Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LESS THAN A PERUTAH OF A STOLEN OBJECT

(a) (Mishnah): If Shimon pardoned the entire obligation, except for less than a Perutah of the principle, (Reuven need not travel to return it).
(b) [Version #1 (Rav Papa): This is only when the stolen object is not around - if it is around, he must return it, we are concerned that it will rise in value to a Perutah.]
(c) [Version #2 (Rav Papa): This is even if the stolen object is around, we are not concerned that it will rise in value to a Perutah.]
(d) (Rava): Reuven stole 3 (equal) bundles, worth a total of 3 Perutos. They declined in value, they are now worth 2 Perutos. He returned 2 - he must (even travel to) return the third.
(e) Support (Mishnah): One who stole Chametz, and Pesach passed - he can say, here is your Chametz.

1. Inference: If he did not have the Chametz to return, he would have to pay its original value, even though now it is worthless!
2. Also in Rava's case - since it was worth a Perutah when he stole it, he must return it, even though it is not worth a Perutah now.

(f) Question (Rava): Reuven stole 2 bundles, their total worth is 1 Perutah. He returned 1 - what is the law?

1. Do we say that since he is not holding (a Perutah of) stolen property, he is exempt?
2. Or - since he stole (a Perutah) and has not returned (a Perutah), he must return the other?

(g) Answer (Rava): He is not holding a Perutah of stolen property, nor has he returned the theft.
(h) Question: Since he is not holding a Perutah of stolen property, he has returned all he must return!
(i) Answer: Rava meant, even though he is not holding a stolen object worth a Perutah, he did not yet fulfill the Mitzvah of returning (so he must return it).

(a) (Rava): A Nazir who shaved (at the end of his Nezirus) and left 2 hairs uncut - it is as if he did not shave.
(b) Question (Rava): If he shaved 1 of the remaining 2, and the other fell out - what is the law?

1. Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Does Rava ask if a Nazir may shave 1 hair at a time? (Surely, he may!)
2. Answer (Ravina): No - he asks when 1 of the remaining 2 fell out before he shaved the other;

i. Since no hair remains, it is as if he shaved (and he may drink wine);
ii. Or - since he left 2 hairs (and was obligated to shave them), and 1 fell out before he shaved either, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah (and he may not drink wine).

(c) Answer (Rava): Two hairs do not remain, he did not shave.
(d) Question: Since two hairs do not remain, he has shaved all he must shave!
(e) Answer: Rava meant, even though two hairs do not remain, he did not yet fulfill the Mitzvah of shaving (so he may not drink wine).
(f) (Rava): A barrel was punctured, rendering it unable to block Tum'as Mes (Rashi - from passing to the upper story, if it rests in the opening in between; Tosfos - from entering the (earthenware) barrel). If the hole in the barrel is sealed with dregs, the barrel can block the Tum'ah.

1. If he (partially) plugged up the hole with a twig (so the remaining holes on each side are not large enough to disqualify a barrel from blocking Tum'ah) - this only helps if he plasters it;
2. If he used 2 twigs - he must put plaster in between and on both sides of them.
3. Inference: Without plastering, it is not considered sealed.
4. Question: It should be as if he sealed half the hole (and the remaining hole does not disqualify the barrel from blocking Tum'ah)!
5. Answer: By twigs, without plastering, they will not stay in place, it is as if nothing was sealed.

(a) (Rava): Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz, and Pesach passed - he can say behold, here is your Chametz;

(b) Question (Rava): If he swore falsely (that he did not steal it), is he liable?

1. Since if the Chametz would be stolen from Reuven, he would have to pay Shimon, it is as if he swore to deny money (he is liable);
2. Or - right now, it is here, and it is worthless, his oath did not matter (he is exempt).

(c) This was not a question to Rabah.

1. (Rabah): Levi told Yehudah 'You stole my ox'; he denied it.
2. Levi: Why is it by you?
3. If Yehudah swore 'I am a free watchman' and later admitted, he is liable, because his oath would have exempted himself if the ox was lost or stolen;
4. If he swore 'I am a paid watchman' and later admitted, he is liable, because this would have exempted him if it was injured or died;
5. If he swore 'I borrowed it' and later admitted, he is liable, because this would have exempted him if it died while working.

i. Even though now the animal is here, he is liable because his oath might have saved himself money (if it was stolen...);
ii. Similarly, Reuven is liable because his oath might have saved himself money (if the Chametz was stolen).

