכון ומשכנו ביד אחר שאינו מחול, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מו</b><br>אין הקונה קונה במשיכה והגבהה אלא מדעת המוכר ואפי' הוא לבוש המלבוש ההוא או מחזיק החפץ ההוא ולכן ראובן שנתן חפץ לסרסור למכור ומכר הסרסור החפץ ללוי על תנאי ידוע שיתן לוי ערב לקיים תנאו ואם לאו שיחזיר לוי לסרסור החפץ ההוא ולבש לוי המלבוש ההוא קודם שנתן הערב ואח\"כ בא שמעון ונעש' ערב ללוי וברח לוי אין שמעון יכול לטעון זה הערבות הוא אחר שלבש שמעון המלבוש ההוא והוה ליה כערב דלאחר מתן מעות דאינו משתעבד שאינו חייב כלום שלא על אמונתו הלוהו ויפטר גם הוא מער��ות זה כי מאחר שלא רצה ראובן למוכרו ללוי עד שיהי' בטוח במעותיו לא קנאו לו אף שהוא לבוש בו עד שיתערב שמעון בעדו לראובן ולכן הוי שמעון כערב דבשעת מתן מעות דלא בעי קנין ויפרע שמעון זה דמי החפץ ההוא לראובן כפי תנאו, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מז</b><br>שמעון שכתב כל נכסיו לאשתו שתפרע מהם דברים שהיו מוטלות עליו לפרעם בכל שנה ושנה וגם שתתן מה שאמר מנכסיו לעניי' בשביל נפשו ולא הניח ליורשים כלום פריעת החובות האלו ונתינת הצדקה ההיא לא יקרא שיור. ולכן המתנה הזאת היא מתנה בכל בלי שיור ואשתו אינה אלא אפטרופא כמו שאמרו אשתו ואחר לאחר במתנ' ואשתו אפטרופ' אם יש להוכיח מתוך תוספ' לשון השטר שהי' בדעתו ליתן לה במתנה גמור' בטל אומדנא שאנו אומדין שלא עשאה אלא אפטרופא בשביל שיכבדוה והמתנה היא מתנה גמורה וזכתה האשה בכל. ראיה פ' מי שמת וסברא:",
+        "<b>סימן מח</b><br>חכמי אשכנז וצרפת הסכימו שאין לכפות שום אדם לגרש את אשתו בטענת מאיס עלי ולכן אין לשום דיין לכוף לגרש באותה טענה אבל הטוענת שיכופו את בעלה לגרשה מפני שהוא מוכתב למלכות מעירו והוא בורח ממקום למקום להמלט על נפשו מזאת כופין אותו לגרשה וכן בכל אונס שיארע לאדם שאינו יכול להיות עם אשתו בעיר לקיים לה עונתה כופין אותו לגרש וכ\"ש אם עדיין היא ארוסה שלא תנשא לו בעל כרחה. אבל אם רשאי להיות בעירו אף אם מוכתב למלכות בעיר אחרת אין כופין אותו להוציא והבת שאינה רוצה להנשא לארוס שלה בסבת איזו טענה שתהיה אין אב הבת חייב ליתן לארוס שום דבר ממה שפסק עמו שהדברים מוכיחים שלא פסק עמו אלא על דעת שתנשא בתו עמו והרי לא נשאתו והיא אינה ברשותו לכופה שתנשא לו. סברא וראיות רבות בתלמוד:",
+        "<b>סימן מט</b><br>ראובן שמשכן בית לשמעון בנכיתא או הלוה לו על המשכון ובא ראובן מעצמו לשמעון ואמר לו קח מן הבית הזה או מן המשכון כשיעור חובך והשאר החזיר לי אין שומעין לו ויכול שמעון לומר לו מכור את שלך ותתן לי מעותי או תשאר המשכון כמו שהיא ואוכל פירותיה בנכיתא וישאר המשכון עד שתפדנו כי איני רוצה להפקיע שעבודי ואין או' ממארי רשותך אפי' פארי אפרע רק כשהמלוה נוגש ללוה שיפרעהו ואז יקח ממנו המלוה סובין אם נודע שאין לו מעות כי שוה כסף ככסף ואין הלוה בעצמו צריך שימכו' הסובין רק ישומו כמה הן שוים ויקח' המלוה בדמי חובו ולא מבעיא אם הבית שוה יותר מדמי המשכונה שאין הלוה יכול לכוף המלוה שיקחנו בעד חובו ויתן לו המותר אלא אפי' אם אין הבית שוה יותר מכדי דמי החוב אינו יכול לכופו שיקח הבית ממנו בחובו ויחזיר לו שטרו כי יכול לומר איני נוגש אותך לפרוע וגם איני רוצה לקנות קרקע אבל אתה מכור ביתך ופרעני בזה יפו חז\"ל כחו של מלוה כמו שעשו בדברים הרב' מפני נעילת דלת בפני לווין ואם יכריחנו הלוה לקחת קרקע במעותיו שלא כרצונו אין נעילת דלת גדול מזה וכן כל כיוצא בזה, ראיה פ' ד' אבות ופ' הגוזל בתרא:",
+        "<b>סימן נ</b><br>ראובן הי\"ל ב' בתים מב' צידי ר\"ה זה כנגד זה הא' שלו מזמן קדום, הבית הב' שכנגדו קנאו משמעון ואותו הבית פתוח לגנתו של לוי לפי שהחזיקו בכך מימי שמעון ונפל בית זה שהי' של שמעון ועתה רואה ראובן בגנתו של לוי מחלוני בית הא'. אין לוי בעל הגנה יכול לו' לראובן סתום חלונותיך שעתה אתה מזיקיני בזו ראיה חדשה לפי שס\"ס יש לראובן חזקת ראיה על גנתו של לוי מכח הבית שקנ' משמעון ומ\"ל שיראנו מחלוני בית זה או מאחר הרי החזיק עליו בראיה ואין כאן הזק ולא תוס' הזק ראיה שאלו רצה ראובן ��חזור ולבנות הבית הזה שנפל שקנה משמעון כבתחילה ולראות בגנה הרשות בידו ודוקא בענין כזה שב' הבתים של ראובן אבל אם אין הבית שכנגד ביתו של ראובן ונפל ורואה בגנה הרי זה הזק חדש וצריך ראובן לסתום חלונותיו כי על המזיק להרחיק עצמו אף שלא פשע בהזק זה לפי שהם גירי דיליה ובכל פעם ופעם עושה לו היזק בראייתו, ראיה פ' לא יחפור:",
+        "<b>סימן נא</b><br>אחז\"ל שדיני ממונות א\"צ דרישה וחקירה כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין אף שכך היה מדין תורה כמ\"ש משפט אחד יהיה לכם ועכ\"ז אם יראה לדיינים באמת לאות מוכיחות קצת שיש צד עדות שקר בעדות העדים צריך לחקור ולדרוש בעדותן כפי עיקר דין תורה. ולכן ראובן שנתחזק לו שטר על שמעון לפרוע לו סך מעות מחציתו לשלשה חדשים ומחציתו לסוף ו' חדשים ונפטר המלוה תוך זמן הפירעון הא' וכשתבעו יורשיו לשמעון החייב הוציא שמעון כתב פירעון חתום בעדים שפרע כל חובו לראובן קודם מותו ודאי העדים אלו צריכים דרישה וחקירה שיש קצת אמתלא שהם עידי שקר שחזק' שאין דרך בני אדם לפרוע חובו קודם הזמן הקצוב לו לפרוע ולכן צריך לחקרם יפה אולי יתברר שקרותם, אחר החקירה אין כח באמתלא זו ולא בחזקה זו לבטל תרי עדים כשירים ועדותן עדות והפרעון פרעון כי אולי נזדמן לו מעות ורוצה לפרוע לו חובו ויכופו ב\"ד ליורשי ראובן להחזיר לשמעון שטרותיו לפי שאסור להשהות שטר פרוע שהוא עולה בתוך ביתו משום שנאמר ואל תשכן באהליך עולה. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נב</b><br>המוכר ש\"ח לחבירו בכתיבה ומסירה וסלק עצמו מכח החוב ההוא לגמרי וריקן כל כחו בשט' ההוא ליד הקונה אפ\"ה אם מחלו מחול דלא דמי למעמד שלשתן והמוחל צריך לפרוע לזה הקונה המעות שקבל הימנו ומה שנהגו לכתוב בכל השטרות ולכל מוציא שטר זה אין זה אלא יפוי כח בעלמא הוא ואין זה נקרא דאתי מחמתיה ואין זה המוציא אלא כשליחות בעלמא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נג</b><br>גדולי (מחב\"ר סי' ל\"ט אות ל\"ו) אשכנז הקדמונים אמרו בשם הגאונים שאם נדבקה כל הריאה לדופן בלא פילוש ופרוד ובלי צמחים ואבעבועות סביב לדבוק שהבהמה מותרת בענין שאם יפרידנה מן הדופן בנחת ויבדקנה אם היא עולה בנפיחה כי א\"א שתנקב כל הריאה לארכה כי אז א\"א לחיו' רגע אלא ודאי זה הדבוק היה מחמת מכה שהיתה בדופן ויצאה ממנו לחה ונתיבשה ואז נדבקה הריאה בדופן וכן היו נוהגים באשכנז בימים קדמונים קודם שפשטו שם בעלי התוס'. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נד</b><br>חילוק הסדרים וחיבוריהם הוא כדי שתעלה קריא' כל התור' בשנה אחת ולכן כל חכם בעירו או בארצו חיבר והפריד הסדרים כפי הסדר שראה שהוא הנאות ואין הסדור ההוא הלכה קבועה רק מנהג ואינו חובה לשנות מנהג הנהוג בברכה לקיים סי' סגרו ופסחו וכן כל כיוצא בזה בשאר הסימנין, סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נה</b><br>לטייל בשבת במבוי שיש בו ערוב בלי כסוי הראש ובלי סרבל כמו בחול תלוי במנהג ואם נהגו לטייל מנהג יפה הוא ואין להקל בו כי מנהג כשר הוא לשנות עטיפת שבת מעטיפת של חול ומנהג אבותינו תורה היא. ראיה פ' מקום שנהגו:",
+        "<b>סימן נו</b><br>שבת שבתוך ז' ימי החופה הוא כפנים חדשות ומברכין בו ז' ברכות וכל שבת שיש בו ב' פרשיות לעולם מפטירין מענין אותה פ' שקורין באחרונה וכן הדין בסדרים שמפטירין מעין סדר האחרון. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן נז</b><br>מבואות היהודים המתוקני' כהלכתן במקומות שהן פתוחין לבין הגוים בצורת פתח וכן מבואות היהודים המפולשים ופתוחים זל\"ז ומתוקני' כהלכתן מדין מבוי מעוק' מותר לטלטל בכל המבואות כא��ר ישתתפו יחד הבתי' והחצירות כדין שתופי מבואות, ואין צריך לעשות דקה לפני ביתו של מי שלא ערב להפרידו מן האחרים כדי שלא יאסור עליהן כי אין זה דומה לעיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים וכן אם הגוים הדרים חוץ למגרש היהודים אוסרים על היהודים שבמגרש שנתקן כהלכ' כי אין כל העיר חשוב' כחצר א' לאסור אלו על אלו אע\"פי שהכל תחת הקף חומה אחת. סברא: (הביאה ב\"י א\"ח סי' שצ\"ב ויש ט\"ס כאן ע\"ש)",
+        "<b>סימן נח</b><br>נתברר מדברי רבינו מאיר מרוטנבורק שבירר מתוספתא דמקוואות שבנקב כל שהוא שניקב הכלי בתחתיתו שנתבטל מתורת כלי לענין שאוב' שאין המים שבתוכו נקראי' עוד שאובי' ולפ\"ז היה אפ' לעשות לכתחילה מקוה ולהביא כל מימיו על ידי כלי מנוקב משוליו בנקב כל שהוא אחרי שהכלי ההיא אינו מחזיק מימיו ועכ\"ז א' הרב שלא רצה לעשות מעשה. ואני הכותב אומר שראוי לסמוך על הוראה זו לשעת הדחק במקום שא\"א לעשות בענין אחר ראיה בתוספתא דמקוואות מקסטלון המקלח בכרכים וממעין היוצא לתלמיד וכו':",
+        "<b>סימן נט</b><br>הדג המתוקן בשמן ובצלים ודבש הכל חשוב כתבשיל א' ומותר לאוכלו בערב ט' באב בסעוד' המפסקת ואין כאן משום ב' תבשילין סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן ס</b><br>מי שיש לו כאב בגרונו מותר לסוכו בשמן חזירא כי לא נאמר סיכה בכלל שתייה רק בסיכה של תענוג וזו אינה של תענוג. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סא</b><br>מי שיש לו ב' בתים מב' צידי ר\"ה ומתחת א' הוא מרתף או אצטבה וכותליו הם של איש אחר ורוצה בעל ב' הבתים לבנות גשר מבית לבית וסותר הכותל ופותח פתח ומוציא מן הכותל אבנים ועפר כשיעור גובה השער ורוחבו ומניח ראשי קורותיו על פתיחת כותל בית זה מצד אחד וראשיהן הב' על פתיחת כותל בית זה הב' ואם בעל המרתף או אצט' בא לומר שאינו רוצה שיונחו ראשי הקורות ההם בפתיחת הכותל ההיא לפי שהוא מרתף או אצט' שלו רואין אם יש בכובד ראשי הקורות ההם והנמשך אחריהם נותר מכובד אבנים ועפר המוציאין מן הכותל הדין עם בעל המרתף או האצטבא ואם יש בעפר או באבנים המוציאים כשיעור כובד הקורות והנמשך אחריהם או יותר אז אין כח לבעל המרתף או האצטבא לעכב לבעל הגשר לבנות בנינו כי מה שמכביד בהנחת הקורות על הכותל מקל בהסרת האבנים והעפר שלו מן הכותל שהוא על האצטבא. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סב</b><br>בע\"ח המוקדם הבא לב\"ד להגבות לו חובו ושמו והחליטו לו ב\"ד קרקעות של לוה בחובו, ובא אח\"כ בע\"ח המאוחר וא' שרוצה להעלות על דמי השומא ההיא יותר ממה ששמוה על פי ב\"ד ויוציא הקרקע מיד בע\"ח המוקדם ויפרע לו חובו אין שומעין לו שמאחר שבא קרקע זה ליד בע\"ח המוקדם ע\"י שומא והכרזה והחלטת ב\"ד הרי זה כמכר גמור ודומה שגבה קרקע זה בחובו וקנאו קנין גמור וא\"צ להחזירו כי לא יבטל מקחו של זה המוקדם בשביל עלוי דמים של זה המאוחר וכן הדין בעצמו באפטר' שמכר קרקע יתומים בדמי שיוויה של אותה שעה לפרוע חוב קדום ובא בע\"ח מאוחר להוסיף על דמי המקח ההוא כדי להוציאו מתחת יד הלוקח שאין שומעין לו לפי שהפסיד ונזק גדול הוא ללוקח כשמסלקין אותו בדמים מן הקרקע שקנה לפי שהוכרח למכור חפציו או קרקעותיו בזול כדי לקנות קרקע זה ואפי' לא הוצרך למכור הרי הגיע לו הפסד ונזק במה שהי' יכול להרויח במעותיו כל אותו הזמן שהי' ביד המוכר ונזק גמור הוא ואין אומרים לזה הלוקח שיקבל שום נזק כדי להרויח לבע\"ח המאוחר. וכן מי שקנה קרקע באלף זהובים ופרע מקצתם וחזר בו המוכר צריך שיחזיר לו מעותיו בעין או יתן לו קרקע מעידית שבנכסיו לפי שהמוכר הזה הוא המזיק ואינו כשאר בע\"ח להגבות בבינונית וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ראיה פ' מי שהי' נשוי ופרק האומנין. אבל אם בע\"ח המאוחר בא לב\"ד קודם שהחליטו קרקעות הלזה לבע\"ח המוקדם ואומר למוקדם אם שוה לך קרקעות בדמי חובך וחובי טול הקרקע ותן לי מעותי או אני אטול אותו בדמי חובך וחובו ואתן לך מעותיך שומעין לו כי עד עתה אין כאן מכר גמור בקרקע זה למוקדם אחר שלא הספיקו ב\"ד להחליטו לו טרם בא זה ולכן לא נקרא לו שם לוקח על קרקע זה וגם אין לבע\"ח המוקד' שום הפסד בזה כי ס\"ס הרי הוא גובה כל חובו משלם וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ראיה פ' מי שהיה נשוי:",
+        "<b>סימן סג</b><br>מה שאחז\"ל שהשומא חוזרת ללוה לעולם משום ועשית הישר והטוב ה\"ד כשתשאר נחלתו בידו כגון שטרח והביא מעות ופדה נחלתו שנשאר מאבותיו או שדה שקנה או טרח בעבודתו שחביבה עליו כנחלת אבות דאז הוא הישר והטוב שישאר בשלו אבל אם בא איש אחר וא' ללוה החזיר השומא אליך ואני אקחנה בכפלים ממה ששמוה ונתרצה הלוה בכך אין בע\"ח ששמוה לו חייב להחזי' לו כי לא תקנו הישר והטוב כדי להרויח ללוה הדמים יתרים. סברא:",
+        "<b>סימן סד</b><br>הלוה שמכר מעצמו קרקעו לבע\"ח בגביי' חובו שלא בב\"ד ומכרה בכדי שוויה בענין שלא יראה שום תחבולה במכירה זו להפקיע זכותו של בע\"ח המאוחר שוב אינו מחזיר' ללוה אחר שהוא מכר' בעצמו לבעל חובו, ראיה מהרי\"ף פרק המפקיד:"
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Chaim Shaal, Lemberg, 1886",
+            "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001141485"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "חזה התנופה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Siman"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Mateh Levi/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mateh Levi",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "לקט השו״ת של ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "מטה לוי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "D.V., Saturday night of the Shabbat of Yitro, 5666, Frankfurt am Main.",
+            "Life and peace be granted to my honored friend, the rabbi who is great in Torah, a pillar of the fear of God, respect the sanctity of his glorious name, our teacher Rabbi Moshe Weiskopf, who sits and seeks the welfare of his people in the holy community of Paris.",
+            "The question of the wise, which is half an answer, that you have humbly submitted to me, has arrived in a timely fashion, and I will not delay  my response. For matters like these, which, as matters of law, are known, yet are difficult in practice, demand greater scrutiny from us. We must consider all of its aspects to an even greater degree, for, on one hand, we may not forbid that which is permitted and we have no authority to make new decrees—for who know if they will not ultimately be bitter? On the other hand, we must stand upon the seam in order to save and safeguard the people, so they do not stumble, God forbid, if they are permitted to do things that seem, in the eyes of others, to be forbidden, when in fact they do not understand that the cases are different. Now that I have considered my path, I will respond, in accordance with the hand of the Lord that is upon me. ",
+            "In truth, there are correct reasons to permit this matter. Even the eminent Hatam Sofer, who wrote in §97 of his collected responsa that there is an element of Torah prohibition in traveling by train on Shabbat, proved (ad loc.) that this prohibition is built on only on the basis of the prohibition against traveling outside one’s Shabbat boundaries (tehumin). Even if we posit that there are no tehumin above ten [handbreadths], it is similar to something that is more than four by four [handbreadths] wide, to which tehumin apply even above ten handbreadths, since boundaries at a distance of twelve mil are Torah law, according to Rambam. Thus, it is completely forbidden—see what he wrote.",
+            "However, in the present case, in which the train tracks surround the city and do not leave the Shabbat boundary, the entire foundation on which the eminent Hatam Sofer built has collapsed in the present case. Even if its extremities are extended and the tracks leave the city, in my opinion there is still no cause for concern about tehumin, for all of the lines run below the earth in corridors that, on the inside, are more than ten [handbreadths] high. It is not that they do not constitute roads similar to the desert encampment under flags, but because wherever these lines extend, they are surrounded by walls of earth. Thus, the entire area, from where it exits until it re-enters, is like a single place and a single town, which has no tehumin. Moreover, there is not even a violation of hotza’ah (transporting an object from domain to domain), for everything is surrounded by a wall, as subterranean walls should be no worse than above ten handbreadth, as is stated regarding the cases of a furrow deeper than ten [handbreadths], a city surrounded by a river, and the like. Presumably, the station from which the tracks extend and to which they return is completely surrounded by walls and fences, of course. Therefore, since the driving  [of the trains] is not on behalf of Jews, there is no prohibition here.",
+            "Had our generation been like previous generations, knowledgeable generations, in which those who fear God are able to distinguish between one matter and the next and to make relevant comparisons, I would certainly say that we may not be more stringent than the Sages, even by one iota. However, nowadays we must be concerned about two extremes among our people. Those who are not meticulous about the mitzvot wholeheartedly will take such matters lightly—even matters that are bona fide prohibitions—if we are permissive here. So too, those who are God-fearing, who quake (“haredim”) at the word of God, will not understand the reason for permissiveness and will not distinguish between the different sorts of train lines. If we permit this one, they will view them all as being permitted.",
+            "Initially I would have said something similar to the words of Ramban on Parshat Emor, namely, that everything that the Sages prohibited rabbinically is because the sabbatical nature of Shabbat is otherwise ruined. However, I clarified, to resolve the issue of train lines and tehumin, the resolution of the Taz vis-à-vis the question of why beer and whiskey of a non-Jew are not forbidden to drink if the reason for prohibiting their wine—namely that it will result in intermarriage—still applies. This concern applies to all alcoholic beverages, not just wine. Taz answers that since the Sages only forbade wine, we cannot forbid other things, even if the reasoning applies to them as much as it applies to wine. A distinction can be posited: In the case [of wine], there were other alcoholic beverages in the times of the Sages, yet they did not forbid them, whereas trains are new. Therefore, we can suggest that had they been extant in the times of the Sages, they would have forbidden them. Nevertheless, who can say today that he is so great that the entire generation must heed him, and who can then stand up and make a new decree that earlier sages never instituted?",
+            "Nevertheless, though there is nothing prohibited about this matter itself, it is hard to believe that those people who are waiting for permission to travel on this train on Shabbat will be meticulous about the prohibitions of hotza’ah, moving forbidden objects (tiltul/muktzeh), and carrying a ticket. Due to our sins, we have seen that many people have removed the yoke of such prohibitions from their necks and violate them in private and in public. Many of the people who have thus far refrained from violating them will come, God forbid, to transgress several prohibitions if we permit them to travel on Shabbat. Yet since truth is the seal of God, even in on this matter it is good, and necessary, to tell the truth, namely, that fundamentally there is no basis for prohibiting it, but that since doing so can cause one to stumble, anyone who is God-fearing should distance himself from this unsightliness and anything similar. They should treat it as forbidden. May God privilege us to bring public merit and give you, my honorable friend, the strength to accomplish much for the benefit of all Israel, in accordance with your pure heart. The words of one who honors and esteems you.",
+            "Mordechai Halevi Horowitz "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Mateh Levi/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mateh Levi",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mateh_Levi",
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "D.V., Saturday night of the Shabbat of Yitro, 5666, Frankfurt am Main.",
+            "Life and peace be granted to my honored friend, the rabbi who is great in Torah, a pillar of the fear of God, respect the sanctity of his glorious name, our teacher Rabbi Moshe Weiskopf, who sits and seeks the welfare of his people in the holy community of Paris.",
+            "The question of the wise, which is half an answer, that you have humbly submitted to me, has arrived in a timely fashion, and I will not delay  my response. For matters like these, which, as matters of law, are known, yet are difficult in practice, demand greater scrutiny from us. We must consider all of its aspects to an even greater degree, for, on one hand, we may not forbid that which is permitted and we have no authority to make new decrees—for who know if they will not ultimately be bitter? On the other hand, we must stand upon the seam in order to save and safeguard the people, so they do not stumble, God forbid, if they are permitted to do things that seem, in the eyes of others, to be forbidden, when in fact they do not understand that the cases are different. Now that I have considered my path, I will respond, in accordance with the hand of the Lord that is upon me. ",
+            "In truth, there are correct reasons to permit this matter. Even the eminent Hatam Sofer, who wrote in §97 of his collected responsa that there is an element of Torah prohibition in traveling by train on Shabbat, proved (ad loc.) that this prohibition is built on only on the basis of the prohibition against traveling outside one’s Shabbat boundaries (tehumin). Even if we posit that there are no tehumin above ten [handbreadths], it is similar to something that is more than four by four [handbreadths] wide, to which tehumin apply even above ten handbreadths, since boundaries at a distance of twelve mil are Torah law, according to Rambam. Thus, it is completely forbidden—see what he wrote.",
+            "However, in the present case, in which the train tracks surround the city and do not leave the Shabbat boundary, the entire foundation on which the eminent Hatam Sofer built has collapsed in the present case. Even if its extremities are extended and the tracks leave the city, in my opinion there is still no cause for concern about tehumin, for all of the lines run below the earth in corridors that, on the inside, are more than ten [handbreadths] high. It is not that they do not constitute roads similar to the desert encampment under flags, but because wherever these lines extend, they are surrounded by walls of earth. Thus, the entire area, from where it exits until it re-enters, is like a single place and a single town, which has no tehumin. Moreover, there is not even a violation of hotza’ah (transporting an object from domain to domain), for everything is surrounded by a wall, as subterranean walls should be no worse than above ten handbreadth, as is stated regarding the cases of a furrow deeper than ten [handbreadths], a city surrounded by a river, and the like. Presumably, the station from which the tracks extend and to which they return is completely surrounded by walls and fences, of course. Therefore, since the driving  [of the trains] is not on behalf of Jews, there is no prohibition here.",
