Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO MAY GAIN FROM HIS TESTIMONY

(a) (Shmuel): Reuven can testify for his partner Shimon.
(b) Question: Why is this, the testimony affects Reuven!
(c) Answer: The case is, Reuven wrote to Shimon 'I have no claim to this field'.
(d) Question (Beraisa): Levi wrote to Yehudah 'I have no claim to this field, I have no business in it, my hand is removed from it' - this has no effect.
(e) Answer: The case is, Shimon made an acquisition (Chalipin) to make Reuven's pardon binding.
(f) Question: Still, the testimony affects Reuven - if we establish that the property used to belong to them, Reuven's creditor (from before he pardoned his share) can collect from it!

1. (Ravin bar Shmuel): One who sells his field without Achrayus cannot testify about it (to establish ownership), since this can enable his creditor to collect it.

(g) Answer: The case is, Reuven accepted Achrayus for his share (therefore, it does not matter to him if a creditor takes it, for then he will owe Shimon).
(h) Question: Regarding whom (that might take the field) did Reuven accept Achrayus?

1. If from anyone who claims 'This was my field', the testimony saves Reuven from having to compensate Shimon!

(i) Answer: Rather, Reuven accepted Achrayus if his creditor will collect it.
(j) Question: Does pardoning one's share really enable him to testify?!

1. (Beraisa): If the Sefer Torah of a city was stolen, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it (since it affects them).
2. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it and judge the case!

(k) Answer: A Sefer Torah is different, for everyone (who will remain in the city) must hear it read.
(l) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give a Maneh (money) for needs of the city, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.

1. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it and judge the case!

(m) Answer: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to buy a Sefer Torah (all must hear it, as above).
(n) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give a Maneh for poor people of the city, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.

1. Objection: The poor stand to receive it, why is everyone disqualified?
2. Correction: Rather, poor people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.
3. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it and judge the case!

(o) Answer #1: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to buy a Sefer Torah.

1. Question: But the Beraisa says that he pledged to give the poor!
2. Answer: People without a Sefer Torah are considered poor.

(p) Answer #2 (and another answer to Objection n:1): Really, he pledged to give to the poor; the rich are affected, for this lightens their responsibility to support the poor.
(q) Question: What is the case?

1. If everyone was assigned to give a certain amount for the poor - one can give his quota, and then judge the case (for he does not stand to gain)!

(r) Answer #1: The case is, it was not assigned how much each person must give.
(s) Answer #2: It was assigned how much each person must give; still, the judges gain if the poor will receive a Maneh, for then they are less likely to need more Tzedakah later.

(a) (Shmuel): A partner is considered a Shomer Sachar when watching the common property.

(b) Question: Why is he liable? He is a Shomer b'Ba'alim (for one's employee, for each guards part of the common property for the other), who is always exempt!
(c) Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, they alternate, each day one partner watches all the property.

(a) (Beraisa): If Reuven sold a house or field, he cannot testify about it, for there is Achrayus (therefore, he is partial);

1. If he sold a cow or garment, he can testify about it, for there is no Achrayus.

(b) Question: What is the difference between the clauses? (Why does the Tana assume that there is Achrayus by a house or field, and not by a cow or garment?) (c) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The first clause is when Reuven stole Shimon's field and sold it to Levi, and Yehudah claims that it was his;

1. The Tana teaches that Shimon cannot testify for Levi, for this will aid Shimon to get back his field.
2. Question: If he testifies that it is Levi's, he cannot later claim that it is his!
3. Answer: He testifies, 'I know that Yehudah does not own the field'.
4. Question: If Shimon can (bring proof to) get his field back from Levi, he could also get it from Yehudah, why would he prefer that Beis Din give the field to Levi?
5. Answer #1: It is possible that Yehudah is powerful, and it is easier to oppose Levi in Beis Din than Yehudah.
6. Answer #2: Shimon and Yehudah each have witnesses supporting his claim to the field;

i. In such a case, the land remains by the Muchzak; therefore, Shimon does not want Yehudah to become Muchzak.