(d) Question (Rav Amram - Beraisa): "He denied it" - this excludes one who admits from the beginning;

1. Levi: 'You stole my ox'; Yehudah denied it.
2. Levi: Why is it by you?
3. Yehudah swore to 1 of the following claims: you (or your father) sold or gave it to me, it chased after my cow, it came by itself, I found it straying on the road, I am a free or paid watchman, I borrowed it. He later admitted.
4. One might have thought, he is liable - "He denied it" excludes one who admits from the beginning.

(e) Answer (Rabah): The Beraisa is a case of Heilach (he returns the animal immediately); my law is when the animal is in the swamp (he does not return it immediately).
(f) Question (Beraisa): 'You sold it to me' - this is not a case of admitting from the beginning!
(g) Answer: Yehudah admits that he never paid for it; he says, take it back as payment.
(h) Question (Beraisa): 'You (or your father) gave it to me' - this is not a case of admitting from the beginning!
(i) Answer: Yehudah admits that the gift was on condition that he act nicely to Levi, and he did not fulfill this; he says, take it back.
(j) Question (Beraisa): 'I found it straying on the road' - since he knew it was Levi's, he should have returned it - keeping it is as stealing it!
(k) Answer (Shmuel's father): He claims that he did not know it was Levi's.
(l) (Beraisa - ben Azai): Reuven asked David to testify about Reuven's lost object; David swore falsely that he knows no testimony. Later, David admitted that he knew - there are 3 cases:

1. 'I knew it was yours, but I did not know that Shimon found it (perhaps he bought it from you);
2. 'I knew that Shimon found it, but I did not know that it was yours;
3. 'I did not know that it was yours, nor that Shimon found it.'

i. Question: If so, David swore truthfully!
ii. Correction: Rather, 'I knew it was yours, and that Shimon found it'.

(m) Question: What does ben Azai come to teach?
(n) Answer #1 (Rav Ami): In all 3 cases, the witness is exempt (from the sacrifice for a false oath of not knowing testimony).
(o) Answer #2 (Shmuel): In all 3 cases, he is liable.
(p) They argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa): One who imposes an oath on 1 witness that he does not know testimony (and he swore falsely) - the witness is exempt (from a sacrifice, because the testimony of 1 witness cannot force someone to pay);
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obligates him.
3. Question: On what do they argue?
4. Answer: R. Elazar holds that something which can cause a loss of money is considered as money; the first Tana holds, it is not as money.

(a) (Rav Sheshes): One who denies a deposit - he is considered a thief, he is liable even for Ones.
(b) Support (Beraisa): "And he denied it" - this teaches the punishment;

1. Question: Where does the Torah warn not to do this?
2. Answer: "Do not deny".
3. [Version #1 (our text, Tosfos) Suggestion: When the Beraisa says 'the punishment', it means money (obligation to pay for Ones).
4. Rejection: No - it means having to swear]
5. [Version #2 (Rashi) Suggestion: The punishment the Beraisa speaks of is (liability for Ones, this is) because of his denial.
6. Rejection: No - it is for swearing falsely.]
7. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, 'And he swore', implying that the beginning of the Beraisa does not speak of swearing!

i. (End of the Beraisa): "And he swore falsely" - this teaches the punishment;
ii. Question: Where does the Torah warn not to do this?
iii. Answer: "Do not lie".

8. Answer: Also in the first clause of the Beraisa speaks of swearing;

i. In the latter clause, he later admitted (so he pays principle, the added fifth and brings an Asham);
ii. In the first clause, witnesses testified against him (and he is liable even for Ones).

(c) Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): We say that a defendant is prone to swear falsely (and is disqualified from swearing, so the claimant swears and receives as he claimed) if he (ever) swore falsely that he does not know testimony, or about a deposit, or took a vain oath.

1. If one becomes a thief just for denying a deposit, denial alone should disqualify him from swearing (in the future), even if he did not swear!

(d) Answer: The case is, the deposit is (an animal) in the swamp - if he denied without swearing, we assume that he is not trying to steal, he is just stalling until he can return it.

1. Support (Rav Idi bar Avin): One who denied a loan, he may testify (we assume he means to stall, not to steal);

i. One who denied a deposit (when he could have returned it immediately) is disqualified from testimony.

(e) Question: But Ilfa taught, an oath acquires (liability for Ones)!

1. Inference: But denial does not acquire!

(f) Answer #1: Here also, the deposit is in the swamp.
(g) Answer #2: When Ilfa says that an oath acquires, he means as Rav Huna.

1. (Rav Huna citing Rav): Reuven denied owing money to Shimon and swore; later, witnesses say that he owes Shimon - he is exempt;

i. "The owner will take, (the defendant) will not pay" - once the owner received (heard) an oath, the defendant need not pay.