+            "Had our generation been like previous generations, knowledgeable generations, in which those who fear God are able to distinguish between one matter and the next and to make relevant comparisons, I would certainly say that we may not be more stringent than the Sages, even by one iota. However, nowadays we must be concerned about two extremes among our people. Those who are not meticulous about the mitzvot wholeheartedly will take such matters lightly—even matters that are bona fide prohibitions—if we are permissive here. So too, those who are God-fearing, who quake (“haredim”) at the word of God, will not understand the reason for permissiveness and will not distinguish between the different sorts of train lines. If we permit this one, they will view them all as being permitted.",
+            "Initially I would have said something similar to the words of Ramban on Parshat Emor, namely, that everything that the Sages prohibited rabbinically is because the sabbatical nature of Shabbat is otherwise ruined. However, I clarified, to resolve the issue of train lines and tehumin, the resolution of the Taz vis-à-vis the question of why beer and whiskey of a non-Jew are not forbidden to drink if the reason for prohibiting their wine—namely that it will result in intermarriage—still applies. This concern applies to all alcoholic beverages, not just wine. Taz answers that since the Sages only forbade wine, we cannot forbid other things, even if the reasoning applies to them as much as it applies to wine. A distinction can be posited: In the case [of wine], there were other alcoholic beverages in the times of the Sages, yet they did not forbid them, whereas trains are new. Therefore, we can suggest that had they been extant in the times of the Sages, they would have forbidden them. Nevertheless, who can say today that he is so great that the entire generation must heed him, and who can then stand up and make a new decree that earlier sages never instituted?",
+            "Nevertheless, though there is nothing prohibited about this matter itself, it is hard to believe that those people who are waiting for permission to travel on this train on Shabbat will be meticulous about the prohibitions of hotza’ah, moving forbidden objects (tiltul/muktzeh), and carrying a ticket. Due to our sins, we have seen that many people have removed the yoke of such prohibitions from their necks and violate them in private and in public. Many of the people who have thus far refrained from violating them will come, God forbid, to transgress several prohibitions if we permit them to travel on Shabbat. Yet since truth is the seal of God, even in on this matter it is good, and necessary, to tell the truth, namely, that fundamentally there is no basis for prohibiting it, but that since doing so can cause one to stumble, anyone who is God-fearing should distance himself from this unsightliness and anything similar. They should treat it as forbidden. May God privilege us to bring public merit and give you, my honorable friend, the strength to accomplish much for the benefit of all Israel, in accordance with your pure heart. The words of one who honors and esteems you.",
+            "Mordechai Halevi Horowitz "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "מטה לוי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Mateh Levi/Hebrew/Mateh Levi, Frankfurt, 1891.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mateh Levi",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001880856 ",
+    "versionTitle": "Mateh Levi, Frankfurt, 1891",
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "מטה לוי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "ב\"ה עש\"ק יתרו תרס\"ו לפ\"ק ורנקנורט ע\"נ מיין יע\"א.",
+            "החיים והשלום לכבוד ידידי הנכבד הרב הגדול בתורה עמוד היראה כקש\"ת מהו' משה ווייסקאפף נ\"י יושב ודורש טוב לעמו בק\"ק פאריז יע\"א.",
+            "שאלת חכם חצי תשובה אשר כתב לי בענותנותו באה לידי בעתה ולא אחישנה להשיב כי בדברים כאלה אשר ידועים להלכה וקשים למעשה צריכים אנו לדקדק יותר ומחויבים אנו להביט עוד יותר על כל הצדדים כי מצד אחד אין אנו רשאים לאסור את המותר ואין לנו רשות לגזור גזירות חדשות כי מי יודע אם לא יהיו מרים באחריתם ומצד השני אנחנו מחויבים לעמוד על הפרק ולשמור ולנצור שלא יכשלו העם ח\"ו ע\"י שמתירים להם דברים הדומים בעיני אחדים שהם אסורים ולא יבינו שהם דברים מדברים שונים. ועתה חשבתי דרכי ואשיבה כיד ד' הטובה עלי.",
+            "הנה באמת יש לנו טעמים נכונים להתיר הדבר כי גם הגאון חתם סופר ז\"ל בלקוטי תשובותיו סימן צ\"ז שכתב שיש צד איסור דאורייתא לנסוע בשבת ע\"י מסילת הברזל הוכיח שם שאין בנין האיסור רק על יסוד איסור תחומין דאף אם אמרינן שאין תחומין למעלה מיו\"ד הרי הדבר דומה למקום שיש בו ד' על ד' ברחבו ובזה יש תחומין אפילו למעלה מיו\"ד וכיון שבי\"ב מיל תחומין דאורייתא לרמב\"ם וכו' הרי איסור גמור הוא ע\"ש בדבריו. ",
+            "ובנידון דידן שמסילת הברזל הולכת וסובבת את העיר ואינה יוצאת עכשיו מן התחום הרי נפל בנידון דידן כל היסוד אשר בנה עליו הגאון בעל ח\"ס ז\"ל וגם אם יאריכו את מותריה ויוציאו את המסילה מהעיר וחוצה לדעתי אין שום בית מיחוש לתחומין דהרי כל הדרכים הולכים מתחת לארץ במבואות גבוהים בפנים יותר מיו\"ד ולא מטעם שאינם דרכים כדרכי דגלי מדבר כמו שאמרו בטעם למעלה מיו\"ד אלא משום דכל מקום שהולכים הדרכים הם מוקפים מחומות אדמה והרי כל השטח ממקום שיוצאים עד המקום שחוזרים ונכנסים הוא כמו מקום אחד ועיר אחת שאין לה תחומין ולא עוד אלא שאפילו איסור הוצאה ליכא דהרי הכל מוקף חומה שהרי החומות למטה מן הארץ לא תגרענה מן החומות למעלה מיו\"ד טפחים כמו שאמרו בגומא עמוקה מיו\"ד ובעיר שהקיפהו נהר וכדומה. ומן הסתם גם הבית שממנו תצאנה המסילות ואליו תחזורנה הכל מוקף מחומות וגדרים וכמובן וכיון שלא נעשה מלאכת ההפלגה בשביל ישראל אין כאן איסור. ",
+            "ואלו היה הדור הזה כדורות שלפנינו דור דעה שהיראים יבינו לחלק בין דבר לדבר ולדמות כענין בודאי הייתי אומר אין אנו רשאים להחמיר יותר אפילו כעוקץ של יו\"ד ממה שהחמירו חכמינו ז\"ל. אמנם בימינו אלה יש לחוש לשתי קצות העם כי אותם שאינם מדקדקים במצות בלב שלם יזלזלו בדברים האלה אם יתירו להם פה גם במקומות שהם איסורים גמורים וגם היראים החרדים אל דבר ד' לא יבינו טעם ההיתר ולא יבחינו בין המסילות השונות ואם יתירו להם האחת יהיו כולן בעיניהם כמותרות.",
+            "ומתחילה הייתי אומר כעין דברי הרמב\"ן בפ' אמור דכל אלו שאסרו החכמים משום שבות ��יינו משום דשבתון של שבת נהרס על ידן. אבל בררתי את אשר כתב הט\"ז ליישב בענין תחומין במסילת הברזל את הקושיא אמאי לא נאסר לשתות יין שרוף או שכבר עם אינו ישראל דהרי הטעם של יין הוא לדידן רק משום בנותיהם וחשש זה שייך בכל המשקין ולא ביין בלבד והשיב הט\"ז כיון דחכמינו ז\"ל לא אסרו רק יין אנן לא נוכל לאסור את אחרים אף אם הטעם שייך אצלם כמו גבי יין. ואף שיש לחלק דהתם היו בימי החכמים גם משקים אחרים והם לא אסרו רק את היין אנן לא אסרינן משא\"כ הנך מסילות הברזל דבר חדש הן וא\"כ י\"ל אלו היו בימי החכמים היו אוסרין אותן אבל מ\"מ מי יאמר עכשיו שהוא גדול שהדור ישמע לדבריו אם יקום ויגזר גזירה חדשה אשר לא גזרו הראשונים.",
+            "אמנם אף אם אין איסור בגוף הדבר מ\"מ קשה להאמין שאותם האנשים אשר יחכו להיתר לנסוע על מסילת הברזל הזאת בשבת ידקדקו באיסור הוצאה וטלטול ולקיחת ביללעט ובעו\"ה ראה ראינו כי רבים פרקו עול איסורים האלה מעליהם ועוברים עליהם בצנעה ובפרהסיא ורבים מן העם אשר חדלו עד כה לעבור עליהם יבאו ח\"ו לכמה עבירות ע\"י שיתירו להם לנסוע שבת ויען שהאמת היא חותמו של הקב\"ה גם בענין זה טוב ונחוץ להניד האמת והוא שבעיקר הדבר אין יסוד לאוסרו אבל מחמת שיוכלו לבא לידי מכשולים על ידו ירחיקו היראים מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לו וינהגו בו איסור וד' יזכנו לזכות את הרבים ויתן לכבוד מעלת ידידי נ\"י כח לעשות חיל לטובת כל ישראל כאשר עם לבבו הטהור. דברי מוקירו ומכבדו",
+            "מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ חופר\"ר הג\"ל יע\"א.\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Mateh Levi/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mateh Levi",
+    "language": "he",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mateh_Levi",
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "ב\"ה עש\"ק יתרו תרס\"ו לפ\"ק ורנקנורט ע\"נ מיין יע\"א.",
+            "החיים והשלום לכבוד ידידי הנכבד הרב הגדול בתורה עמוד היראה כקש\"ת מהו' משה ווייסקאפף נ\"י יושב ודורש טוב לעמו בק\"ק פאריז יע\"א.",
+            "שאלת חכם חצי תשובה אשר כתב לי בענותנותו באה לידי בעתה ולא אחישנה להשיב כי בדברים כאלה אשר ידועים להלכה וקשים למעשה צריכים אנו לדקדק יותר ומחויבים אנו להביט עוד יותר על כל הצדדים כי מצד אחד אין אנו רשאים לאסור את המותר ואין לנו רשות לגזור גזירות חדשות כי מי יודע אם לא יהיו מרים באחריתם ומצד השני אנחנו מחויבים לעמוד על הפרק ולשמור ולנצור שלא יכשלו העם ח\"ו ע\"י שמתירים להם דברים הדומים בעיני אחדים שהם אסורים ולא יבינו שהם דברים מדברים שונים. ועתה חשבתי דרכי ואשיבה כיד ד' הטובה עלי.",
+            "הנה באמת יש לנו טעמים נכונים להתיר הדבר כי גם הגאון חתם סופר ז\"ל בלקוטי תשובותיו סימן צ\"ז שכתב שיש צד איסור דאורייתא לנסוע בשבת ע\"י מסילת הברזל הוכיח שם שאין בנין האיסור רק על יסוד איסור תחומין דאף אם אמרינן שאין תחומין למעלה מיו\"ד הרי הדבר דומה למקום שיש בו ד' על ד' ברחבו ובזה יש תחומין אפילו למעלה מיו\"ד וכיון שבי\"ב מיל תחומין דאורייתא לרמב\"ם וכו' הרי איסור גמור הוא ע\"ש בדבריו. ",
+            "ובנידון דידן שמסילת הברזל הולכת וסובבת את העיר ואינה יוצאת עכשיו מן התחום הרי נפל בנידון דידן כל היסוד אשר בנה עליו הגאון בעל ח\"ס ז\"ל וגם אם יאריכו את מותריה ויוציאו את המסילה מהעיר וחוצה לדעתי אין שום בית מיחוש לתחומין דהרי כל הדרכים הולכים מתחת לארץ במבואות גבוהים בפנים יותר מיו\"ד ולא מטעם שאינם דרכים כדרכי דגלי מדבר כמו שאמרו בטעם למעלה מיו\"ד אלא משום דכל מקום שהולכים הדרכים הם מוקפים מחומות אדמה והרי כל השטח ממקום שיוצאים עד המקום שחוזרים ונכנסים הוא כמו מקום אחד ועיר אחת שאין לה תחומין ולא עוד אלא שאפילו איסור הוצאה ליכא דהרי הכל מוקף חומה שהרי החומות למטה מן הארץ לא תגרענה מן החומות למעלה מיו\"ד טפחים כמו שאמרו בגומא עמוקה מיו\"ד ובעיר שהקיפהו נהר וכדומה. ומן הסתם גם הבית שממנו תצאנה המסילות ואליו תחזורנה הכל מוקף מחומות וגדרים וכמובן וכיון שלא נעשה מלאכת ההפלגה בשביל ישראל אין כאן איסור. ",
+            "ואלו היה הדור הזה כדורות שלפנינו דור דעה שהיראים יבינו לחלק בין דבר לדבר ולדמות כענין בודאי הייתי אומר אין אנו רשאים להחמיר יותר אפילו כעוקץ של יו\"ד ממה שהחמירו חכמינו ז\"ל. אמנם בימינו אלה יש לחוש לשתי קצות העם כי אותם שאינם מדקדקים במצות בלב שלם יזלזלו בדברים האלה אם יתירו להם פה גם במקומות שהם איסורים גמורים וגם היראים החרדים אל דבר ד' לא יבינו טעם ההיתר ולא יבחינו בין המסילות השונות ואם יתירו להם האחת יהיו כולן בעיניהם כמותרות.",
+            "ומתחילה הייתי אומר כעין דברי הרמב\"ן בפ' אמור דכל אלו שאסרו החכמים משום שבות היינו משום דשבתון של שבת נהרס על ידן. אבל בררתי את אשר כתב הט\"ז ליישב בענין תחומין במסילת הברזל את הקושיא אמאי לא נאסר לשתות יין שרוף או שכבר עם אינו ישראל דהרי הטעם של יין הוא לדידן רק משו�� בנותיהם וחשש זה שייך בכל המשקין ולא ביין בלבד והשיב הט\"ז כיון דחכמינו ז\"ל לא אסרו רק יין אנן לא נוכל לאסור את אחרים אף אם הטעם שייך אצלם כמו גבי יין. ואף שיש לחלק דהתם היו בימי החכמים גם משקים אחרים והם לא אסרו רק את היין אנן לא אסרינן משא\"כ הנך מסילות הברזל דבר חדש הן וא\"כ י\"ל אלו היו בימי החכמים היו אוסרין אותן אבל מ\"מ מי יאמר עכשיו שהוא גדול שהדור ישמע לדבריו אם יקום ויגזר גזירה חדשה אשר לא גזרו הראשונים.",
+            "אמנם אף אם אין איסור בגוף הדבר מ\"מ קשה להאמין שאותם האנשים אשר יחכו להיתר לנסוע על מסילת הברזל הזאת בשבת ידקדקו באיסור הוצאה וטלטול ולקיחת ביללעט ובעו\"ה ראה ראינו כי רבים פרקו עול איסורים האלה מעליהם ועוברים עליהם בצנעה ובפרהסיא ורבים מן העם אשר חדלו עד כה לעבור עליהם יבאו ח\"ו לכמה עבירות ע\"י שיתירו להם לנסוע שבת ויען שהאמת היא חותמו של הקב\"ה גם בענין זה טוב ונחוץ להניד האמת והוא שבעיקר הדבר אין יסוד לאוסרו אבל מחמת שיוכלו לבא לידי מכשולים על ידו ירחיקו היראים מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לו וינהגו בו איסור וד' יזכנו לזכות את הרבים ויתן לכבוד מעלת ידידי נ\"י כח לעשות חיל לטובת כל ישראל כאשר עם לבבו הטהור. דברי מוקירו ומכבדו",
+            "מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ חופר\"ר הג\"ל יע\"א.\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mateh Levi, Frankfurt, 1891",
+            "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001880856 "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "מטה לוי",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part I/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק א",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Publisher's Foreword": [],
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>Question:</b> I received a question from the great and scholarly Rabbi Moshe Barabash, born in Russia and currently in the city of Saarn, who was forced to sit for some years in a foreign land, wandering from place to place. He now has permission to travel back to his kids’ place, but the journey might take seven days and he might be forced to travel on Shabbat in a train, and they may not allow him to take a break on his trip. So the question is if he is allowed to go on such  a trip. He found some reasons to be permitted and they are the following:",
+                "1. The central aspect of this prohibition is the Rabbinic  “ Limits  of Shabbat” . Even according to the RAMBAM’s opinion, that walking beyond 12 Jewish Miles is forbidden according to Scriptures,  this refers particularly to a proper public domain, but we do not have a proper public domain anymore. (cf. Orach Chayim 345, 396 and 404 and it is explicitly written in the Shulchan Aruch Harav of Rabbi Miliadi, chapter 404, Seif 2, see there).",
+                "2. The Shulchan Aruch rules, in paragraph 248, that for the purpose of a Mitzvah it is permitted to leave on a convoy, even on Shabbat eve, and even if one will need to desecrate Shabbat. Even though the Magan Avraham commentary writes in footnote 12 that if one definitely has to to desecrate Shabbat, it is forbidden to go. But all of that is regarding Torah law, but here the limitation is d’rabbanan. And more so in our case here: There is perhaps a possibility that they will allow me to leave the train on the Holy Shabbat. And see also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav of Chabad Chapter 248, where it is written that we do not protest against those who are lenient.  ",
+                "3. In our case here, it’s a mitzvah to travel to one’s children to raise them, and to educate them in Torah and to provide for them.  All the more so according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam , who holds that <i>everything</i> is considered to be for the purpose of a mitzvah, unless it’s only for leisure.",
+                "4. And even though <i>a priori</i> one needs to stop or take a break at the start of Shabbat, in any case, in a place where it is impossible or in a pressing situation, this doesn’t stop you. As we see in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 2:248 section 1, and see the collected essays there.",
+                "5. The opinion of the Rashbam in Eruvin 43a, quoted in the commentary of the Rosh on the first chapter of Masechet Shabbat, is that it is permitted to travel on a ship and on a coach on Shabbat. And even if we don’t hold  like the Rashbam, in any case  we can still add his opinion to our answer. ",
+                "<b>Response:</b> According to the aforementioned reasons, this journey is absolutely permitted, with no reservations, in these pressing circumstances and for the purpose of this great mitzvah. However, allow me to add a few comments to strengthen the permission:",
+                "1. Also the great Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, that according to what the Hagahot Maimoniot wrote, and was also written by the Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashbam’s responsa, that in these days that city limits are not scriptural since the city is like a Carmelit, and carrying is forbidden on a rabbinic level, it makes no sense that walking beyond the limits would be forbidden and not carrying, on a scriptural level.  According to this reasoning, since nowadays we do not have public domain, we also do not have scriptural “Limits” and if so, even the case of the limits beyond 12 Jewish Miles are also only according to the Rabbis. See also Et Sofer Orach Chayim 56, and Beit Yitzchak 42 in the name of Zera Emet who disagrees.",
+                "2. Look at the Responsa Bet Efraim in Orach Chaim 26 (43b), who brings some Rishonim who hold that nowadays we do not have a Public Domain anymore, and who writes that no human being has the power to object to the custom to be lenient in some aspects of  taking something out, <i>hotzaa</i>, on Shabbat because nowadays we lack a public domain.",
+                "3. What you said, in paragraph 5, basing yourself on the opinion of the Rashbam, also the R. Moshe Sofer, Part 6, Chapter 96 wrote in his responsum about the opinion of Rashbam: “Apply it in times of need.” It seems to be his intention that this can be added.",
+                "4. Regarding what you quoted in the second section of your letter, about the opinion of the Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 248, who says that if you will definitely transgress Shabbat it is forbidden to go out [in a convoy] - the Eliyah Rabba already wrote in footnote 12 that we do not budge from the original ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. This is also the opinion of the Levush, and it also seems from the Rivash that he also holds that it is permitted to go out, even if you know that you will definitely transgress Shabbat. If so, the Gates of Permission are open before you, and may you go out and travel in peace. May God be with you, and may you succeed in raising your children to dwell in Torah, in marriage and in acts of goodness. This is what I wrote, wishing you peace, sending you love and respect - David Zvi Hoffmann.",
+                "However, as to that which you wrote, that we don't have public domains on a biblical level in our times: take note of Et Sofer I:56, Orchot Chayim 345 and what is noted there, and Kontras Kundasi by R. Zvi Plato from p.83 onwards, who proved that we actually <i>do</i> have public domains on a biblical level nowadays. In any case, I do not revert my original ruling, based on the other reasons given. "
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק א",
+        "enTitle": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+        "key": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "דברים אחדים מאת המוציא לאור",
+                "enTitle": "Publisher's Foreword"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part I/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+{
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Melamed_Leho'il_Part_I",
+    "text": {
+        "Publisher's Foreword": [],
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>Question:</b> I received a question from the great and scholarly Rabbi Moshe Barabash, born in Russia and currently in the city of Saarn, who was forced to sit for some years in a foreign land, wandering from place to place. He now has permission to travel back to his kids’ place, but the journey might take seven days and he might be forced to travel on Shabbat in a train, and they may not allow him to take a break on his trip. So the question is if he is allowed to go on such  a trip. He found some reasons to be permitted and they are the following:",
+                "1. The central aspect of this prohibition is the Rabbinic  “ Limits  of Shabbat” . Even according to the RAMBAM’s opinion, that walking beyond 12 Jewish Miles is forbidden according to Scriptures,  this refers particularly to a proper public domain, but we do not have a proper public domain anymore. (cf. Orach Chayim 345, 396 and 404 and it is explicitly written in the Shulchan Aruch Harav of Rabbi Miliadi, chapter 404, Seif 2, see there).",
+                "2. The Shulchan Aruch rules, in paragraph 248, that for the purpose of a Mitzvah it is permitted to leave on a convoy, even on Shabbat eve, and even if one will need to desecrate Shabbat. Even though the Magan Avraham commentary writes in footnote 12 that if one definitely has to to desecrate Shabbat, it is forbidden to go. But all of that is regarding Torah law, but here the limitation is d’rabbanan. And more so in our case here: There is perhaps a possibility that they will allow me to leave the train on the Holy Shabbat. And see also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav of Chabad Chapter 248, where it is written that we do not protest against those who are lenient.  ",
+                "3. In our case here, it’s a mitzvah to travel to one’s children to raise them, and to educate them in Torah and to provide for them.  All the more so according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam , who holds that <i>everything</i> is considered to be for the purpose of a mitzvah, unless it’s only for leisure.",
+                "4. And even though <i>a priori</i> one needs to stop or take a break at the start of Shabbat, in any case, in a place where it is impossible or in a pressing situation, this doesn’t stop you. As we see in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 2:248 section 1, and see the collected essays there.",
