Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST ONE PAY AFTER SWEARING?

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

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

(b) (Rava): Presumably, Rav's law is only by a loan, for a borrower acquires the money, one can say that the oath is in place of repayment;

1. But a deposit always belongs to the owner, Reuven cannot acquire it through an oath!
2. However - Rav said his law even by a deposit, for the verse he expounds is by a deposit!

(c) Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi - Mishnah): Levi accepted (answered 'Amen' to) an oath that the deposit he was watching for Yehudah was lost; witnesses testified that he ate it - he pays principle;

1. If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principle, the added fifth and brings an Asham.

(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): The case is, he swore outside of Beis Din.
(e) Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi): But the end of the Mishnah says, if Levi accepted an oath that the deposit was stolen, witnesses testified that he ate it - he pays double;

1. If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principle, the added fifth and brings an Asham.
2. One does not pay double outside of Beis Din!

(f) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): I could say, the first clause of the Mishnah is outside of Beis Din, the latter clause is in Beis Din - but that is a poor answer.
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The entire Mishnah is in Beis Din;

1. The first clause is when Levi swore before Beis Din told him to; (Rav's law and) the latter clause are when Beis Din administered the oath.

(h) Rami bar Chama (to Rav Nachman): You do not hold as Rav - why must you (explain the Mishnah in such a way to) answer for him?
(i) Rav Nachman: I just explain how Rav must learn the Mishnah.
(j) Question: Rav learns from a verse - how can anyone argue on him?
(k) Answer: The verse teaches that every mid'Oraisa oath, the one who swears does not pay;

1. "The owner will take (hear the oath, the watchman) will not pay" - the one who was asked to pay, he swears.

(l) Question (Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): Reuven made Shimon swear 5 times, whether in or outside of Beis Din - he is liable (an added fifth and an Asham) for each oath;

1. R. Shimon says, the reason is, each time, he could have admitted.
2. We cannot say that he swore by himself - it says, he made him swear!
3. We cannot say that he swore outside of Beis Din - it says, (even) in Beis Din!

(m) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): The Beraisa speaks of 2 cases:

1. When he made him swear - the case was outside of Beis Din
2. When he swore by himself - the case was in Beis Din.

(n) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A watchman claimed that the deposit was stolen; he swore falsely, admitted that he lied, and witnesses testified that the watchman himself took it:

1. If he admitted before witnesses came, he pays principle, an added fifth, and brings an Asham.
2. We cannot say that he swore outside of Beis Din or by himself - it says, (when witnesses testified) he pays double!

(o) Answer (Rava): Rav's law that he does not pay - this was not said when he admits;

1. It says, "He will confess" - whether he originally swore that it was lost or stolen, he must pay the principle and the added fifth (and bring an Asham)!
2. Also - if he claimed that a deposit was stolen, and witnesses testified that he stole it, Rav admits that he pays - the Torah obligated him to pay double!
3. Rav's law is only when he claimed and swore that it was lost, and did not admit, and witnesses testified that he stole it.

(p) Rav Gamda said Rava's answer in front of Rav Ashi.
(q) Question (Rav Ashi): Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid of Rav - surely he knew what Rav said - and he asked from a case where he is liable because he could have admitted! (So surely, Rav also exempts when he admits!)

(r) Answer (Rav Acha Sava): Rav Hamnuna asked thusly: if we say that witnesses can obligate a person who already swore (falsely, and now he must pay principle) - we understand why he must bring a sacrifice for the last oath, because he could have admitted (so his oath denied money);

1. But if we say that witnesses cannot obligate a person who already swore - (this shows, we do not consider that he owes money - ) can we say that he must bring a sacrifice for the last oath, because he could have admitted (and then he would pay principle)?! He did not admit!

(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): One who claims that a deposit was stolen - he pays double; if (it was a Kosher animal and) he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4 or 5;

1. Just as a thief pays double, if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4 or 5 - also one who claims that a deposit was stolen pays double, if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays 4 or 5.

(b) Question: But one who claims that a deposit was stolen only pays double if he swore - an actual thief pays double even without swearing!
(c) Answer: The Torah equates one who claims that a deposit was stolen to a thief by a Hekesh (they are written next to each other) - we do not ask questions against a Hekesh.

1. This answer is according to the opinion that 1 verse speaks of an actual thief, the other of one who claims that a deposit was stolen;

(d) Question: According to the opinion that both verses speak of one who claims that a deposit was stolen - how can we answer?
(e) Answer: It says "ha'Ganav (the thief)", in place of 'Ganav' - this teaches that (one who claims that a deposit was stolen) gets all the laws of a thief.
(f) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba - Mishnah): Shimon claimed that the item Reuven deposited by him was stolen. Reuven imposed an oath on him; he answered "Amen". Witnesses testify that Shimon ate it - he pays double.

1. If Shimon ate it, he must have slaughtered it first - yet he only pays double!

(g) Answer: The case is, he ate it without slaughter.
(h) Question: Why not say, the case is, he slaughtered it but it was Treifah (according to R. Shimon, who holds that slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter)?
(i) Answer: R. Yochanan holds as R. Meir, who holds that it is considered slaughter.
(j) Question: Why not say, the case is, he ate a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal (which is permitted without slaughter)?
(k) Answer: R. Yochanan holds as R. Meir, who holds that it must be slaughtered.
(l) Question: Why not say, the case is, he was taken to trial, and Beis Din told him "Go give to him"?

1. (Rava): Once Beis Din says 'Go give to him', if he slaughtered or sold, he does not pay 4 or 5;

i. Question: Why not?
ii. Answer: Since Beis Din ruled, (the theft is known), he has the law of an (open) robber, who does not pay 4 or 5.

2. (Rava): If Beis Din said "You must give to him", if he slaughtered or sold, he pays 4 or 5;

i. Question: Why?
ii. Answer: This language is not considered a final ruling, so he still has the law of a (covert) thief, who pays 4 or 5.

3. Counter-question: Why not say, the thief was a partner in the animal, and slaughtered without asking his partner?
4. Answer: Really, there were other answers R. Yochanan could have given - he chose 1.

(m) (R. Chiya bar Aba): One who found a lost object deposit and later claimed it was stolen, he pays double.

1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: "For any lost object that he will say (he will pay double)".

(n) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa): "When a man will give (to a watchman)" - what a minor gives is not considered giving (that the watchman would have to swear or pay double for it).

1. Question: Perhaps that is only if he is still a minor when he claims it back;

i. If he became an adult and claimed it, how do we know that the watchman is exempt (from the oath and paying double)?

2. Answer: "The matter of both of them (will be brought to the judges)" - both the giving and claim of the deposit must be the same, i.e. by an adult.
3. Summation of question: R. Chiya bar Aba says that a finder pays double by a lost object, even though no one gave it to the finder!

(o) Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is when the watchman ate the deposit before the giver grew up (the giver has no claim for anything the watchman did before the giver was an adult - but the finder of the lost object swore falsely to an adult owner).
(p) Objection: This implies, if the watchman ate the deposit after the giver grew up, he is liable;

1. If so, why did the Beraisa say that the giving and claim of the deposit must be the same (by an adult) - it should say, the eating and claim of the deposit must be the same!

(q) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): A found object is different, because it came through (being lost by) an adult, unlike the deposit of a minor.