+                "5. The opinion of the Rashbam in Eruvin 43a, quoted in the commentary of the Rosh on the first chapter of Masechet Shabbat, is that it is permitted to travel on a ship and on a coach on Shabbat. And even if we don’t hold  like the Rashbam, in any case  we can still add his opinion to our answer. ",
+                "<b>Response:</b> According to the aforementioned reasons, this journey is absolutely permitted, with no reservations, in these pressing circumstances and for the purpose of this great mitzvah. However, allow me to add a few comments to strengthen the permission:",
+                "1. Also the great Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, that according to what the Hagahot Maimoniot wrote, and was also written by the Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashbam’s responsa, that in these days that city limits are not scriptural since the city is like a Carmelit, and carrying is forbidden on a rabbinic level, it makes no sense that walking beyond the limits would be forbidden and not carrying, on a scriptural level.  According to this reasoning, since nowadays we do not have public domain, we also do not have scriptural “Limits” and if so, even the case of the limits beyond 12 Jewish Miles are also only according to the Rabbis. See also Et Sofer Orach Chayim 56, and Beit Yitzchak 42 in the name of Zera Emet who disagrees.",
+                "2. Look at the Responsa Bet Efraim in Orach Chaim 26 (43b), who brings some Rishonim who hold that nowadays we do not have a Public Domain anymore, and who writes that no human being has the power to object to the custom to be lenient in some aspects of  taking something out, <i>hotzaa</i>, on Shabbat because nowadays we lack a public domain.",
+                "3. What you said, in paragraph 5, basing yourself on the opinion of the Rashbam, also the R. Moshe Sofer, Part 6, Chapter 96 wrote in his responsum about the opinion of Rashbam: “Apply it in times of need.” It seems to be his intention that this can be added.",
+                "4. Regarding what you quoted in the second section of your letter, about the opinion of the Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 248, who says that if you will definitely transgress Shabbat it is forbidden to go out [in a convoy] - the Eliyah Rabba already wrote in footnote 12 that we do not budge from the original ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. This is also the opinion of the Levush, and it also seems from the Rivash that he also holds that it is permitted to go out, even if you know that you will definitely transgress Shabbat. If so, the Gates of Permission are open before you, and may you go out and travel in peace. May God be with you, and may you succeed in raising your children to dwell in Torah, in marriage and in acts of goodness. This is what I wrote, wishing you peace, sending you love and respect - David Zvi Hoffmann.",
+                "However, as to that which you wrote, that we don't have public domains on a biblical level in our times: take note of Et Sofer I:56, Orchot Chayim 345 and what is noted there, and Kontras Kundasi by R. Zvi Plato from p.83 onwards, who proved that we actually <i>do</i> have public domains on a biblical level nowadays. In any case, I do not revert my original ruling, based on the other reasons given. "
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק א",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק א",
+        "enTitle": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+        "key": "Melamed Leho'il Part I",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "דברים אחדים מאת המוציא לאור",
+                "enTitle": "Publisher's Foreword"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part II/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.json

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part II",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "לקט השו״ת של ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק ב",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Regarding accepting for conversion a woman who wants to marry a Jewish man, I have already stated above, citing Shakh, that it all depends on what the rabbinic court sees. See Beit Yitzhak, Yoreh De’ah 2:100.",
+            "Indeed, nowadays, arguably, since she can marry a Jewish man even while remaining a gentile, and if we do not accept her, the Jewish man will marry her civilly, and if she is not accepted by a God-fearing rabbi she will approach one of those newcomers who accepts converts without immersion in the presence of a rabbinical court and without the acceptance of the commandments, and then she will be considered a convert even though she is a gentile, it is best to minimize the harm and accept her if she promises that she is converting for the sake of heaven and that she will uphold all the commandments, and specifically Shabbat, menstrual purity laws, and the laws of keeping kosher. She should pledge this by giving her word of honor. Her husband should also be cautioned against marrying her unless he is certain that she will uphold all of this. Absent this, there is more harm done than good. For instance, one who has sexual relations with a gentile woman in a state of menstrual impurity does not incur the penalty of extirpation (karet) except at the rabbinic level. However, if she converts, he incurs karet by Torah law.",
+            "If the husband attests, after being warned, that his wife is converting for the sake of heaven, then she should be accepted in the aforementioned manner. If it can be investigated by other people, who are not interested parties, to ascertain whether she truly and wholeheartedly wishes to convert, it is even better. "
+        ],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Question: The son of a gentile woman from a Jewish man—whose father brought him to be circumcised, but it is not known whether he was also immersed—does not observe the commandments, and he desecrates Shabbat, but he is established to be Jewish and he pays tax to the communal fund. Now he wants to marry a Jewish woman, and it is impossible for him to immerse while accepting the commandments, since he does not observe the commandments and does not wish to accept them. Is it permitted to officiate at his wedding, given the concern that if we do not officiate for him, he will marry his wife civilly?",
+            "Answer: That which you wished to say initially, namely, that if we consider him a gentile, he would need to have a drop of blood drawn for the circumcision covenant (hatafat dam brit), is incorrect, in my opinion. Since he was circumcised for the sake of the mitzva of circumcision, there is no need to draw a drop of blood. I proved this above. This is also implied in Minhat Hinukh on the mitzva of circumcision, cited in U-kheTorah Ye’aseh, Appendix D, p. 29b.",
+            "However, regarding R. Yosef Nobel’s attempt to base his position on Darkhei Moshe’s citation of Or Zaru’a (Even Ha-ezer §156), namely, that a Jewish man’s son by a gentile woman is considered his son on the rabbinic level, now that we have merited to see the original Or Zaru’a, it is easy to see that this is no proof. Or Zaru’a states only that it is possible that there are grounds to be stringent out of concern. This has already been addressed by my teacher and master, the eminent Rabbi Shalom Kutna, in his aforementioned book (U-kheTorah Ye’aseh p. 10b), at great length. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in the present case, if he was circumcised and immersed in the presence of the rabbinical court, he is a convert, because presumably the father brought him to be circumcised with his mother’s consent, for it is beneficial to her if her child remains with his father, who provides for him.",
+            "Moreover, according to Ran, it is effective if the court converts him, even without the consent of the father and mother.",
+            "Third, my master and teacher R. Moshe Schick, in [Responsa Maharam Schick] Yoreh De’ah §248, proved from Tosafot  on Sanhedrin 68 that the conversion of a minor is effective ex post facto (be’-di’avad); that we do not do so ab initio is because it constitutes stealing from a gentile.  But here, where under the prevailing law (dina de-malkhuta), the father has control over his son from a gentile woman, even though he is not his son at all according to Torah law, it is nonetheless not considered stealing. Thus, it is possible that we would even convert ab initio, and it is certainly effective ex post facto. ",
+            "Yet the problem remains: we do not know whether he was properly immersed. Regarding what you wrote in the name of the eminent R. Josef Nobel, namely, that one may rely on the presumption (hazaka) that all was done properly; in my humble opinion, one should be hesitant about this, based on what my master and teacher Maharam Schick wrote in [Responsa Maharam Schick] Even Ha-ezer §§37 and 155 and Yoreh De’ah §249 that a gentile and a Jewish woman are forbidden to each other under Torah low, so the present case is an uncertainty pertaining to Torah law (safek de-Orayta). Even if there is a presumption that everything (i.e., the immersion) was done properly, one who is born to a gentile nevertheless is presumed to be forbidden [to marry a Jew], because he was a gentile at birth. Thus, there are conflicting presumptions, and we must be stringent in a case of uncertainty that pertains to Torah law.",
+            "Even though the fact that most ritual slaughterers are skilled is effective to permit an animal despite its presumed forbidden status, which persists from when it was alive [and certainly forbidden], even in a case of uncertainty pertaining to Torah law, nevertheless, though we can say that most circumcisers are skilled, it is still no help in this case except to posit that the circumcision was certainly done properly. The immersion, however, there is only a weak presumption that the circumciser would not do anything that would lead to problems later on. Who knows whether this presumption is as good as the presumption that a member of the rabbinic class (haver) would not let out any untithed produce—a presumption that effectively removes the produce from its presumed forbidden state—especially nowadays, when there are many circumcisers who have not studied the laws of conversion. Thus, in my opinion, we have still not removed ourselves from the throes of this uncertainty. And Maimonides has written in the Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relations 13:9 that if a convert comes to marry a Jewish woman, he must immerse in our presence. This is also the ruling in [Shulhan Arukh] Yoreh De’ah 268:10.",
+            "Let us now consider whether his immersion at present, without the acceptance of the commandments, would be effective. Yoreh De’ah 268:10 states that the acceptance of the commandments, if it is not done in the presence of three [judges] or during the day, prevents the conversion from taking effect, even ex post facto. Certainly, then, if he does not accept the commandments at all, the conversion does not take effect. Even though it is stated at the end of §268 that the conversion is accepted ex post facto even if the convert was not notified of the reward and punishment of the commandments, nevertheless, the acceptance of the commandments prevents the conversion from taking effect. This is also written on p. 12a of U-keTorah Ye’aseh in the name of the author of Beit Yitzhak.",
+            "Yet for me this matter merits further scrutiny, for Maggid Mishneh comments on Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relations 13:17 that informing one of the commandments does not prevent the effectiveness of the conversion, and how can one accept the commandments if he does not know the commandments? This implies that even the acceptance of the commandments does not prevent the effectiveness [of the conversion] ex post facto. I have no time to delve into this at present.",
+            "However, it seems to me that in the present case, where it is uncertain whether one has already converted by means of circumcision and immersion or not, and due to that uncertainty he has already become obligated to perform Torah commandments, for we maintain that the Torah requires stringency in cases of uncertainty regarding Torah law—he may not be fed non-kosher food because it places a stumbling block before the blind—he is thus already beholden by oath, under Torah law, to uphold the commandments. In such a case, even though, if possible, it would be best if he would accept the commandments again, nevertheless, since it is impossible for him to immerse while accepting the commandments, it is sufficient if he immerses without accepting the commandments.",
+            "Moreover, we can contend that his fathers accepted the commandments on his behalf while he was a minor, since they circumcised him for the purpose of conversion. Even though they did not immerse him because they did not know that immersion is required as well, this acceptance of the commandments in his childhood, prior to his circumcision, is nevertheless effective, for certainly one who accepts the commandments prior to circumcision in order to convert, and then is circumcised, even though many years elapsed between the circumcision and the immersion. Just because he did not know that immersion is required as well, it does not stand to reason that the conversion would be rendered ineffective if he did not re-accept the commandments prior to the immersion.",
+            "It therefore seems to me, given these reasons, that if he immerses before [a court of] three, he is a full-fledged convert, even if he does not accept the commandments; the present case, where there is no alternative, is comparable to a post facto (di’avad) case. It would be best to inform him of those commandments that he would certainly want to accept: the prohibitions on paganism, sexual immorality, and bloodshed; the mitzva of charity; honoring one’s parents; loving one’s neighbor; etc. He should then state simply that he accepts the commandments of the Jews. Nevertheless, this is not a sine qua non. If he is properly immersed, I believe that it is permissible to officiate at his wedding and to recite the blessings. ",
+            "If he does not even wish to immerse, and there is concern that if we do not officiate a Jewish marriage (kiddushin) for him he will marry his wife civilly, and since he might be a convert, he and she would be violating the prohibitions on sexual impropriety to a greater degree than if they would be brought together in a Jewish marriage, I maintain that it is permitted to officiate a Jewish marriage for them, though without the blessings. One may recite the blessings without God’s name, for example: “Let us bless He Who shaped man in His image…” “Let us bless the Shaper of man.” Yet it would be better if the rabbi himself does not officiate the Jewish wedding, because they will slander him by saying he officiates Jewish marriages of those who might be gentiles. It would be better to avoid this and leave someone else to officiate the wedding, if possible. This should also be done to demarcate—so that it will be known that the groom is not acting lawfully as he does not wish to immerse, and that his daughter will be disqualified from marrying a kohen.",
+            "What I wrote above, that in the present case, the uncertain convert is obligated by Torah law to perform the commandments, is not accurate. Tosafot on Ketubot 11a state that a minor convert is a valid convert by rabbinic law only, because the Sages have the power to uproot Torah law. If so, his entire obligation is under rabbinic law, and in a case of uncertainty, the lenient position should be followed.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that all authorities disagree with this [position of Tosafot], since we rule that the Sages do not have the power to uproot Torah law except by omission, not by commission. If so, how could Maimonides, Tur, and Shulhan Arukh rule in accordance with Rav Huna in the case of a minor convert? It must be that they maintain that a minor convert is a valid convert under Torah law as well. There are other answers to the question of Tosafot "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part II/English/YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash.json

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part II",
+    "versionSource": "http://www.torontotorah.com",
+    "versionTitle": "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "ישיבה-יוניברסיטי בית מדרש תורה מציון",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק ב",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "I saw in Vayilaket Yosef (3-4:74) that R'Yehudah Leib Marmorstein discussed the case of a youth ‎whose father had not allowed him to be circumcised. The youth now has died at the age of ‎sixteen, and Rabbi Marmorstein ruled that his grave should be distanced nine cubits from the ‎other graves; see his reasoning there. In my humble opinion, one should agree with him in ‎practice, but not due to his reason. He decided that it was obvious that this youth was a wicked ‎individual, and we do not bury the wicked alongside the righteous.(Sanhedrin 47a). One cannot ‎argue that the youth was a \"child held captive among non- Jews\" [who is not viewed as responsible ‎for his actions], for it is well known… and that Jews need to be circumcised.‎",
+            "However, who could tell us that [this youth] definitely knew he wasn't circumcised? Does every ‎sixteen-year-old child know the nature of circumcision and the visual difference? Perhaps he was ‎modest and never looked at it his entire life. Think about it [further], due to our many sins there ‎are areas in Germany where the mohelim are severe sinners and do not perform priah [lit. ‎revealing; peeling off thee pithelium]! Many children are therefore as though they were not ‎circumcised [at all], for we learn, \"One who circumcised without priah is as if he had not ‎circumcised.\" (Mishnah Shabbat 19:6)However, none of them know that they are not circumcised; ‎certainly, they are like\" children held captive among non-Jews\". Further, even if they were to learn ‎afterward that priah is necessary, they wouldn't know that priah had not been performed on ‎them. Moreover: Even if you would say that he knew that he wasn't circumcised and despite that ‎he didn't circumcise himself, one could argue that he did so because he didn't want to pain himself, ‎and not because he kicked[i.e. rejected] the commandment of circumcision. If so, all would agree ‎that he was only a rebel concerning one matter, due to his desires. It seems to me that even in ‎Hungary the custom is not to distance the grave of such a rebel from other graves - in Germany, ‎the custom is certainly not so - and so there is no legal reason to change the youth's burial from the ‎burial of other Jewish sinners. ‎",
+            "However, it seems to me that in order to fence in the matter one should prevent his burial among ‎other graves. This is meant to punish those heretics who nullify the covenant of our forefather ‎Avraham, not circumcising their sons, so that they shall understand and fear that this will cause ‎their sons to be entirely separated from the seed of Israel. Even after death, they will not have a ‎grave among the children of our forefather Avraham. Particularly in our time, when this ‎wickedness has spread due to our many sins, there is [a need] to establish boundaries in order to ‎distance those wicked ones from Jewry as much as possible...‎\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part II/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+{
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part II",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Melamed_Leho'il_Part_II",
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Regarding accepting for conversion a woman who wants to marry a Jewish man, I have already stated above, citing Shakh, that it all depends on what the rabbinic court sees. See Beit Yitzhak, Yoreh De’ah 2:100.",
+            "Indeed, nowadays, arguably, since she can marry a Jewish man even while remaining a gentile, and if we do not accept her, the Jewish man will marry her civilly, and if she is not accepted by a God-fearing rabbi she will approach one of those newcomers who accepts converts without immersion in the presence of a rabbinical court and without the acceptance of the commandments, and then she will be considered a convert even though she is a gentile, it is best to minimize the harm and accept her if she promises that she is converting for the sake of heaven and that she will uphold all the commandments, and specifically Shabbat, menstrual purity laws, and the laws of keeping kosher. She should pledge this by giving her word of honor. Her husband should also be cautioned against marrying her unless he is certain that she will uphold all of this. Absent this, there is more harm done than good. For instance, one who has sexual relations with a gentile woman in a state of menstrual impurity does not incur the penalty of extirpation (karet) except at the rabbinic level. However, if she converts, he incurs karet by Torah law.",
+            "If the husband attests, after being warned, that his wife is converting for the sake of heaven, then she should be accepted in the aforementioned manner. If it can be investigated by other people, who are not interested parties, to ascertain whether she truly and wholeheartedly wishes to convert, it is even better. "
+        ],
+        [],
+        [
+            "Question: The son of a gentile woman from a Jewish man—whose father brought him to be circumcised, but it is not known whether he was also immersed—does not observe the commandments, and he desecrates Shabbat, but he is established to be Jewish and he pays tax to the communal fund. Now he wants to marry a Jewish woman, and it is impossible for him to immerse while accepting the commandments, since he does not observe the commandments and does not wish to accept them. Is it permitted to officiate at his wedding, given the concern that if we do not officiate for him, he will marry his wife civilly?",
+            "Answer: That which you wished to say initially, namely, that if we consider him a gentile, he would need to have a drop of blood drawn for the circumcision covenant (hatafat dam brit), is incorrect, in my opinion. Since he was circumcised for the sake of the mitzva of circumcision, there is no need to draw a drop of blood. I proved this above. This is also implied in Minhat Hinukh on the mitzva of circumcision, cited in U-kheTorah Ye’aseh, Appendix D, p. 29b.",
+            "However, regarding R. Yosef Nobel’s attempt to base his position on Darkhei Moshe’s citation of Or Zaru’a (Even Ha-ezer §156), namely, that a Jewish man’s son by a gentile woman is considered his son on the rabbinic level, now that we have merited to see the original Or Zaru’a, it is easy to see that this is no proof. Or Zaru’a states only that it is possible that there are grounds to be stringent out of concern. This has already been addressed by my teacher and master, the eminent Rabbi Shalom Kutna, in his aforementioned book (U-kheTorah Ye’aseh p. 10b), at great length. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in the present case, if he was circumcised and immersed in the presence of the rabbinical court, he is a convert, because presumably the father brought him to be circumcised with his mother’s consent, for it is beneficial to her if her child remains with his father, who provides for him.",
+            "Moreover, according to Ran, it is effective if the court converts him, even without the consent of the father and mother.",
+            "Third, my master and teacher R. Moshe Schick, in [Responsa Maharam Schick] Yoreh De’ah §248, proved from Tosafot  on Sanhedrin 68 that the conversion of a minor is effective ex post facto (be’-di’avad); that we do not do so ab initio is because it constitutes stealing from a gentile.  But here, where under the prevailing law (dina de-malkhuta), the father has control over his son from a gentile woman, even though he is not his son at all according to Torah law, it is nonetheless not considered stealing. Thus, it is possible that we would even convert ab initio, and it is certainly effective ex post facto. ",
+            "Yet the problem remains: we do not know whether he was properly immersed. Regarding what you wrote in the name of the eminent R. Josef Nobel, namely, that one may rely on the presumption (hazaka) that all was done properly; in my humble opinion, one should be hesitant about this, based on what my master and teacher Maharam Schick wrote in [Responsa Maharam Schick] Even Ha-ezer §§37 and 155 and Yoreh De’ah §249 that a gentile and a Jewish woman are forbidden to each other under Torah low, so the present case is an uncertainty pertaining to Torah law (safek de-Orayta). Even if there is a presumption that everything (i.e., the immersion) was done properly, one who is born to a gentile nevertheless is presumed to be forbidden [to marry a Jew], because he was a gentile at birth. Thus, there are conflicting presumptions, and we must be stringent in a case of uncertainty that pertains to Torah law.",
+            "Even though the fact that most ritual slaughterers are skilled is effective to permit an animal despite its presumed forbidden status, which persists from when it was alive [and certainly forbidden], even in a case of uncertainty pertaining to Torah law, nevertheless, though we can say that most circumcisers are skilled, it is still no help in this case except to posit that the circumcision was certainly done properly. The immersion, however, there is only a weak presumption that the circumciser would not do anything that would lead to problems later on. Who knows whether this presumption is as good as the presumption that a member of the rabbinic class (haver) would not let out any untithed produce—a presumption that effectively removes the produce from its presumed forbidden state—especially nowadays, when there are many circumcisers who have not studied the laws of conversion. Thus, in my opinion, we have still not removed ourselves from the throes of this uncertainty. And Maimonides has written in the Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relations 13:9 that if a convert comes to marry a Jewish woman, he must immerse in our presence. This is also the ruling in [Shulhan Arukh] Yoreh De’ah 268:10.",
+            "Let us now consider whether his immersion at present, without the acceptance of the commandments, would be effective. Yoreh De’ah 268:10 states that the acceptance of the commandments, if it is not done in the presence of three [judges] or during the day, prevents the conversion from taking effect, even ex post facto. Certainly, then, if he does not accept the commandments at all, the conversion does not take effect. Even though it is stated at the end of §268 that the conversion is accepted ex post facto even if the convert was not notified of the reward and punishment of the commandments, nevertheless, the acceptance of the commandments prevents the conversion from taking effect. This is also written on p. 12a of U-keTorah Ye’aseh in the name of the author of Beit Yitzhak.",
+            "Yet for me this matter merits further scrutiny, for Maggid Mishneh comments on Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relations 13:17 that informing one of the commandments does not prevent the effectiveness of the conversion, and how can one accept the commandments if he does not know the commandments? This implies that even the acceptance of the commandments does not prevent the effectiveness [of the conversion] ex post facto. I have no time to delve into this at present.",
+            "However, it seems to me that in the present case, where it is uncertain whether one has already converted by means of circumcision and immersion or not, and due to that uncertainty he has already become obligated to perform Torah commandments, for we maintain that the Torah requires stringency in cases of uncertainty regarding Torah law—he may not be fed non-kosher food because it places a stumbling block before the blind—he is thus already beholden by oath, under Torah law, to uphold the commandments. In such a case, even though, if possible, it would be best if he would accept the commandments again, nevertheless, since it is impossible for him to immerse while accepting the commandments, it is sufficient if he immerses without accepting the commandments.",
+            "Moreover, we can contend that his fathers accepted the commandments on his behalf while he was a minor, since they circumcised him for the purpose of conversion. Even though they did not immerse him because they did not know that immersion is required as well, this acceptance of the commandments in his childhood, prior to his circumcision, is nevertheless effective, for certainly one who accepts the commandments prior to circumcision in order to convert, and then is circumcised, even though many years elapsed between the circumcision and the immersion. Just because he did not know that immersion is required as well, it does not stand to reason that the conversion would be rendered ineffective if he did not re-accept the commandments prior to the immersion.",
+            "It therefore seems to me, given these reasons, that if he immerses before [a court of] three, he is a full-fledged convert, even if he does not accept the commandments; the present case, where there is no alternative, is comparable to a post facto (di’avad) case. It would be best to inform him of those commandments that he would certainly want to accept: the prohibitions on paganism, sexual immorality, and bloodshed; the mitzva of charity; honoring one’s parents; loving one’s neighbor; etc. He should then state simply that he accepts the commandments of the Jews. Nevertheless, this is not a sine qua non. If he is properly immersed, I believe that it is permissible to officiate at his wedding and to recite the blessings. ",
+            "If he does not even wish to immerse, and there is concern that if we do not officiate a Jewish marriage (kiddushin) for him he will marry his wife civilly, and since he might be a convert, he and she would be violating the prohibitions on sexual impropriety to a greater degree than if they would be brought together in a Jewish marriage, I maintain that it is permitted to officiate a Jewish marriage for them, though without the blessings. One may recite the blessings without God’s name, for example: “Let us bless He Who shaped man in His image…” “Let us bless the Shaper of man.” Yet it would be better if the rabbi himself does not officiate the Jewish wedding, because they will slander him by saying he officiates Jewish marriages of those who might be gentiles. It would be better to avoid this and leave someone else to officiate the wedding, if possible. This should also be done to demarcate—so that it will be known that the groom is not acting lawfully as he does not wish to immerse, and that his daughter will be disqualified from marrying a kohen.",
+            "What I wrote above, that in the present case, the uncertain convert is obligated by Torah law to perform the commandments, is not accurate. Tosafot on Ketubot 11a state that a minor convert is a valid convert by rabbinic law only, because the Sages have the power to uproot Torah law. If so, his entire obligation is under rabbinic law, and in a case of uncertainty, the lenient position should be followed.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that all authorities disagree with this [position of Tosafot], since we rule that the Sages do not have the power to uproot Torah law except by omission, not by commission. If so, how could Maimonides, Tur, and Shulhan Arukh rule in accordance with Rav Huna in the case of a minor convert? It must be that they maintain that a minor convert is a valid convert under Torah law as well. There are other answers to the question of Tosafot "
+        ],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "I saw in Vayilaket Yosef (3-4:74) that R'Yehudah Leib Marmorstein discussed the case of a youth ‎whose father had not allowed him to be circumcised. The youth now has died at the age of ‎sixteen, and Rabbi Marmorstein ruled that his grave should be distanced nine cubits from the ‎other graves; see his reasoning there. In my humble opinion, one should agree with him in ‎practice, but not due to his reason. He decided that it was obvious that this youth was a wicked ‎individual, and we do not bury the wicked alongside the righteous.(Sanhedrin 47a). One cannot ‎argue that the youth was a \"child held captive among non- Jews\" [who is not viewed as responsible ‎for his actions], for it is well known… and that Jews need to be circumcised.‎",
+            "However, who could tell us that [this youth] definitely knew he wasn't circumcised? Does every ‎sixteen-year-old child know the nature of circumcision and the visual difference? Perhaps he was ‎modest and never looked at it his entire life. Think about it [further], due to our many sins there ‎are areas in Germany where the mohelim are severe sinners and do not perform priah [lit. ‎revealing; peeling off thee pithelium]! Many children are therefore as though they were not ‎circumcised [at all], for we learn, \"One who circumcised without priah is as if he had not ‎circumcised.\" (Mishnah Shabbat 19:6)However, none of them know that they are not circumcised; ‎certainly, they are like\" children held captive among non-Jews\". Further, even if they were to learn ‎afterward that priah is necessary, they wouldn't know that priah had not been performed on ‎them. Moreover: Even if you would say that he knew that he wasn't circumcised and despite that ‎he didn't circumcise himself, one could argue that he did so because he didn't want to pain himself, ‎and not because he kicked[i.e. rejected] the commandment of circumcision. If so, all would agree ‎that he was only a rebel concerning one matter, due to his desires. It seems to me that even in ‎Hungary the custom is not to distance the grave of such a rebel from other graves - in Germany, ‎the custom is certainly not so - and so there is no legal reason to change the youth's burial from the ‎burial of other Jewish sinners. ‎",
+            "However, it seems to me that in order to fence in the matter one should prevent his burial among ‎other graves. This is meant to punish those heretics who nullify the covenant of our forefather ‎Avraham, not circumcising their sons, so that they shall understand and fear that this will cause ‎their sons to be entirely separated from the seed of Israel. Even after death, they will not have a ‎grave among the children of our forefather Avraham. Particularly in our time, when this ‎wickedness has spread due to our many sins, there is [a need] to establish boundaries in order to ‎distance those wicked ones from Jewry as much as possible...‎\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+            "http://www.torontotorah.com"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק ב",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part II/Hebrew/Melamed LeHoil Part I, Frankfurt, 1926.json

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part II",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001878196 ",
+    "versionTitle": "Melamed LeHoil Part I, Frankfurt, 1926",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "מלמד להועיל, חלק א, פרנקפורט, תרפ\"ו",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק ב",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "שאלה: בן נכרית מישראל שהניחו אביו לימול ואין אנו יודעין אם גם נטבל, והוא אין שומר מצוה גם מחלל שבת אך הוחזק ליהודי ומשלם גם מס לקופת הקהלה ועתה רוצה לישא אשה ישראלית וא\"א להטבילו בקבלת המצות כיון שאינו שומר מצות לא ירצה לקבל אם מותר לסדר לו קידושין, כאשר שיש לחוש שאם לא יסדרו לו ישא אשתו בציפילעהע.",
+            "תשובה. מה שרוצה מר לומר בתחילה דאם נחשוב אותו כנכרי צריך הטפת דם ברית לענ\"ד זה אינו כיון דנימול לשם מצות מילה א\"צ הטפת דם ברית וכבר הוכחתי בזה לעיל, וכן משמע בספר מנחת חינוך על מצות מילה, הובא בס' \"וכתורה יעשה\" הוספה ד' כ\"ט ע\"ב. ",
+            "אמנם מה שרוצה הרה\"ג מו\"ה יוסף נאבעל לסמוך על מה שהביא ר\"מ משום א\"ז (אה\"ע סי' קנ\"ו) דבנו מן הנכרית הוי בנו מדרבנן, עכשיו שזכינו לס' א\"ז נקל לראות דראי' זו אינה דהא\"ז לא כתב רק דאפשר דיש לחוש להחמיר, וכבר כתב בזה הה\"ג מו\"ה שלום קוטנא בספרו הנ\"ל (קונטרס וכתורה יעשה דף י' ע\"ב) באריכות ויעיי\"ש, ועכ\"פ נ\"ל דבנ\"ד אם נימול ונטבל בב\"ד הוי גר דמסתמא האב הביאו לימול בהסכמת אמו, דהא זכות היה לה אם ולדה נשאר אצל האב והוא מפרנסו. ",
+            "ועוד לדעת הר\"ן מהני אם ב\"ד גיירו אפילו בלא הסכמת אב ואם. ",
+            "שלישית כבר כ' מו\"ר מהר\"ם שיק י\"ד סי' רמ\"ח ראיה מתוס' סנהדרין ס\"ח דמהני גירות קטן בדיעבד, ומה שאין מגיירין לכתחילה היינו משום גזל גוי, וכאן שעפ\"י דינא דמלכותא יש לאב רשות על בנו מנכרית אף שעפ\"י דין תורה אינו בנו כלל, מ\"מ לא מיקרי גזל, ואפשר דאפילו לכתחילה מגיירין, ועכ\"פ בדיעבד מהני. ",
+            "אמנם דא עקא דלא ידעינן אי נטבל כראוי ומ\"ש בשם הרה\"ג מו\"ה יוסף נאבעל לסמוך על חזקה שנעשה הכל כדין לענ\"ד יש לגמגם בזה עפ\"י מ\"ש מו\"ר מהר\"ם שיק באה\"ע סי' ל\"ז וקנ\"ה ובי\"ד סי' רמ\"ט דנכרי לישראלית הוי אסור מדאורייתא והוי ספק דאורייתא, ואף אי יש חזקה שנעשה הכל כדין מ\"מ הרי הנולד מן הנכרים יש לו חזקת איסור דהא היה גוי כשנולד והוי חזקה נגד חזקה וצריך להחמיר בספק דאורייתא. ",
+            "ואף דרוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן מהני נגד בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת אף דהוא ספק דאורייתא, מ\"מ אף אם נימא דרוב מצויין אצל מילה מומחין הן, זה לא מהני אלא לומר דודאי נימול כדין, אבל על הטבילה אינה רק חזקה חלשה דהמוהל לא יעשה דבר שיוכל להביא לידי תקלה, ומי יודע אם חזקה זו טובה כמו חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן דמהני להוציא מידי חזקת איסור, ובפרט בזמן הזה דאיכא הרבה מוהלים דלא גמירי דין גירות. וע\"כ נלע\"ד דמידי ספיקא לא נפקא. וכבר כ' הרמב\"ם פי\"ג מה' איסורי ביאה ה\"ט דאם בא גר לישא ישראלית צריך שיטבול בפנינו וכ\"פ בי\"ד סי' רס\"ח ס\"י.",
+            "ועתה ניחזי אנן אי מהני כשטובלין אותו עכשיו בלא קבלת מצוות. הנה בי\"ד סי' רס\"ח סעיף ג' כ' דקבלת מצות אפילו בדיעבד מעכב אם אינה ביום ובשלשה, וא\"כ מכש\"כ דמעכב אם לא קבל כלל המצות, ואף שבסוף סי' רס\"ח כ' דבדיעבד הוי גר אף שלא הודיעוהו שכר המצות ועונשן מ\"מ קבלת המצוות מעכב אפילו בדיעבד וכ\"כ בקונטרס ובתורה יעשה דף י\"ב ע\"א בשם בעל בית יצחק. ",
+            "אמנם לי אכתי הדבר צריך עיון דהא כתב ה\"ה פי\"ג מה' א\"ב הי\"ז זה פשוט דאין הודעת המצות מעכב, ואיך יקבל המצות אם אינו יודע המצות, וא\"כ משמע דגם קבלת המצות אינו מעכב בדיעבד, ואין לי פנאי לעיין כעת בזה.",
+            "אך נ\"ל דבנ\"ד דיש ספק אי כבר נעשה גר ע\"י מילה וטבילה או לא וא\"כ מצד ספק זה כבר נתחייב במצוות מדאורייתא דהא קיי\"ל ספק דאורייתא מן התורה לחומרא, ואין מאכילין אותו איסור משום לפני עור, א\"כ הרי כבר מושבע ועומד מדאורייתא לקיים המצוות, בנידון זה אף דאם היה אפשר היו עושין על צד היותר טוב שיקבל המצוות עוד הפעם, אבל מ\"מ כיון דאי אפשר לעשות טבילה בקבלת המצוות די בטבילה בלא קבלת המצוות. ",
+            "ועוד דאפשר לומר דאבותיו קבלו המצוות כבר בשבילו כשהיה קטן כיון שמלוהו לשם גירות, ואף שלא הטבילוהו מפני שלא ידעו שצריך ג\"כ טבילה מ\"מ מהני קבלת המצוות דקטנותו שהיה קודם מילה דודאי מי שקבל המצות קודם מילה ע\"מ להתגייר ואח\"כ נימול אף שעברו שנים בין מילה לטבילה מפני שלא ידע שצריך ג\"כ טבילה אין סברא דיעכב אי לא קבל המצוות עוד הפעם קודם טבילה. ",
+            "וע\"כ נ\"ל מפני טעמים הנ\"ל דאם נטבל בפני שלשה הוי גר גמור בדיעבד אף שלא קיבל המצות, ובנידון דידן דא\"א בענין אחר כדיעבד דמי. ועל צד היותר טוב יודיעו לו המצות שבודאי רוצה לקבל דהיינו ע\"ז וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים מצות צדקה וכבוד אב ואם ואהבת רע וכדומה, ויאמר אח\"כ סתם שמקבל עליו מצוות היהודים, ומ\"מ כל זה אינו מעכב. ואם יטבלוהו כדין נ\"ל דמותר לסדר לו קידושין אפילו בברכה.",
+            "ואם לא ירצה אפילו לטבול ויש לחוש שאם לא יסדרו לו קידושין ישא אשתו בציפילעהע, וכיון דהוא ספק גר הוא והיא יעשו איסור זנות יותר משאם יהיו יחדיו ע\"י קידושין נ\"ל דשרי לסדר להן קידושין בלא ברכה, ואפשר לומר הברכות בלא שם ומלכות כגון: נברך אשר יצר את האדם בצלמו וכו' נברך יוצר האדם. אך טוב שהרב בעצמו לא יסדר הקידושין משום לעז שיאמרו שמסדרין קידושין לספק גוי, וטוב להשתמט בזה ולהניח לסדר הקידושין מאיש אחר אם אפשר. ויש לעשות כן גם משום היכר שידעו שהחתן עושה שלא כדת שאינו רוצה לטבול את עצמו, ובתו תהי' פסולה לכהונה.–",
+            "מה שכתבתי לעיל דבנ\"ד הספק גר חייב מן התורה במצות לכאורה זה אינו דהרי כתבו תוס' בכתובות י\"א ע\"א דגר קטן לא הוי גר אלא מדרבנן ויש כח ביד חכמים לעקור עיי\"ש, וא\"כ כל החיוב אינו אלא מדרבנן ובספק יש לילך לקולא. אך נ\"ל דכל הפוסקים חולקים על זה דהא אנן פסקינן דאין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה אלא בשב ו��ל תעשה ולא בקום ועשה, וא\"כ האיך פסקו הרמב\"ם והטוש\"ע כרב הונא בגר קטן, אלא ודאי דס\"ל דהוי גר מדאורייתא, ועל קושי' התוס' יש תירוצים אחרים ע' בראשונים ובש\"מ.\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Melamed Leho'il Part II/Hebrew/Melamed LeHoil Part II, Frankfurt, 1927.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Melamed Leho'il Part II",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001878196",
+    "versionTitle": "Melamed LeHoil Part II, Frankfurt, 1927",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "מלמד להועיל, חלק ב, פרנקפורט תרפ\"ז",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "מלמד להועיל חלק ב",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [],
+        [
+            "לענין קבלת גיורת שרוצה להנשא ליהודי כבר הבאתי לעיל בשם הש\"ך דהכל לפי ראות עיני הב\"ד וע' בית יצחק י\"ד ח\"ב סי' ק'. ",
+            "והנה בזמננו י\"ל כיון דיכולה להנשא ליהודי אף בגיותה ואם אין מקבלין אותה היהודי ישא אותו בציפילעהע, ועוד שאם לא יקבל אותה רב יר\"א תלך אצל אחד מהחדשים שמקבלין גיורות בלי טבילה בב\"ד ובלי קבלת מצות, ואז תהיה נחשבת לגיורת אף שהיא נכרית, מוטב לאחוז הרע במיעוטו ולקבלה אם תבטיח שהיא מתגיירה לשם שמים ושתקיים כל המצות ובפרט מצות שבת, נדה ומאכלות אסורות וכו'. את כל זה תבטיח \"אויף עהרענוואָרט\" וגם את בעלה יזהירו שלא יקח את אשתו כי אם בשידוע לו שתקיים כל אלה, דכלא זה הקלקול יתר על התקון, דרך משל אם יבעול נדה גויה אינו מחוייב כרת אלא מדברי קבלה, ואם נתגיירה הוא מחוייב כרת מדאורייתא. ",
+            "ואם גם הבעל מעיד אחרי האיום שאשתו מתגיירת לש\"ש אזי יש לקבלה באופן הנ\"ל. ואם אפשר לחקור אצל אנשים אחרים שאינם נוגעין בדבר שהיא רוצה להתגייר באמת ובלב תמים, מה טוב."
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Teshuva",
+        "Paragraph"
+    ]
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Noda BiYhudah II/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "Prague, Wednesday, 10th of Av 5544 (1784), ...",
+                "an answer",
+                "to three who stand as one, knowledgeable and of understanding, the honorable and great rabbis, impressive in Torah, the honorable Rabbi David, head of the Bet Din of the community of Serda, and the honorable Rabbi Sender, head of the Bet Din of the community of Sardhel, and the honorable Rabbi Ber, he should be well.",
+                "I received their letter at the beginning of this month, yesterday on the fast day, and they locked the gates of repentance on that day, forbidden to learn Torah, and only now have I seen their actual question, regarding one who had a burglary in the city, and after some days they found two maidens who said that they saw the stolen item in Ploni Almoni’s house, and that man denied it. And their [the questioner’s] argument regarding this is, some say that this is similar to what the Rama wrote in Choshen Mishpat, at the end of siman 35, in the name of the Terumat Hadeshen, that sometimes for the good [of society] their testimony is effective, and some say that the comparison is not the same, since there the subject was regarding seats in the women’s section of the synagogue where the men are not, or in regard to women’s clothing, from the reasoning that it is not the way of men to look much [at the clothes], as is explained there. This was the language of their question.",
+                "Behold, know that because of our many sins, God has pained me for many months, and I am not healthy, and I cry out, “My head, my head!”, and because of this the doctors have decreed I must cease my learning, and I cannot look into any matter which needs a bit of investigation, and therefore I cannot answer any person who asks me a question regarding something elsewhere [from what I have on my mind at the moment]. But I saw that you three were chosen to be the judged for this case, and you were gathered, each man from his place, to come together and judge the matter. I had mercy that you shouldn’t struggle for nothing. I say that each side was not careful enough in the language [of his position]. ",
+                "He who wants to believe the testimony of the women write that this is similar to what the Rama wrote in the name of the Terumat Hadeshen, as if this is a great proof. But why did he not look into the Terumat Hadeshen 353, where he writes, “Since we learn from the Tanna the rationale that in cases where the invalid [witnesses] are more common that the kosher ones, one could validate the invalid [witnesses], even though the Tanna concludes that they should not be validated, one could say that that is distinct for damages, since if we believe them, life couldn’t continue for anyone, for anyone who is suspected of being a thief could pay slaves or gentiles or induce women or slaves to testify on his behalf that his fellow, or his fellow’s animal, damaged him 100 dollar’s worth every day.” See there in the Terumat Hadeshen. And if so, so too here one could say that we could not continue to live, for anyone could induce women to testify on his behalf that his fellow stole 100 dollars from him. ",
+                "And one could not respond that here it is different because this is a case of burglary in the city, for if so, regarding damages where a cow who damages is right in front of us should women or invalid witnesses be believed? But the Tanna decided that it can only be through free, Jewish, witnesses, and there is no distinction in the matter. And one shouldn't bring [an argument] from the words of the Terumat Hadeshen that the Terumat Hadeshen was dealing with the law of the Talmud, but he should have brought the end of the Rama's words who wrote there in the name of the Maharik that a woman, even just one, or a relative, or a minor, are believed when it comes to the striking or insulting of a Torah scholar, and other squabbles, and handing people over [to the government], for just as men are not commonly present, so too women aren't commonly present, and even so women are believed. But the root of the matter is that in a place where women are commonly present, and men are not commonly present, then one should believed women, not just from the perspective of the good [of society] alone. And there is even support for this from the Talmud that a midwife is believed to say that this one is the firstborn, but regarding squabbles and strikings and handing people over [to the government], which there is just like [a case where] men aren't commonly present, so too women aren't commonly present, and it is just a takkana of the earlier sages, since the matter itself isn't common, and is something that happens suddenly, and there isn't enough time to have kosher witnesses, the earlier sages made a takkana that women could be believed. But nevertheless, it is clear there at the end of the Rama's words, and these are his words, \"And it [is when] he makes a claim with certainty.\" And here the claim is not with certainty [as the testimony is circumstancial], and even if this case was that the burglary occurred in the city, and he can make a certain claim that it was stolen, but he cannot claim he knows for certain that the stolen object was in the hand of Ploni Almoni. That's first of all.",
+                "And furthermore, I say that were it true that it was a claim of certainty that he saw the stolen object in the house of Ploni Almoni, and the maidens testified according to his words, money is not capable of being removed through the testimony of women, for it seems in my humble opinion that it must be that they didn't say that regarding an uncommon matter, they made a takkana to believe the invalid kinds of witnesses, but rather a matter that occurs suddenly, and is over completely, such as a strike or handing over, that one who wasn't there at the time of the strike or the time of the handing over can no longer testify about it. But he who wants to compare this case to that, his reasoning certainly is that theft is also not common, for those who burglar do so in hiding. There is some place for his words, were it so that the maidens were testifying that they saw Ploni Almoni steal. But they did not testify that he stole, but they only testified that they saw the stolen object in his possession, and that is not a one-moment matter, and it’s quite possible the stolen object had been in his possession for a long time, and it’s also possible that men will the stolen object in his possession, but it happens that men didn’t see it [yet]. Regarding this they did not make a takkana that women or invalid witnesses could be considered kosher. It is better not to add to the takkana. And even if the maidens testify that they saw the theft, I am not absolutely sure that they should be believed, rather I say that there is what to consider regarding it. But this case, certainly they cannot be believed, and it seems in my humble opinion what I have written."
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+        "enTitle": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "key": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Noda BiYhudah II/English/Sefaria Responsa Anthology.json

@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "לקט השו״ת של ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>Response</b>",
+                "Greetings to the scholar, who engages with the laws of Mt. Horeb, the esteemed rabbi, my honored friend, the Torah chieftain, our master, Rabbi Gumprecht Oppenheim, may our Rock protect him.",
+                "I received your letter, and although I do not recognize you and do not know you, nevertheless, when one comes to ask a question and speaks using the language of the sages, I respond to every questioner.",
+                "The root of the question is this: A certain man, who God has graced with a large estate, has villages and forests – forests in which all the beasts of the forest prowl. May he go himself to shoot with a rifle (lit. “fire stick”) to trap game, or is it forbidden for one of Israel to do this deed, whether because it causes pain to creatures (“<i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>”), because it violates “you shall not destroy” (“<i>bal tashhit</i>”), or because it is customary to regard it as <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>? It is explained in Tosafot on Tractate Avoda Zara, that is, in Piskei Hatosafot, and in Issur Ve-hetter 59:36, which states in the name of Rosh (R. Asher b. Jehiel) that anything medicinal does not constitute a gentile custom (“darkei ha-Emori”) and in the name Tosafot in Avoda Zara that although <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is a Torah prohibition, if it is helpful in some way, it is permitted.",
+                "[Answer:] In truth, Tosafot on Avoda Zara 11a, s.v. “okrin,” indicates to the contrary. This is the formulation of Tosafot: If you ask: Why doesn’t [the Talmud] ask: ‘But there is <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>!?’ Granted, there is no <i>bal tashhit</i> because one can do this to honor the king, so it is not wasteful. It is akin to burial shrouds worth a hundred coins. But how can <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> be permitted? One can answer that the king’s honor is different, for it is the honor of all Israel, and public honor supersedes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>.",
+                "It thus seems from their words that <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is more severe than <i>bal tashhit</i> and is not permitted even in a case of need except for the sake of public honor. Go and see that Tosafot refer to this as “superseding” (“dehiya”), that public honor supersedes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. So how can one say that it would be permitted for the needs of a voluntary matter?",
+                "However, Piskei Tosafot ad loc. states: “<i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is not forbidden except when pain is inflicted without profit.”",
+                "In truth, the words of Tosafot themselves here in Avoda Zara, where their words show that the prohibition of <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is more severe than the prohibition of <i>bal tashhit</i>, contradicts the words of Tosafot in Bava Metzia 32b, s.v. “Mi-divrei shneihem,” which states: “If you ask: If so, why do we mutilate [animals] for kings…? One may answer: The honor of the king or prince is greater, like <i>bal tashhit</i> which is superseded in their honor…” Thus, the prohibition of <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is compared to <i>bal tashhit</i>.",
+                "However, the words of Tosafot in Bava Metzia are against the words of Maimonides, for there in Bava Metzia, Tosafot upheld the opinion of the sage who maintains that <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is a biblical prohibition, whereas <i>bal tashhit</i> is of rabbinic origin except the case of cutting down trees. And this is the formulation of Maimonides in the Laws of Kings 6:8: <i>We do not cut down food trees…. Anyone who cuts one down is given lashes. This is not only during a siege, rather any time one cuts down a food tree in a destructive manner, he is given lashes.</i> And 6:10: <i>It is not only trees; rather, one who shatters vessels, rips clothing, demolishes a building, stops up a well, or ruin food in a destructive manner violates bal tashhit, but does not incur lashes, merely rabbinically-ordained beatings for rebelliousness.</i> Thus, other forms of destruction, which do not involve cutting down trees, are only rabbinic violations of <i>bal tashhit</i>. ",
+                "Indeed, there is no need for us to write at length about this, because R. Israel Isserlein has already written at length, in his Pesakim U-khetavim (Terumat Ha-deshen Vol II) §105, that anything that is for man’s needs does not constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>, and moreover, <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is only applicable when one causes it pain but leaves it alive. However, to kill livestock, beasts, and all sorts of animals does not constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. This can also be shown from Hullin 7b: “Shall I mutilate it? It constitutes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. Kill it? It constitutes <i>bal tashhit</i>.” Thus, even though the response to his proposal to mutilate is that it would constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>, he nevertheless asks if he may kill it. ",
+                "Thus, there is no <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> in the subject of this question. And there is no <i>bal tashhit</i> because one benefits from the pelt, and further, is not acting in a destructive manner.",
+                "Furthermore, the main prohibition of <i>bal tashhit</i>, though rabbinic, is nevertheless rooted in the Torah’s prohibition of cutting down fruit trees. And there it is written: “For you shall eat it and not cut it down…” (Devarim 20:19). Thus, since whatever the rabbis instituted was modeled on Torah law, one may not destroy something that man can benefit from; one may not destroy and debase that benefit. Perhaps this even applies to something ownerless. However, <i>bal tashhit</i> does not apply to something whose loss that will not cause the loss of benefit to any man. Therefore, those animals of the forest, while they are alive, give benefit to no man. Their main benefit is in their death—through their pelts and meat. So how can we say that it is forbidden to kill them because of <i>bal tashhit</i>?",
+                "And to suggest that it is forbidden as a permissible action that others have customarily treated as prohibited—here, too, there is not concern, for one cannot say that there is a custom to prohibit something that is uncommon.",
+                "Thus far, we have addressed the legal aspects.",
+                "However, I am surprised by the matter itself. We find no hunters other than Nimrod and Esau, and this is not the way of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go and look, regarding the congratulation “let it be worn out and renewed” – R. Jacob Weil writes in his rulings, cited by Rema in Orah Hayim at the end of §223, that one does not say this on something made of animal skins, because “His mercy extends over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9). And even though Rema writes on this that it is weak reasoning, because it is not necessary for an animal to be killed on his behalf, as there are many pelts and skins that are already prepared, and many of them die of natural causes but can still be used for their pelts. Nevertheless, Rema concludes that many are careful about this. For how can a man of Israel actively kill beasts needlessly, simply to pass his leisure time by engaging in hunting?",
+                "If you suggest [that one may hunt] because bears, wolves, and other predators are likely to cause damage, for [the Rabbis] have stated that “a wolf, a lion… whoever displays alacrity in killing them has merited” (Sanhedrin 15a) – this is mistaken as well, for two reasons: First, the law does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a wolf, lion, bear, leopard, or panther, and even with regard to a snake, Maimonides and Raavad disagree in the Laws of Sanhedrin 5:2.",
+                "Secondly, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, we maintain the view of Resh Lakish, namely, that only when [the beasts] have already killed [is it permitted to kill them], as made clear by Maimonides loc. cit.—and see Kesef Mishneh ad loc.—yet a party to the debate may still find grounds to say that this applies when they have an owner and are tame, as detailed in Sanhedrin 15b, which concludes regarding the statement of R. Shimon b. Lakish [=Resh Lakish], “We see that he maintains that they are tame and have owners.” This is also the formulation of Maimonides loc. cit.: “A lion, bear, or panther that are tame and have owners…” Thus, those which were not domesticated are not tame and are usually destructive, and so even on Shabbat it is nevertheless permitted to trample them innocuously, as detailed in Shabbat 121b and Shulhan Arukh [Orah Hayim] 316:10.",
+                "Yet even this is unrelated to the present care, for in that case, when they came into a settled area, a place of human beings, and they are nearby, then during the week one may kill them, and on Shabbat one may trample them innocuously. Indeed, it is stated in Shabbat loc. cit.: “Our Rabbis taught: “If snakes came upon him—if he killed them, then it is known that they came upon him so that he can kill them….” But to chase after them in the forests, the location of their dens, when it is not usual for them to enter settled areas, there is no mitzva, and there is nothing but the pursuit of his heart’s appetites and the counsel of [the evil inclination, which] is compared to a deer.",
+                "A man who needs to do so, whose livelihood is from such trapping, is not cruel. After all, we slaughter livestock, beasts, and birds and kill fish for human consumption, and why should there be a difference between kosher animals whose meat is eaten and unkosher animals through which one earns a living and eats by the sale of their pelts? All creatures were given to man for all his needs. However, for one who does not need this for his livelihood, and whose main intent is not at all for the sake of earning a living, this is cruelty.",
+                "Thus far I have addressed the aspect of proper behavior, [contending] that man ought to distance himself from this. Now I say that it is even forbidden, for anyone who engages in this must enter the forests and place themselves in great danger, in places of packs of wild animals. And the Merciful One said: “Take great care of yourselves” (Deut. 4:15). And who was a greater and more expert hunter than Esau, about who Scripture attests: “Esau was a skillful hunter…” (Genesis 25:27). Yet look at what he said about himself: “I am about to die…” (ibid. 32). And no Scripture departs from its plain meaning, which is that he endangers himself each day among packs of wild beasts. So explains Nachmanides. So then how can a Jewish man insert himself into a place of packs of wild and vicious beasts? Yet even here, if one who poor and does so for sustenance, the Torah permitted it, like any maritime trader crosses the sea—for with regard to anything that is for the needs of one’s sustenance and livelihood, there is no choice. The Torah has said [about the wages of a day laborer]: “His life depends on it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the sages said (Bava Metzia 112a): “Why did this person ascend a ramp, dangle from a tree, and place himself at risk of death? Is it not for his wages?” But one whose main intention is not for sustenance, rather, he does to the place of packs of wild animals due to his heart’s appetite, and endangers himself, violates “Take great care of yourselves.”",
+                "This is the formulation of Maimonides in Laws of Murderers and Preservation of Life 12:6: <i>It is also forbidden for one to pass under a collapsing wall… and so too anything akin to this and other dangers—it is forbidden to pass through their place.</i>",
+                "Based on this, I now say that this entails a prohibition, as well as endangerment, and a third thing—that it causes his sins to be invoked—for this is no worse than [passing under] a collapsing wall [which, according to the Talmud, causes ones sins to be invoked before God]. Perhaps this is the intent of the Sages of the Mishna in m. Berakhot 4:4: “Rabbi Joshua says: One who passes through a dangerous place recites a short prayer and says: ‘Save, O Lord, Your people…in every time of crisis’ (‘ibur’).” And the Talmud (Berakhot 29b) asks: “What does ‘time of crisis’ mean? R. Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: ‘Even when You are filled with anger (evra) against them’… Some say… ‘Even when they transgress (ovrin) the words of the Torah.” ",
+                "According to our approach, we can understand this. One who walks in a dangerous place transgresses the words of the Torah, which states, “Take great care of yourselves.” It also causes his sins to be invoked, and consequently the Almighty is filled with anger at him—whereas any other transgression that one may do will not cause the Almighty to be filled with anger against him. But one who causes the invocation of all his transgressions is subject to the Almighty’s anger. Therefore, our Sages instructed one who must do so for his livelihood to recite this prayer for himself. But how can the prayers of one who does so in such an abhorrent manner be accepted? Thus, this activity includes a repugnant character trait, that is, cruelty, as well as a prohibition, endangerment, and the invocation of one’s sins.",
+                "One who heeds me will therefore dwell safely, tranquilly, and contentedly at home and not waste his time with such things.",
+                "If not for my love of the gentleman who is so renowned for his good character, I would not engage in the response to this question. But since I know that the gentleman and his entire family have an excellent reputation, I therefore must use all my power to protect his family, lest they give grounds for those who hate the gentleman—a hate derived from envy—to find something about which to complain.",
+                "This will bring peace.",
+                "\"Ever preoccupied, but yours.\" "
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>A response</b>",
+                "To my friend, my relative-by-marriage, my confidant, my beloved, the wonderful rabbi, outstanding in Torah, the esteemed teacher and rabbi Leib Fischels,  may the Merciful One protect and redeem him.",
+                "Regarding your treatise, which you sent to me, and which offers a presentation of the issue that you were asked about by the holy community of London: It happened that someone was ill with a gallstone. The physicians performed surgery, as usual for such an affliction, but it did not cure him, and he died. The sages of that city were asked if it is permissible to dissect the cadaver in that place to see evidence of the root of the affliction, and to learn from it for the future practice of medicine, so that if such a case occurs again, they know how to perform the surgery necessary for a cure without incising him too much, thus minimizing the risks of the surgery. Is this prohibited because it constitutes desecration and disgrace of this corpse, or is it permitted because it leads to the future saving of lives, so that they may take the utmost caution in their craft.",
+                "The one who permitted wanted to derive precedent from embalming, for we find the embalming of Jacob, Joseph, and Israelite kings in the Torah. And even though this is for their honor, it is also the honor of the deceased for rescue and salvation to come to the world through him. He also brought evidence from the responsum of Rashba cited by Rema on Yoreh De’ah 363:2, regarding Reuben who instructed his sons to bring him to his ancestral burial place: “It is permitted to place lye on the skin to accelerate decomposition… due to the needs of the hour, Rashba permitted disinterring from the original grave and placing lye on one who instructed that he be brought to his ancestral grave. Certainly [this would be permitted] in the present case, which is before burial.” This is the rationale of the one who permits.",
+                "And this is the statement of the one who prohibits: It is stated in Bava Batra 155a, regarding the incident in Bnei Brak, that R. Akiva said: “You have no permission to desecrate it.” The permitting sage responded that the case there is different: they wanted to desecrate it for money [to see if the deceased was a minor, whose transactions are invalid], so R. Akiva told them that they have no permission to desecrate it. That is not the case here, where it is needed to save lives. All of the above is the debate that took place in London.",
+                "Your Excellency rejected the evidence stated by both, and all of your Excellency’s words are Torah, fitting of the one who stated them. Certainly embalming is not disgraceful at all. On the contrary, it is for [the deceased’s] honor. Placing lye on the deceased is also not desecration or disgrace. The lengthy exchange about this was unnecessary, and your Excellency has already explained this sufficiently. Regarding the words of the one who prohibited—certainly if we would say that this is a matter of saving lives, the one who permits obviously rebutted well, namely, that R. Akiva’s prohibition for monetary needs does not serve as precedent for the need to save lives. Your Excellency responded to the words of the one who prohibited: “In fact, his prooftext for prohibiting demonstrates, to the contrary, that it is permissible. For there (Bava Batra 144b) the Talmud states: ‘For the sake of the buyers, let it indeed be desecrated.’ It is thus clear that due to the buyers’ losses, we do not pay attention to desecration of the deceased.”",
+                "In truth, your Excellency responded well to the prohibiting sage. However, since I do not know who the one who prohibits is, and perhaps he is a Torah scholar, it is my tendency to seek merit. Perhaps his intention is that it is nevertheless clear from this [passage in the Talmud] that the heirs, the family of the deceased, may not desecrate [the corpse] even if it would cause them losses, since they are relatives. This is explicit in Tosafot ad loc. s.v. “zuzei yahavinan” and in Rema’s glosses to [Shulhan Arukh] Hoshen Mishpat 107:2: if the litigant is a relative of the deceased, we protest against him so that he does not delay the burial of the dead for the sake of having a debt repaid. Presumably, in the present case as well, one may not do anything to the deceased without the consent of his relatives, and the prohibiting sage stated that the heirs have no right to consent to his desecration.",
+                "Your Excellency also cited a prooftext from Hullin 11b: “if you say: let us desecrate this [victim] to save the life of that [murderer]”—that is, it should be permissible to desecrate the murder victim in order to save the murderer [from punishment, if the victim was found to be terminally ill  in any case]. And if you say that in that case it is certain that a life will be saved, whereas in the present case it is uncertain that the doctors will cure someone next time due to this autopsy, the response is that there, too, it is uncertain that the victim will be found to have been terminally ill. Moreover, even if it uncertain that a life will be saved, all of the prohibitions of the Torah are superseded, except for three. Your excellency wrote about this at length. Regarding this, I say that the Talmud’s statements are puzzling. How could it say that we desecrate [the victim’s corpse] in order to save a life? On the contrary. The desecration serves to kill the murderer, for if we do not desecrate, the murderer will be saved, because we will say that he killed someone with a terminal illness. Rather, this is the interpretation of these words. If you suggest that the Torah does not permit desecration, perforce it commands us to put [a murderer] to death without examining and without any concern that the murder victim has a terminal illness, it would make more sense to say that the Torah commands “the congregation shall save”—namely, that we must be concerned lest he killed someone with a terminal illness, and therefore [the murderer] should not be put to death without an examination. And let there be desecration, for if the Torah permitted desecration, there is no reason to be concerned about desecration. Moreover, if we say that the murderer can never be put to death unless the victim is examined, this desecration is for the honor of the victim, and anything for his honor does not constitute desecration.",
+                "I have written all of this in accordance with your words, for you call this saving lives. But I am puzzled. If this is considered even a questionable case of saving lives, why must you engage in all of these mental gymnastics? It is clear and explicit that even an uncertainty supersedes the severity of Shabbat, and there is an explicit mishna on Yoma 83 that the possibility of saving a life supersedes Shabbat. And there on 84b it states that not only an uncertainty concerning the present Shabbat, but even an uncertainty concerning a different Shabbat [supersedes]. However, this all applies when there is a present case of uncertainty concerning a risk to life—such as a sick person or collapsed building. Similarly, in the case in Hullin regarding a murderer, the risk to life is present. So too in the monetary case in Bava Batra, the potential damage is present. But in our case, there is no ill person who needs this. Rather, they want to study this discipline in case they encounter a sick person who requires it. We certainly do not supersede any Torah prohibition or even a rabbinic prohibition due to such a slight concern. For if you call this concern “an uncertainty pertaining to a life,” then any task related to healing—grinding and cooking medicine or preparing a scalpel for bloodletting—will be permitted on Shabbat, perhaps they will encounter a sick person who requires it that night or the next day. It is also difficult to distinguish between concern for the need arising in the near future and concern for the need arising in the distant future. Heaven forfend that such a thing should be permitted. Even gentile physicians do not gain surgical experience with just any corpse, but only with those put to death by the law or with those who themselves consented to it while living. If we, God forbid, are lax in this matter, they will operate on every corpse to learn anatomy and physiology, so that they may know how to cure the living. Therefore, this is all unnecessarily lengthy, and there is no lenient approach whatsoever. In my opinion, your Excellency was mistaken in rushing to respond leniently.",
+                "I have written what seems correct to me. The words of one who seeks peace."
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+        "enTitle": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "key": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Noda BiYhudah II/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,368 @@
+{
+    "title": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Noda_BiYhudah_II",
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>Response</b>",
+                "Greetings to the scholar, who engages with the laws of Mt. Horeb, the esteemed rabbi, my honored friend, the Torah chieftain, our master, Rabbi Gumprecht Oppenheim, may our Rock protect him.",
+                "I received your letter, and although I do not recognize you and do not know you, nevertheless, when one comes to ask a question and speaks using the language of the sages, I respond to every questioner.",
+                "The root of the question is this: A certain man, who God has graced with a large estate, has villages and forests – forests in which all the beasts of the forest prowl. May he go himself to shoot with a rifle (lit. “fire stick”) to trap game, or is it forbidden for one of Israel to do this deed, whether because it causes pain to creatures (“<i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>”), because it violates “you shall not destroy” (“<i>bal tashhit</i>”), or because it is customary to regard it as <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>? It is explained in Tosafot on Tractate Avoda Zara, that is, in Piskei Hatosafot, and in Issur Ve-hetter 59:36, which states in the name of Rosh (R. Asher b. Jehiel) that anything medicinal does not constitute a gentile custom (“darkei ha-Emori”) and in the name Tosafot in Avoda Zara that although <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is a Torah prohibition, if it is helpful in some way, it is permitted.",
+                "[Answer:] In truth, Tosafot on Avoda Zara 11a, s.v. “okrin,” indicates to the contrary. This is the formulation of Tosafot: If you ask: Why doesn’t [the Talmud] ask: ‘But there is <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>!?’ Granted, there is no <i>bal tashhit</i> because one can do this to honor the king, so it is not wasteful. It is akin to burial shrouds worth a hundred coins. But how can <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> be permitted? One can answer that the king’s honor is different, for it is the honor of all Israel, and public honor supersedes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>.",
+                "It thus seems from their words that <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is more severe than <i>bal tashhit</i> and is not permitted even in a case of need except for the sake of public honor. Go and see that Tosafot refer to this as “superseding” (“dehiya”), that public honor supersedes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. So how can one say that it would be permitted for the needs of a voluntary matter?",
+                "However, Piskei Tosafot ad loc. states: “<i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is not forbidden except when pain is inflicted without profit.”",
+                "In truth, the words of Tosafot themselves here in Avoda Zara, where their words show that the prohibition of <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is more severe than the prohibition of <i>bal tashhit</i>, contradicts the words of Tosafot in Bava Metzia 32b, s.v. “Mi-divrei shneihem,” which states: “If you ask: If so, why do we mutilate [animals] for kings…? One may answer: The honor of the king or prince is greater, like <i>bal tashhit</i> which is superseded in their honor…” Thus, the prohibition of <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is compared to <i>bal tashhit</i>.",
+                "However, the words of Tosafot in Bava Metzia are against the words of Maimonides, for there in Bava Metzia, Tosafot upheld the opinion of the sage who maintains that <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is a biblical prohibition, whereas <i>bal tashhit</i> is of rabbinic origin except the case of cutting down trees. And this is the formulation of Maimonides in the Laws of Kings 6:8: <i>We do not cut down food trees…. Anyone who cuts one down is given lashes. This is not only during a siege, rather any time one cuts down a food tree in a destructive manner, he is given lashes.</i> And 6:10: <i>It is not only trees; rather, one who shatters vessels, rips clothing, demolishes a building, stops up a well, or ruin food in a destructive manner violates bal tashhit, but does not incur lashes, merely rabbinically-ordained beatings for rebelliousness.</i> Thus, other forms of destruction, which do not involve cutting down trees, are only rabbinic violations of <i>bal tashhit</i>. ",
+                "Indeed, there is no need for us to write at length about this, because R. Israel Isserlein has already written at length, in his Pesakim U-khetavim (Terumat Ha-deshen Vol II) §105, that anything that is for man’s needs does not constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>, and moreover, <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> is only applicable when one causes it pain but leaves it alive. However, to kill livestock, beasts, and all sorts of animals does not constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. This can also be shown from Hullin 7b: “Shall I mutilate it? It constitutes <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>. Kill it? It constitutes <i>bal tashhit</i>.” Thus, even though the response to his proposal to mutilate is that it would constitute <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i>, he nevertheless asks if he may kill it. ",
+                "Thus, there is no <i>tza’ar ba’alei hayim</i> in the subject of this question. And there is no <i>bal tashhit</i> because one benefits from the pelt, and further, is not acting in a destructive manner.",
+                "Furthermore, the main prohibition of <i>bal tashhit</i>, though rabbinic, is nevertheless rooted in the Torah’s prohibition of cutting down fruit trees. And there it is written: “For you shall eat it and not cut it down…” (Devarim 20:19). Thus, since whatever the rabbis instituted was modeled on Torah law, one may not destroy something that man can benefit from; one may not destroy and debase that benefit. Perhaps this even applies to something ownerless. However, <i>bal tashhit</i> does not apply to something whose loss that will not cause the loss of benefit to any man. Therefore, those animals of the forest, while they are alive, give benefit to no man. Their main benefit is in their death—through their pelts and meat. So how can we say that it is forbidden to kill them because of <i>bal tashhit</i>?",
+                "And to suggest that it is forbidden as a permissible action that others have customarily treated as prohibited—here, too, there is not concern, for one cannot say that there is a custom to prohibit something that is uncommon.",
+                "Thus far, we have addressed the legal aspects.",
+                "However, I am surprised by the matter itself. We find no hunters other than Nimrod and Esau, and this is not the way of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go and look, regarding the congratulation “let it be worn out and renewed” – R. Jacob Weil writes in his rulings, cited by Rema in Orah Hayim at the end of §223, that one does not say this on something made of animal skins, because “His mercy extends over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9). And even though Rema writes on this that it is weak reasoning, because it is not necessary for an animal to be killed on his behalf, as there are many pelts and skins that are already prepared, and many of them die of natural causes but can still be used for their pelts. Nevertheless, Rema concludes that many are careful about this. For how can a man of Israel actively kill beasts needlessly, simply to pass his leisure time by engaging in hunting?",
+                "If you suggest [that one may hunt] because bears, wolves, and other predators are likely to cause damage, for [the Rabbis] have stated that “a wolf, a lion… whoever displays alacrity in killing them has merited” (Sanhedrin 15a) – this is mistaken as well, for two reasons: First, the law does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a wolf, lion, bear, leopard, or panther, and even with regard to a snake, Maimonides and Raavad disagree in the Laws of Sanhedrin 5:2.",
+                "Secondly, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, we maintain the view of Resh Lakish, namely, that only when [the beasts] have already killed [is it permitted to kill them], as made clear by Maimonides loc. cit.—and see Kesef Mishneh ad loc.—yet a party to the debate may still find grounds to say that this applies when they have an owner and are tame, as detailed in Sanhedrin 15b, which concludes regarding the statement of R. Shimon b. Lakish [=Resh Lakish], “We see that he maintains that they are tame and have owners.” This is also the formulation of Maimonides loc. cit.: “A lion, bear, or panther that are tame and have owners…” Thus, those which were not domesticated are not tame and are usually destructive, and so even on Shabbat it is nevertheless permitted to trample them innocuously, as detailed in Shabbat 121b and Shulhan Arukh [Orah Hayim] 316:10.",
+                "Yet even this is unrelated to the present care, for in that case, when they came into a settled area, a place of human beings, and they are nearby, then during the week one may kill them, and on Shabbat one may trample them innocuously. Indeed, it is stated in Shabbat loc. cit.: “Our Rabbis taught: “If snakes came upon him—if he killed them, then it is known that they came upon him so that he can kill them….” But to chase after them in the forests, the location of their dens, when it is not usual for them to enter settled areas, there is no mitzva, and there is nothing but the pursuit of his heart’s appetites and the counsel of [the evil inclination, which] is compared to a deer.",
+                "A man who needs to do so, whose livelihood is from such trapping, is not cruel. After all, we slaughter livestock, beasts, and birds and kill fish for human consumption, and why should there be a difference between kosher animals whose meat is eaten and unkosher animals through which one earns a living and eats by the sale of their pelts? All creatures were given to man for all his needs. However, for one who does not need this for his livelihood, and whose main intent is not at all for the sake of earning a living, this is cruelty.",
+                "Thus far I have addressed the aspect of proper behavior, [contending] that man ought to distance himself from this. Now I say that it is even forbidden, for anyone who engages in this must enter the forests and place themselves in great danger, in places of packs of wild animals. And the Merciful One said: “Take great care of yourselves” (Deut. 4:15). And who was a greater and more expert hunter than Esau, about who Scripture attests: “Esau was a skillful hunter…” (Genesis 25:27). Yet look at what he said about himself: “I am about to die…” (ibid. 32). And no Scripture departs from its plain meaning, which is that he endangers himself each day among packs of wild beasts. So explains Nachmanides. So then how can a Jewish man insert himself into a place of packs of wild and vicious beasts? Yet even here, if one who poor and does so for sustenance, the Torah permitted it, like any maritime trader crosses the sea—for with regard to anything that is for the needs of one’s sustenance and livelihood, there is no choice. The Torah has said [about the wages of a day laborer]: “His life depends on it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the sages said (Bava Metzia 112a): “Why did this person ascend a ramp, dangle from a tree, and place himself at risk of death? Is it not for his wages?” But one whose main intention is not for sustenance, rather, he does to the place of packs of wild animals due to his heart’s appetite, and endangers himself, violates “Take great care of yourselves.”",
+                "This is the formulation of Maimonides in Laws of Murderers and Preservation of Life 12:6: <i>It is also forbidden for one to pass under a collapsing wall… and so too anything akin to this and other dangers—it is forbidden to pass through their place.</i>",
+                "Based on this, I now say that this entails a prohibition, as well as endangerment, and a third thing—that it causes his sins to be invoked—for this is no worse than [passing under] a collapsing wall [which, according to the Talmud, causes ones sins to be invoked before God]. Perhaps this is the intent of the Sages of the Mishna in m. Berakhot 4:4: “Rabbi Joshua says: One who passes through a dangerous place recites a short prayer and says: ‘Save, O Lord, Your people…in every time of crisis’ (‘ibur’).” And the Talmud (Berakhot 29b) asks: “What does ‘time of crisis’ mean? R. Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: ‘Even when You are filled with anger (evra) against them’… Some say… ‘Even when they transgress (ovrin) the words of the Torah.” ",
+                "According to our approach, we can understand this. One who walks in a dangerous place transgresses the words of the Torah, which states, “Take great care of yourselves.” It also causes his sins to be invoked, and consequently the Almighty is filled with anger at him—whereas any other transgression that one may do will not cause the Almighty to be filled with anger against him. But one who causes the invocation of all his transgressions is subject to the Almighty’s anger. Therefore, our Sages instructed one who must do so for his livelihood to recite this prayer for himself. But how can the prayers of one who does so in such an abhorrent manner be accepted? Thus, this activity includes a repugnant character trait, that is, cruelty, as well as a prohibition, endangerment, and the invocation of one’s sins.",
+                "One who heeds me will therefore dwell safely, tranquilly, and contentedly at home and not waste his time with such things.",
+                "If not for my love of the gentleman who is so renowned for his good character, I would not engage in the response to this question. But since I know that the gentleman and his entire family have an excellent reputation, I therefore must use all my power to protect his family, lest they give grounds for those who hate the gentleman—a hate derived from envy—to find something about which to complain.",
+                "This will bring peace.",
+                "\"Ever preoccupied, but yours.\" "
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "<b>A response</b>",
+                "To my friend, my relative-by-marriage, my confidant, my beloved, the wonderful rabbi, outstanding in Torah, the esteemed teacher and rabbi Leib Fischels,  may the Merciful One protect and redeem him.",
+                "Regarding your treatise, which you sent to me, and which offers a presentation of the issue that you were asked about by the holy community of London: It happened that someone was ill with a gallstone. The physicians performed surgery, as usual for such an affliction, but it did not cure him, and he died. The sages of that city were asked if it is permissible to dissect the cadaver in that place to see evidence of the root of the affliction, and to learn from it for the future practice of medicine, so that if such a case occurs again, they know how to perform the surgery necessary for a cure without incising him too much, thus minimizing the risks of the surgery. Is this prohibited because it constitutes desecration and disgrace of this corpse, or is it permitted because it leads to the future saving of lives, so that they may take the utmost caution in their craft.",
+                "The one who permitted wanted to derive precedent from embalming, for we find the embalming of Jacob, Joseph, and Israelite kings in the Torah. And even though this is for their honor, it is also the honor of the deceased for rescue and salvation to come to the world through him. He also brought evidence from the responsum of Rashba cited by Rema on Yoreh De’ah 363:2, regarding Reuben who instructed his sons to bring him to his ancestral burial place: “It is permitted to place lye on the skin to accelerate decomposition… due to the needs of the hour, Rashba permitted disinterring from the original grave and placing lye on one who instructed that he be brought to his ancestral grave. Certainly [this would be permitted] in the present case, which is before burial.” This is the rationale of the one who permits.",
+                "And this is the statement of the one who prohibits: It is stated in Bava Batra 155a, regarding the incident in Bnei Brak, that R. Akiva said: “You have no permission to desecrate it.” The permitting sage responded that the case there is different: they wanted to desecrate it for money [to see if the deceased was a minor, whose transactions are invalid], so R. Akiva told them that they have no permission to desecrate it. That is not the case here, where it is needed to save lives. All of the above is the debate that took place in London.",
+                "Your Excellency rejected the evidence stated by both, and all of your Excellency’s words are Torah, fitting of the one who stated them. Certainly embalming is not disgraceful at all. On the contrary, it is for [the deceased’s] honor. Placing lye on the deceased is also not desecration or disgrace. The lengthy exchange about this was unnecessary, and your Excellency has already explained this sufficiently. Regarding the words of the one who prohibited—certainly if we would say that this is a matter of saving lives, the one who permits obviously rebutted well, namely, that R. Akiva’s prohibition for monetary needs does not serve as precedent for the need to save lives. Your Excellency responded to the words of the one who prohibited: “In fact, his prooftext for prohibiting demonstrates, to the contrary, that it is permissible. For there (Bava Batra 144b) the Talmud states: ‘For the sake of the buyers, let it indeed be desecrated.’ It is thus clear that due to the buyers’ losses, we do not pay attention to desecration of the deceased.”",
+                "In truth, your Excellency responded well to the prohibiting sage. However, since I do not know who the one who prohibits is, and perhaps he is a Torah scholar, it is my tendency to seek merit. Perhaps his intention is that it is nevertheless clear from this [passage in the Talmud] that the heirs, the family of the deceased, may not desecrate [the corpse] even if it would cause them losses, since they are relatives. This is explicit in Tosafot ad loc. s.v. “zuzei yahavinan” and in Rema’s glosses to [Shulhan Arukh] Hoshen Mishpat 107:2: if the litigant is a relative of the deceased, we protest against him so that he does not delay the burial of the dead for the sake of having a debt repaid. Presumably, in the present case as well, one may not do anything to the deceased without the consent of his relatives, and the prohibiting sage stated that the heirs have no right to consent to his desecration.",
+                "Your Excellency also cited a prooftext from Hullin 11b: “if you say: let us desecrate this [victim] to save the life of that [murderer]”—that is, it should be permissible to desecrate the murder victim in order to save the murderer [from punishment, if the victim was found to be terminally ill  in any case]. And if you say that in that case it is certain that a life will be saved, whereas in the present case it is uncertain that the doctors will cure someone next time due to this autopsy, the response is that there, too, it is uncertain that the victim will be found to have been terminally ill. Moreover, even if it uncertain that a life will be saved, all of the prohibitions of the Torah are superseded, except for three. Your excellency wrote about this at length. Regarding this, I say that the Talmud’s statements are puzzling. How could it say that we desecrate [the victim’s corpse] in order to save a life? On the contrary. The desecration serves to kill the murderer, for if we do not desecrate, the murderer will be saved, because we will say that he killed someone with a terminal illness. Rather, this is the interpretation of these words. If you suggest that the Torah does not permit desecration, perforce it commands us to put [a murderer] to death without examining and without any concern that the murder victim has a terminal illness, it would make more sense to say that the Torah commands “the congregation shall save”—namely, that we must be concerned lest he killed someone with a terminal illness, and therefore [the murderer] should not be put to death without an examination. And let there be desecration, for if the Torah permitted desecration, there is no reason to be concerned about desecration. Moreover, if we say that the murderer can never be put to death unless the victim is examined, this desecration is for the honor of the victim, and anything for his honor does not constitute desecration.",
+                "I have written all of this in accordance with your words, for you call this saving lives. But I am puzzled. If this is considered even a questionable case of saving lives, why must you engage in all of these mental gymnastics? It is clear and explicit that even an uncertainty supersedes the severity of Shabbat, and there is an explicit mishna on Yoma 83 that the possibility of saving a life supersedes Shabbat. And there on 84b it states that not only an uncertainty concerning the present Shabbat, but even an uncertainty concerning a different Shabbat [supersedes]. However, this all applies when there is a present case of uncertainty concerning a risk to life—such as a sick person or collapsed building. Similarly, in the case in Hullin regarding a murderer, the risk to life is present. So too in the monetary case in Bava Batra, the potential damage is present. But in our case, there is no ill person who needs this. Rather, they want to study this discipline in case they encounter a sick person who requires it. We certainly do not supersede any Torah prohibition or even a rabbinic prohibition due to such a slight concern. For if you call this concern “an uncertainty pertaining to a life,” then any task related to healing—grinding and cooking medicine or preparing a scalpel for bloodletting—will be permitted on Shabbat, perhaps they will encounter a sick person who requires it that night or the next day. It is also difficult to distinguish between concern for the need arising in the near future and concern for the need arising in the distant future. Heaven forfend that such a thing should be permitted. Even gentile physicians do not gain surgical experience with just any corpse, but only with those put to death by the law or with those who themselves consented to it while living. If we, God forbid, are lax in this matter, they will operate on every corpse to learn anatomy and physiology, so that they may know how to cure the living. Therefore, this is all unnecessarily lengthy, and there is no lenient approach whatsoever. In my opinion, your Excellency was mistaken in rushing to respond leniently.",
+                "I have written what seems correct to me. The words of one who seeks peace."
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "Prague, Wednesday, 10th of Av 5544 (1784), ...",
+                "an answer",
+                "to three who stand as one, knowledgeable and of understanding, the honorable and great rabbis, impressive in Torah, the honorable Rabbi David, head of the Bet Din of the community of Serda, and the honorable Rabbi Sender, head of the Bet Din of the community of Sardhel, and the honorable Rabbi Ber, he should be well.",
+                "I received their letter at the beginning of this month, yesterday on the fast day, and they locked the gates of repentance on that day, forbidden to learn Torah, and only now have I seen their actual question, regarding one who had a burglary in the city, and after some days they found two maidens who said that they saw the stolen item in Ploni Almoni’s house, and that man denied it. And their [the questioner’s] argument regarding this is, some say that this is similar to what the Rama wrote in Choshen Mishpat, at the end of siman 35, in the name of the Terumat Hadeshen, that sometimes for the good [of society] their testimony is effective, and some say that the comparison is not the same, since there the subject was regarding seats in the women’s section of the synagogue where the men are not, or in regard to women’s clothing, from the reasoning that it is not the way of men to look much [at the clothes], as is explained there. This was the language of their question.",
+                "Behold, know that because of our many sins, God has pained me for many months, and I am not healthy, and I cry out, “My head, my head!”, and because of this the doctors have decreed I must cease my learning, and I cannot look into any matter which needs a bit of investigation, and therefore I cannot answer any person who asks me a question regarding something elsewhere [from what I have on my mind at the moment]. But I saw that you three were chosen to be the judged for this case, and you were gathered, each man from his place, to come together and judge the matter. I had mercy that you shouldn’t struggle for nothing. I say that each side was not careful enough in the language [of his position]. ",
+                "He who wants to believe the testimony of the women write that this is similar to what the Rama wrote in the name of the Terumat Hadeshen, as if this is a great proof. But why did he not look into the Terumat Hadeshen 353, where he writes, “Since we learn from the Tanna the rationale that in cases where the invalid [witnesses] are more common that the kosher ones, one could validate the invalid [witnesses], even though the Tanna concludes that they should not be validated, one could say that that is distinct for damages, since if we believe them, life couldn’t continue for anyone, for anyone who is suspected of being a thief could pay slaves or gentiles or induce women or slaves to testify on his behalf that his fellow, or his fellow’s animal, damaged him 100 dollar’s worth every day.” See there in the Terumat Hadeshen. And if so, so too here one could say that we could not continue to live, for anyone could induce women to testify on his behalf that his fellow stole 100 dollars from him. ",
+                "And one could not respond that here it is different because this is a case of burglary in the city, for if so, regarding damages where a cow who damages is right in front of us should women or invalid witnesses be believed? But the Tanna decided that it can only be through free, Jewish, witnesses, and there is no distinction in the matter. And one shouldn't bring [an argument] from the words of the Terumat Hadeshen that the Terumat Hadeshen was dealing with the law of the Talmud, but he should have brought the end of the Rama's words who wrote there in the name of the Maharik that a woman, even just one, or a relative, or a minor, are believed when it comes to the striking or insulting of a Torah scholar, and other squabbles, and handing people over [to the government], for just as men are not commonly present, so too women aren't commonly present, and even so women are believed. But the root of the matter is that in a place where women are commonly present, and men are not commonly present, then one should believed women, not just from the perspective of the good [of society] alone. And there is even support for this from the Talmud that a midwife is believed to say that this one is the firstborn, but regarding squabbles and strikings and handing people over [to the government], which there is just like [a case where] men aren't commonly present, so too women aren't commonly present, and it is just a takkana of the earlier sages, since the matter itself isn't common, and is something that happens suddenly, and there isn't enough time to have kosher witnesses, the earlier sages made a takkana that women could be believed. But nevertheless, it is clear there at the end of the Rama's words, and these are his words, \"And it [is when] he makes a claim with certainty.\" And here the claim is not with certainty [as the testimony is circumstancial], and even if this case was that the burglary occurred in the city, and he can make a certain claim that it was stolen, but he cannot claim he knows for certain that the stolen object was in the hand of Ploni Almoni. That's first of all.",
+                "And furthermore, I say that were it true that it was a claim of certainty that he saw the stolen object in the house of Ploni Almoni, and the maidens testified according to his words, money is not capable of being removed through the testimony of women, for it seems in my humble opinion that it must be that they didn't say that regarding an uncommon matter, they made a takkana to believe the invalid kinds of witnesses, but rather a matter that occurs suddenly, and is over completely, such as a strike or handing over, that one who wasn't there at the time of the strike or the time of the handing over can no longer testify about it. But he who wants to compare this case to that, his reasoning certainly is that theft is also not common, for those who burglar do so in hiding. There is some place for his words, were it so that the maidens were testifying that they saw Ploni Almoni steal. But they did not testify that he stole, but they only testified that they saw the stolen object in his possession, and that is not a one-moment matter, and it’s quite possible the stolen object had been in his possession for a long time, and it’s also possible that men will the stolen object in his possession, but it happens that men didn’t see it [yet]. Regarding this they did not make a takkana that women or invalid witnesses could be considered kosher. It is better not to add to the takkana. And even if the maidens testify that they saw the theft, I am not absolutely sure that they should be believed, rather I say that there is what to consider regarding it. But this case, certainly they cannot be believed, and it seems in my humble opinion what I have written."
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא",
+        "enTitle": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "key": "Noda BiYhudah II",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Responsa Chatam Sofer/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,600 @@
+{
+    "title": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Chatam_Sofer",
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chayim": [
+            [
+                "1. Peace and deliverence teacher, may you come and join, to my distinguished and fiery student, whose Torah is wonderous and distinct in the Garden of Holy Ones, his master Yosef Zalman, may his candle enlighten.",
+                "2 That which you said from the words of the Ramban that in the Ran in Megilla that writes a son can make a blessing on behalf of their father. That is an adult son. And my student writes that this against the Talmud, Berachos 20b, that we say etc. <i><small>[Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: Actually they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father...From here we may infer: Granted, if you say that their obligation is by Torah law, one whose obligation is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation of others who are obligated by Torah law. However, if you say that their obligation is by rabbinic law, can one who is obligated by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation of one whose obligation is by Torah law?]</small>The Gemara challenges this proof: And according to your reasoning, is a minor obligated by Torah law to perform mitzvot? <small>[Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the baraita said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father.]</small></i> It is beautiful according to the version before us, but it was not to the Early Authorities that version in the Talmud there. Rather it was said unspeficially that the case the baraisa was dealing with was when eating a Rabbinical measurement. So it appears within the words of the Ran in Sukkah (38a) in the Gemara that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. See there.",
+                "3."
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "Chatam  Sofer  discusses  Rabbi  Yehudah HaNasi’s  wish  to  eliminate  Tishah  b’Av when it occurs on Shabbat. (Megilah 5b)]",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "... One  should  ask: When Tishah b’Av occurs on Shabbat, the 17th of  Tammuz is also Shabbat (unless they set the calendar by seeing the moon, and they added a day to Tammuz). If so, then why did Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi not suggest regarding this fast, that once it is pushed off [from Shabbat], it should not be observed! And do not say that this is correct, and the Sages agreed with him [to eliminate the fast of] the 17th of Tammuz; that is not so, for we do not rule  thus! Rather, one must say that he did not think we should say that once  the  17th of Tammuz is pushed  off, it should not be observed. The 18th of Tammuz is also part of the period of tragedy, as opposed to the 9th of Av, where once the day has passed, there is no mourning according to the view that one mourns from  Rosh Chodesh until after the fast. (Taanit 29b) ...",
+                "And this week I developed a new explanation  for  Eichah Rabbah  4:24,   which states that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi learned Eichah on Shabbat  which  was the 9th of Av, and when he [accidentally] banged his finger, he said of  himself, “There are many pains for the wicked. (Tehillim 32:10)” Rabbi Chiya responded, “The anointed of G-d is caught [only] due to ourcorruption.” (cf. Eichah 4:20) ... It appears to me that within our view that we push the fast to the 10th of  Av, Shabbat is not Tishah b’Av at all,  and one may learn with others,  as Magen Avraham wrote; the day  only has the status of the eve of Tishah b’Av. But if we held as Rabbi  Yehudah  HaNasi does, that once Tishah b’Av is pushed off, it should not be observed and it cannot be made up, then the observance of Tishah b’Av  actually remains in place on the proper day, on Shabbat, and it is  only that the mitzvah of Shabbat pleasure pushes off [fasting for] Tishah b’Av –but that which is private, learning with  others and the like, are  prohibited as they would be for any mourner on Shabbat. So Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi violated his own position ... And therefore he blamed banging his finger on this, and said of himself. “There are many pains,” and Rabbi Chiya responded, “We caused this, for we did not give in to you, and you did not wish to trespass the words of your colleagues.” ... "
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "Indeed, I have seen what is written in Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, §30 regarding a parasol, namely: that he suspects it of obligating a sin-offering [for one who opens it on Shabbat] according to the opinion of Rif, who maintains, on Shabbat 138, that if there is a [square] handbreadth in the roof of a cloak, or within three handbreadths of its roof, it requires a sin-offering; if so, the same applies in the present case, where there is a handbreadth within three handbreadths of the roof, which descends diagonally to offer protection and shade to one who carries it. This constitutes the inclines of an ohel (lit. “tent,” referring to any sheltering structure), which are considered walls. It is thus an ohel with walls, and one who constructs it on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering. 1In truth, here and now, the masses carry them on Shabbat, though they are opened by non-Jews. But so what? Instructing a non-Jew [to perform an act forbidden on Shabbat] is rabbinically prohibited (ibid. 150a), and even if opening a parasol would only be prohibited rabbinically, instructing a gentile would nevertheless be a rabbinic prohibition on a rabbinic prohibition (shvut di-shvut) where it is not for the sake of a mitzva. So who permitted this for them?",
+                "After close scrutiny, I say that carrying a parasol on Shabbat is not merely a teaching for the pious, and one who guards his soul will distance himself from it. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, it is not what the eminent sage thought, for a melakha  that does not correspond to the Tabernacle service has no liability on Shabbat. This is the formulation of the Yerushalmi [Shabbat 52b] at the end of chapter “Klal Gadol”: “What is the binyan (construction, one of the melakhot) that was in the Tabernacle? They would place beams on their bases. But wasn’t that temporary (lit. “for an hour”)? R. Yose says: Since they would travel and camp in accordance with God’s word, it is as though they were camped forever. R. Yose b. Bon said: Since the Almighty promised to take them into Eretz Yisrael, it is as though it was temporary—thus he says that temporary binyan constitutes binyan; thus he says that even irregular binyan [constitutes binyan]; thus he says that even if it is placed atop something else [it is still binyan]; thus he says that even binyan atop vessels (constitutes binyan). [No]—binyan atop bases is like [building on] the ground.” Maimonides likewise rules in Laws of Shabbat 10:12 that binyan atop vessels does not constitute binyan, and Magid Mishneh explains that it is dissimilar from the Tabernacle since the bases were akin to the ground. Magen Avraham cites this at the end of [Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim] §315. This Yerushalmi is cited by Rashba in his novellae on Shabbat, chapter “Haboneh” [102b, the end of s.v. “hai”].",
+                "From this [passage in the] Yerushalmi, I derive three reasons why a parasol has not a trace of a Torah prohibition in any way.",
+                "First, it is temporary binyan. The meaning of temporary binyan is that it is made, from the outset, to be built and demolished and rebuilt and re-demolished at all times, just as the Tabernacle was built. There is a disagreement among Amoraim: according to the one who maintains that since they camped at God’s word the binyan was considered permanent, we may thus return to the principle that temporary binyan is not binyan. Since we find that the our Talmud [Bavli] states anonymously in the chapter “Ba-meh Madlikin” (Shabbat 31b), in the discussion of one who makes charcoal, in a passage about one who demolishes in order to build at the same location, that since Scripture states that they camped according to God’s word, it is considered an established place, and this is not rejected, we may derive from here that this is the ruling. This is further implicit in Tosafot on Shabbat 94a, s.v. “R. Shimon poter.” Since the halakha is that a temporary binyan does not constitute a binyan, and a parasol, of course, is constructed temporarily. See also Mo’ed Katan 9a, which offers a contrived answer as to why they were concerned [about the fact that they had participated in the construction of the Temple on Yom Kippur] and does not answer that one might distinguish between the construction of the Temple, which does not even supersede the holidays, whereas the “Days of Training” (“yemei ha-mili’im”) [for the construction of the Tabernacle] even supersedes Shabbat, for they erected and dismantled it every day. Perforce, then, building and dismantling it temporarily, every day, was a temporary construction, like a parasol, and is dissimilar to the construction of the Tabernacle at a place of encampment—“by God’s word they encamped.”",
+                "Secondly, we find nowhere in the Temple that there was an ohel that moved from place to place by means of someone carrying it himself. Thus, Noda BiYehuda’s lengthy discussion of a moving ohel is irrelevant to the laws of Shabbat, for it pertains to the laws of ritual impurity. On Shabbat, there is no melakha except for that which was done in the Tabernacle. See Tosafot on Shabbat 5b s.v. “egoz al gabei mayim,” [which states that] even though when it comes to acquisition, we maintain that a boat is considered to be at rest and moved by the water, with regard to Shabbat, [placing something there] is not considered putting it down (“hanaha”) since they did not hide objects in this manner in the Tabernacle. The present case is similar. There is a clear proof of this from Shabbat 43b: “If a corpse is lying in the sun, two people come and sit beside it. They feel hot underneath, so each one brings a couch and sits upon it. They feel hot above, so they bring a mat and spread it above them. Each one then turns up his couch, slips out from under it, and leaves, and the wall is thus consequently erected on its own.” At first glance, this requires explanation: they are making a real ohel with themselves as the walls and the ohel spread over their heads. They themselves form the sides. Moreover, they are not moving, but are fixed to their place. Thus, we do not find an ohel like this in the Tabernacle, in which a man holds a shelter over himself, and certainly if he is walking around with this shelter, and we may reason a fortiori from an ohel built above vessels to one carried by a person.",
+                "Thirdly, an ohel is not forbidden at the Torah level unless the walls reach the ground, as was the case in the Tabernacle, and as both Rashi and Rif stated precisely about a folded cloak, and as Tosafot on Shabbat 138a, s.v. “kisei” state. Now, Noda BiYehuda states that a wall of a handbreadth is sufficient for the purposes of Shabbat, and I say that is correct—provided that it reaches the ground, even if its height is a mere handbreadth. However, a wall suspended in the air, and to which additions are not generally made, and which cannot be pulled down to the ground, is certainly not an ohel on the Torah level. The agreement of Peri Megadim is implied in Eshel Avraham 315:7.",
+                "Since this prohibition is not at the Torah level, there is consequently no rabbinic prohibition either. After all, a folded cloak that is opened by a string may be opened even ab initio. Here too, the loops and hooks are like strings, as Noda BiYehuda states himself. Here it is even better, because from the outset this is its intended usage; it is like a wedding canopy, about which Rif and Maimonides (22:30) are lenient because that is their intended usage. Therefore, one it is plausible to say that it is permissible even on the rabbinic level. If so, at the very least they may be opened by a non-Jew, and there is no reason to make a big fuss about this. ",
+                "I have written my humble opinion, here in Pressburg, Monday, the Fast of Esther, 5573.",
+                "The insignificant Moshe Sofer "
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "...And regarding the issue of the trustworthiness of doctors (insofar as considering their opinions when making halachic decisions), I've already written in another teshuvah (responsum) [see: Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 158] that we don't trust doctors regarding a ruling about a specific individual to say that \"this body has a mole which discharges hairs\" (see Niddah 22b) because doctors' opinions are only trusted with regard to a specific individual (as opposed to general theoretical knowledge or trends, when we do trust them) in cases of possible life-and-death situations when the doctors determine there is an uncertainty (i.e. possibility of death) and this pushes aside prohibitions from this place of doubt [since there is a low threshold needed to violate a prohibition when there is a possibly life-threatening scenario]. But for a doctor make a determination [that would override a serious prohibition, when to do so would require] complete certainty, [something which the doctors don't have in any particular case], we don't rely on them for that. But the Sages of Talmud are trusted believed when testifying to the general laws of nature, that there it a reality in the world where a woman has a mole that discharges red hairs (i.e. not red from menstrual blood), and since this is a reality in the world, the Sages said that whenever any woman has a mole that discharges red hairs - those hairs should be immersed in water [to ascertain whether or not it is menstrual blood], etc.  See Niddah 22b and you will understand. And if it wasn't for the testimony of the doctors [who said it was red because of the mole, rather than menstrual blood], we would not rely on this test [i.e. immersing it in water] since we would not know this was a possible reality for women and it would be considered dry blood, which causes impurity. But nowadays, we rely on what is most common according to the doctors' testimony, but [still] with regard to a specific person's situation, we only rely on them to the extent that it establishes a doubtful life-and-death situation..."
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "Peace and good wishes to my dear friend, our honorable teacher, the brilliant and wondrous Rabbi Shlomo, Head of the Court of the holy congregation of Halishtaba, God should protect them.",
+                "I received the seal of his holy hand about [a question] regarding the shochet (ritual slaughterer) Michael Raab, the shochet of a certain village: He met a certain honorable man, the honorable Rabbi Michael Pashkez, from your esteemed congregation and he mocked him, [telling him] that the shochet's wife gave birth to a son, and that he would honor him [to perform] the commandment of his son's circumcision - the mocker knowing that the honorable Rabbi Michael was very devoted to this commandment. So last Sunday, Rabbi Michael traveled four hours from his community to that village [to do the circumcision]. And behold, he lied to him - she had given birth to a girl. So he was a laughing stock in front of everyone [there]. And 'his soul is wrapped up in this question': And likewise does the luminary head of the court ask whether the shochet should be removed from his profession because of the deed mentioned above or what [else] to do to him?",
+                "Behold here we have [issues related] to monetary laws and laws of exploitation. And the latter is primary, since he in any case verbally exploited his fellow. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Bava Metzia 58b regarding the parameters of the negative commandment, “Do not exploit,” “If donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all.” And the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4 rules [like this]. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said with precision that one who said [this] to donkey drivers who regardless had come to a city to purchase grain, so no loss was caused to them, except that they requested that he inform them who sells [grain] and he mocked them with his words - violates the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” And they judged accordingly in the beginning of Pesachim 3b about the Aramean who came up [and tricked the Jews] to eat from the Pesach sacrifices, etc. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteirah [who thwarted the Aramean’s trickery, by misleading him] knew that it was not considered mocking; otherwise he would have been in violation of “Do not exploit.” Here too, [even] had the rabbi, Rabbi Michael, lived in the village and the shochet mocked him to the point that he came to the synagogue to do the circumcision and found that there was no boy there to circumcise, he would have [still] violated this negative commandment. And our Sages were stringent about this over there, to the point that they likened it to worshiping idols (Bava Metzia 39a): “[There are] three [sins before whose transgressors] the curtain [between the world and the Divine Presence] is not locked (meaning, their sins reach the Divine Presence).”",
+                "In monetary law [regarding] one who employs a worker to do work and it comes out that there was none; it is not about this that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, were talking about - one who is a mocker, a sinner and an oppressor - as 'we are not dealing with evildoers,' but rather when [the employer] did not survey his field (Choshen Mishpat 333:1 at the end). However in the case of [work that involves a] commandment - such as a teacher to teach one's child - it is explained in Choshen Mishpat 334:4, that [the employer] gives him his wages in full. [This is not like other workers who get the lower wage ascribed to a job that involves no actual work], because it is preferable to him [to do a commandment than to be involved with nothing]. And here too, it is preferable to him to do a circumcision and to receive the reward from heaven for his travels of walking two <i>parsa</i> than to sit idly. And if so, [the shochet] needs to pay him his wages in full. And his wage for the circumcision is ten gold coins, but I am not able to assess the wage for his travels. And the legal scholars debate about Shulchan Aruch 382(?), whether his payment should be a set fee or according to what is fit in the eyes of the judges. And it would seem to me that this amount should be the difference between the wage of one who actually did [the work] and one who thought to do it but was prevented and did not do it. And that is simple to me, but [then] the case of of Rabbi and the Sadducee at the end of the chapter [entitled] Kisui HaDam requires a little further study. ",
+                "However, in our times, we do not collect [these fees], as is explained there. Rather the matter returns to that which is written in Choshen Mishpat 1:5, and also there in 1:6, and because we do not have the authority from the government to expel him [from the congregation]. However, [we do have the authority] to excommunicate him from the synagogue, and to not circumcise his son. And [they may apply sanctions against him, according] to everything that appears correct to the court, as is explained in Yoreh Deah 334:6 in Remah, and in Shakh 19; and all the more so since he possesses the evil of [violating] the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” It is obvious that they may remove him from his profession, until he satisfies the plaintiff - with all that is fitting, according to that which is mentioned above - and [they] accept his repentance regarding his brazenness and [his violation of] the negative commandment of exploitation. But until then, I am in agreement to remove him from his profession; [assuming] the court receives statements from both sides and ratifies them, and finds the shochet to be liable according to all that is mentioned above. I have written all of this 'in my haste.' Such are my words, honored sir. Pressburg, Erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan 5595 according to our count (Monday, March 30, 1835), Moshe Sofer the Small from Frankfurt am Main"
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "(4) 2. If there is business is happening in his shop at all, he is a mechalel Shabbos v'Yom Tov, since, behold, he is like all people who are mechalel Shabbos by prohibitions that are written in the passuk, as the Ramban, (Parshas Emor, in the passuk of \"Shabbason zichron truah,\" ibid.) who should be remembered for blessing, writes:  It appears to me that this interpretation intends to state that we are commanded by law of the Torah to have rest on a Yom Tov day even from activities which are not in the category of m’lachah (“work”). Thus we are not to be engaged the whole day in wearisome tasks: measuring out crops of the field, weighing fruits and gifts, filling the barrels with wine and clearing away the vessels, and moving stones from house to house and from place to place [although none of these activities is “work” in the strict sense of the term]. Similarly, if it be a city encompassed by a wall and its gates are locked at night, [and it is therefore according to law of the Torah treated as one domain, and the prohibition against taking out aught from one domain to another is inapplicable there], they would be loading heaps on asses, as also wine, grapes, and figs and all manner of burdens they would bring on a festival; and the market place would be full for all business transactions, the shops standing open and the shopkeepers giving credit, the money-changers sitting before their tables with the golden coins before them, and the workers would rise early to go to their work and hire themselves out for such works [as described above] just as on weekdays, and so on! And since all these matters do not entail m’lachah, they would be permissible on a Yom Tov day and even on Shabbos itself! Therefore the Torah said that [Yom Tov should be a day of] shabbason (solemn rest), meaning that it should be a day of rest and ease, not a day of labor [and weariness]. And so is the lashon of the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos, Chapter 21, ibid.)."
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Collected Responsa": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "[K]now, my son and student, that my whole life I have been  troubled by the verse, “And you shall be clean in front of G-d and  Israel,” and these two obligations we have to be clean from G-d and clean from Israel His nation are two paired riders on our  backs. But it is much easier to fulfill the first obligation, meaning, [innocence] in the eyes of G-d, much, much more than  to fulfill one’s obligation regarding people, for they think   strange thoughts [suspicions of wrongdoing], and the weavers  speak of them by moonlight. The punishment [for failure to be innocent in the eyes of  humanity] is quite severe, to no end, more than one who does not fulfill his obligation to Heaven, G-d forbid. This emerges from the Talmud at the end of  the chapter Yom  HaKippurim (Yoma Chapter  8) regarding desecrating G-d’s Name, [which  says] there is no atonement, “such as where a rabbi purchases meat but does not pay right away.” In our great   iniquity, people commonly talk about how such a studious person  did such and such. It is common in their mouths – even if  it’s  just a suspicion. And in this case, even if the studious person  acted properly in the eyes of G-d as much as possible, but not  carefully enough, such that some drunkards made a mistake about him, and wrote mocking songs about him, he has been  caught in their  trap. On this, all sufferers shall grieve, and the verse screams, “You have let men ride over us.” (Tehillim 66:12). ",
+                "And I have wondered many times if it is even possible that a person in the history of the world has fully fulfilled this verse. Perhaps this idea is included in what King Shlomo said, “There is no righteous person in the world who does only good and no  wrong” (Kohelet 7:20) - which means to say that even if his deeds were all good [in the eyes of G-d], it is impossible to not sin in the second way, regarding fulfilling the obligation [to be innocent in the eyes of] people."
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Responsa Anthology",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+            "http://www.torontotorah.com"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "שו\"ת חתם סופר",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "שו\"ת חתם סופר",
+        "enTitle": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
+        "key": "Responsa Chatam Sofer",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "ליקוטי שו\"ת",
+                "enTitle": "Collected Responsa"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Responsa Rav Pealim/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "שו\"ת רב פעלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Volume I": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Preface": [],
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Question: Reuven had a scribe write for him a pair of Tefilin, and he wished to be pious and write with his own hand, the first and last letter of the portion of “Kadesh”, the way those who are pious have the custom of writing the last word with their own hand, however he is not a professional scribe, and he therefore held the quill in his hand, and the scribe held on to his hand, and wrote the first and last letter of the portion of “Kadesh”, however alas, Reuven held the quill in his left hand, while sitting on the right side of the scribe, and the scribe  with his right  hand held on to Reuven’s left hand, which was holding the quill. So we were debating regarding its validity, being that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 32:5) rules that if Tefilin is written with one’s left hand, it is considered to be invalid. So in this case, although the scribe held on to Reuven’s hand with his right hand, nevertheless, if we consider Reuven to be the actual writer, then it would be invalid, so would you please inform us of the correct answer?",
+                    "Answer: I have found it written in the Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 11:14), where he rules that in a case where a child held on to the pen, and an adult held on to the child’s hand, and wrote on Shabbat - the adult would be liable, and if it was vice versa then he would be exempt.",
+                    "So it comes out from the above mentioned ruling, that the one who moves the hand of the one holding the pen, is considered to be the actual writer, and the same would apply in our case regarding the scribe, who held on to Reuven’s hand with is right hand - he is considered to be the actual writer. And although it is unlikely that Reuven providedany assistance at all, we nevertheless rule that assistance is not considered to be of any significance. And one cannot argue that the Rambam’s ruling regarding Shabbat is not for certain, and he is merely being stringent, in order to be on the safe side, because if that were true, then we would not be able to hold him liable, and punish him out of doubt, and even to require him to bring a sacrifice would not be possible, being that it is forbidden to bring into the Holy Temple an animal that was consecrated based on a doubt.",
+                    "And I have seen it written in the “Simlah Chadashah”, that in a case where one who is qualified to slaughter holds on to the knife, and someone who is not qualified holds on to his hand, and slaughters with it, it would be considered invalid, and if it was vice versa, then it would appear to me that it would be considered invalid because of uncertainty as to whether it was slaughtered by the one who was not qualified as well, unless it is known for certain that the one who was qualified was not able to prevent the one who was not qualified  from slaughtering, and the one who was not qualified was unable to prevent the one who was qualified,  and even in such a case, one should not be lenient, unless being stringent would bring about a great loss."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    " There was a story with the one [person] who was the leader and did not pray the afternoon prayer until close to the end of its time [i.e. the allotted time for the prayer], and he measured in his mind that if he will pray now the afternoon prayer he will not be able to finish it entirely in its time, because certainly when he will reach the middle of his prayer of the Amida its time will be [already be] finished, and he will need to finish the prayer after its time, and the questioner was unsure if it is permitted for him to pray in this situation, even though he knows that he will have to finish the prayer after the time, or maybe since he is not able to pray all of the prayer in its time he should not pray now, but if he was forced [to miss the prayer] he should wait to pray the evening prayer twice after it is certainly dark, and if he was intentional [in missing the prayer]  indeed he would lose the prayer. And this doubt that the questioner asked, behold one time with myself there was an event, that I measured in the middle of the Amida [of the afternoon prayer] that the entire time of bein hashmashot [the time of  which we are unsure whether it is day or night] will certainly pass, and I said to look [in]to this [matter], with the help of Heaven.",
+                    "Response: I have actually seen this question mentioned in the book “Batei Knesiot”, where he writes that one might wish to bring proof from the fact that it is brought down that if one does not have enough time to pray the entire “Amidah”, that he should pray the shortened version called “Havineinu”, from which it seems that one is not allowed to begin praying, in a case that he will not be able to finish on time. However, in truth, one could not bring proof from that ruling, being that there are times - such as the night following Shabbat, and the winter months - that one cannot pray the shortened version."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Question: One who has one of his hands wrapped in a cast, and it is not able to come in contact with water at all, and he can only eat with his other hand, and the question wishes to know how to go about the blessing upon washing his hand, whether he should say “who commanded us to wash hands” or perhaps rather “to wash the hand”, being he is only washing one hand?...",
+                    "Response: one might think to bring proof from the blessing recited upon kindling the lights of Chanukah, upon which one recites: “to ignite the candle of Chanukah” even when lighting multiple candles. However, in truth one cannot bring proof from there, being that the actual obligation is only to light one candle, and the rest comes in addition to the main commandment."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "<b>Question:</b> I have been asked by the precious sage, Meir Tzelah, May the Compassionate One guard him and show him grace, in the city of Bombay: We find a carriage that we call a 'Garry,' that has two wheels affixed to it; but they are not drawn by beasts, nor by people - rather it travel by virtue of a person that sits on it and pushes the wheels with his legs. So we wanted to know if it is permissible to ride on this Garry on Shabbat and Yom Tov, or not. May the teacher instruct us and his reward from the heavens will be doubled.",
+                    "<b>Answer:</b> Our teacher (Rabbi Yosef Karo), of blessed memory, ruled in the Shulkhan Arukh, (Orach Chaim, 522:2) in Hilkhot Yom Tov, \"We do not transport [someone] on a chair, whether a man or a woman; but it is permissible for a man who is needed by the many\" - see there. And the reason that it is forbidden is because of ‘denigrating the holiday,’ since it looks like weekday activities. And behold, this ruling is mentioned in Beitzah 25 regarding holidays; and the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh bring it down in the laws of holidays. But the Tur also brought it in the laws of Shabbat (Tur, Orach Chaim 301); and our teacher wrote in Beit Yosef on the Tur: It is implied from his words that it is even permissible to transport him to the public domain, when he is needed by the many. But the Rif, the Rosh and the Rambam did not mention this ruling regarding Shabbat, because they reason it is specifically on holidays - when we only forbid transporting in this way by Rabbinic law, because of 'denigrating the holiday' - that the Rabbis did not decree [regarding a case] when one is needed by the many. But on Shabbat [transporting someone on a chair] to the public domain would certainly be forbidden; and even to a <i>karmelit</i> is it forbidden on account of the public domain, since we have established [the law] to be like Rabbah, etc. And it is possible that it appeared to him that since we we have established [the law] in Shabbat 94 to be that a living being carries itself, it is only forbidden to take a person out [to the public domain] according to Rabbinic law. So in a situation in which he is needed by the many, they did not decree [this Rabbinic prohibition]. To here are his [words] - see there. And we should not ask about these words of our teacher, \"Let it be, that because of the reason that a live being carries itself, it is only forbidden to transport a person according to Rabbinic law; nevertheless, are they not also carrying the chair in the public domain?\" For this is not a question! As it is well known that a chair is auxiliary to the person, so we are not liable for it. And it is like they said (Mishnah Shabbat 10:5), \"A living person in a bed, the bed is auxiliary to thim.\" And the Savant, the [author of] the Drisha (Rabbi Yehoshuah Falk) answered this observation of our teacher, may his memory be blessed - that the Tur is speaking about when we transport him to an alleyway that has an eruv in it. So there is not prohibition of carrying out; and they only touched upon it because of [the prohibition of] weekday activities. And the Savant, [the author of] the Magen Avraham 301:27 also answered like this - that the Tur is speaking about a place that has an eruv, such that there is no prohibition of transporting, but rather [only one] because of denigrating the Shabbat, since it looks like weekday activities. And that is why he permitted it when the many need him. And in the book Aliyah Rabbah, he brought his words, but concluded, \"It needs [further] study\" - see there."
+                ]
+            ],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        },
+        "Volume II": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Index": [
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "Question 15: Regarding saying \"Emet [אמת] (truth)\" at the end of Shema after \"Hashem, Elokeichem [ה׳ אלוקיכם] (Hashem your God).\""
+                ]
+            ],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        },
+        "Volume III": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": [],
+            "Kuntres Beit Tefillah": []
+        },
+        "Volume IV": {
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        }
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "שו\"ת רב פעלים",
+        "enTitle": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+        "key": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק א",
+                "enTitle": "Volume I",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "פתיחת הספר",
+                        "enTitle": "Preface"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ב",
+                "enTitle": "Volume II",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ג",
+                "enTitle": "Volume III",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "קונטרס בית תפלה",
+                        "enTitle": "Kuntres Beit Tefillah"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ד",
+                "enTitle": "Volume IV",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Responsa/Acharonim/Responsa Rav Pealim/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+{
+    "title": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Rav_Pealim",
+    "text": {
+        "Volume I": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Preface": [],
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Question: Reuven had a scribe write for him a pair of Tefilin, and he wished to be pious and write with his own hand, the first and last letter of the portion of “Kadesh”, the way those who are pious have the custom of writing the last word with their own hand, however he is not a professional scribe, and he therefore held the quill in his hand, and the scribe held on to his hand, and wrote the first and last letter of the portion of “Kadesh”, however alas, Reuven held the quill in his left hand, while sitting on the right side of the scribe, and the scribe  with his right  hand held on to Reuven’s left hand, which was holding the quill. So we were debating regarding its validity, being that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 32:5) rules that if Tefilin is written with one’s left hand, it is considered to be invalid. So in this case, although the scribe held on to Reuven’s hand with his right hand, nevertheless, if we consider Reuven to be the actual writer, then it would be invalid, so would you please inform us of the correct answer?",
+                    "Answer: I have found it written in the Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 11:14), where he rules that in a case where a child held on to the pen, and an adult held on to the child’s hand, and wrote on Shabbat - the adult would be liable, and if it was vice versa then he would be exempt.",
+                    "So it comes out from the above mentioned ruling, that the one who moves the hand of the one holding the pen, is considered to be the actual writer, and the same would apply in our case regarding the scribe, who held on to Reuven’s hand with is right hand - he is considered to be the actual writer. And although it is unlikely that Reuven providedany assistance at all, we nevertheless rule that assistance is not considered to be of any significance. And one cannot argue that the Rambam’s ruling regarding Shabbat is not for certain, and he is merely being stringent, in order to be on the safe side, because if that were true, then we would not be able to hold him liable, and punish him out of doubt, and even to require him to bring a sacrifice would not be possible, being that it is forbidden to bring into the Holy Temple an animal that was consecrated based on a doubt.",
+                    "And I have seen it written in the “Simlah Chadashah”, that in a case where one who is qualified to slaughter holds on to the knife, and someone who is not qualified holds on to his hand, and slaughters with it, it would be considered invalid, and if it was vice versa, then it would appear to me that it would be considered invalid because of uncertainty as to whether it was slaughtered by the one who was not qualified as well, unless it is known for certain that the one who was qualified was not able to prevent the one who was not qualified  from slaughtering, and the one who was not qualified was unable to prevent the one who was qualified,  and even in such a case, one should not be lenient, unless being stringent would bring about a great loss."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    " There was a story with the one [person] who was the leader and did not pray the afternoon prayer until close to the end of its time [i.e. the allotted time for the prayer], and he measured in his mind that if he will pray now the afternoon prayer he will not be able to finish it entirely in its time, because certainly when he will reach the middle of his prayer of the Amida its time will be [already be] finished, and he will need to finish the prayer after its time, and the questioner was unsure if it is permitted for him to pray in this situation, even though he knows that he will have to finish the prayer after the time, or maybe since he is not able to pray all of the prayer in its time he should not pray now, but if he was forced [to miss the prayer] he should wait to pray the evening prayer twice after it is certainly dark, and if he was intentional [in missing the prayer]  indeed he would lose the prayer. And this doubt that the questioner asked, behold one time with myself there was an event, that I measured in the middle of the Amida [of the afternoon prayer] that the entire time of bein hashmashot [the time of  which we are unsure whether it is day or night] will certainly pass, and I said to look [in]to this [matter], with the help of Heaven.",
+                    "Response: I have actually seen this question mentioned in the book “Batei Knesiot”, where he writes that one might wish to bring proof from the fact that it is brought down that if one does not have enough time to pray the entire “Amidah”, that he should pray the shortened version called “Havineinu”, from which it seems that one is not allowed to begin praying, in a case that he will not be able to finish on time. However, in truth, one could not bring proof from that ruling, being that there are times - such as the night following Shabbat, and the winter months - that one cannot pray the shortened version."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Question: One who has one of his hands wrapped in a cast, and it is not able to come in contact with water at all, and he can only eat with his other hand, and the question wishes to know how to go about the blessing upon washing his hand, whether he should say “who commanded us to wash hands” or perhaps rather “to wash the hand”, being he is only washing one hand?...",
+                    "Response: one might think to bring proof from the blessing recited upon kindling the lights of Chanukah, upon which one recites: “to ignite the candle of Chanukah” even when lighting multiple candles. However, in truth one cannot bring proof from there, being that the actual obligation is only to light one candle, and the rest comes in addition to the main commandment."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "<b>Question:</b> I have been asked by the precious sage, Meir Tzelah, May the Compassionate One guard him and show him grace, in the city of Bombay: We find a carriage that we call a 'Garry,' that has two wheels affixed to it; but they are not drawn by beasts, nor by people - rather it travel by virtue of a person that sits on it and pushes the wheels with his legs. So we wanted to know if it is permissible to ride on this Garry on Shabbat and Yom Tov, or not. May the teacher instruct us and his reward from the heavens will be doubled.",
+                    "<b>Answer:</b> Our teacher (Rabbi Yosef Karo), of blessed memory, ruled in the Shulkhan Arukh, (Orach Chaim, 522:2) in Hilkhot Yom Tov, \"We do not transport [someone] on a chair, whether a man or a woman; but it is permissible for a man who is needed by the many\" - see there. And the reason that it is forbidden is because of ‘denigrating the holiday,’ since it looks like weekday activities. And behold, this ruling is mentioned in Beitzah 25 regarding holidays; and the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh bring it down in the laws of holidays. But the Tur also brought it in the laws of Shabbat (Tur, Orach Chaim 301); and our teacher wrote in Beit Yosef on the Tur: It is implied from his words that it is even permissible to transport him to the public domain, when he is needed by the many. But the Rif, the Rosh and the Rambam did not mention this ruling regarding Shabbat, because they reason it is specifically on holidays - when we only forbid transporting in this way by Rabbinic law, because of 'denigrating the holiday' - that the Rabbis did not decree [regarding a case] when one is needed by the many. But on Shabbat [transporting someone on a chair] to the public domain would certainly be forbidden; and even to a <i>karmelit</i> is it forbidden on account of the public domain, since we have established [the law] to be like Rabbah, etc. And it is possible that it appeared to him that since we we have established [the law] in Shabbat 94 to be that a living being carries itself, it is only forbidden to take a person out [to the public domain] according to Rabbinic law. So in a situation in which he is needed by the many, they did not decree [this Rabbinic prohibition]. To here are his [words] - see there. And we should not ask about these words of our teacher, \"Let it be, that because of the reason that a live being carries itself, it is only forbidden to transport a person according to Rabbinic law; nevertheless, are they not also carrying the chair in the public domain?\" For this is not a question! As it is well known that a chair is auxiliary to the person, so we are not liable for it. And it is like they said (Mishnah Shabbat 10:5), \"A living person in a bed, the bed is auxiliary to thim.\" And the Savant, the [author of] the Drisha (Rabbi Yehoshuah Falk) answered this observation of our teacher, may his memory be blessed - that the Tur is speaking about when we transport him to an alleyway that has an eruv in it. So there is not prohibition of carrying out; and they only touched upon it because of [the prohibition of] weekday activities. And the Savant, [the author of] the Magen Avraham 301:27 also answered like this - that the Tur is speaking about a place that has an eruv, such that there is no prohibition of transporting, but rather [only one] because of denigrating the Shabbat, since it looks like weekday activities. And that is why he permitted it when the many need him. And in the book Aliyah Rabbah, he brought his words, but concluded, \"It needs [further] study\" - see there."
+                ]
+            ],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        },
+        "Volume II": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Index": [
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "Question 15: Regarding saying \"Emet [אמת] (truth)\" at the end of Shema after \"Hashem, Elokeichem [ה׳ אלוקיכם] (Hashem your God).\""
+                ]
+            ],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        },
+        "Volume III": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": [],
+            "Kuntres Beit Tefillah": []
+        },
+        "Volume IV": {
+            "Index": [],
+            "Orach Chayim": [],
+            "Yoreh Deah": [],
+            "Even HaEzer": [],
+            "Choshen Mishpat": [],
+            "Sod Yesharim": []
+        }
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "שו\"ת רב פעלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Responsa",
+        "Acharonim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "שו\"ת רב פעלים",
+        "enTitle": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+        "key": "Responsa Rav Pealim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק א",
+                "enTitle": "Volume I",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "פתיחת הספר",
+                        "enTitle": "Preface"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ב",
+                "enTitle": "Volume II",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ג",
+                "enTitle": "Volume III",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "קונטרס בית תפלה",
+                        "enTitle": "Kuntres Beit Tefillah"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חלק ד",
+                "enTitle": "Volume IV",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "מפתחות",
+                        "enTitle": "Index"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                        "enTitle": "Orach Chayim"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                        "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                        "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                        "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סוד ישרים",
+                        "enTitle": "Sod Yesharim"
+                    }
+                ]
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}