Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MULTPILE FINES ON 1 PRINCIPLE

(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): Money on which a thief pays double - does he add a fifth for it, or not?

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: Reuven (claimed and) swore that a deposit was stolen; he later swore that it was lost. Witnesses later testified that Reuven had the deposit when he took the first oath, and he admitted that he swore falsely the second time.

i. Do we say, since he pays double, he is exempt from the added fifth?
ii. Or - only an oath that obligates double payment exempts from the added fifth; since the second oath does not obligate double payment, he adds a fifth for that oath.

(b) Answer (Rava - 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 double;

1. If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principle, the added fifth and brings an Asham.
2. Here, the witnesses obligate him to pay double - and he only adds a fifth if he admits by himself, not after witnesses testify;
3. If only an oath that obligates double payment exempts from the added fifth, why is he exempt if he admits after witnesses came?

i. Since his oath does not obligate double payment, he should add a fifth!

4. Rather, we conclude that double payment exempts from the added fifth; not an oath obligating double payment.

(c) Question (Ravina): Can 1 man be obligated to pay an added fifth, and another man double payment on the same principle?

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: Reuven gave his ox to Shimon and Levi to watch. They (claimed and) swore that it was stolen. Shimon admitted that he swore falsely, witnesses testified that it was not stolen.

i. Do we say - the Torah was concerned that 1 man not pay double and an added fifth (on 1 principle) - but both may be paid (by different men)?
ii. Or - the Torah does not obligate double payment and an added fifth on 1 principle?
iii. This question is unsettled.

(d) Question (Rav Papa): Can 1 man be obligated to pay 2 added fifths or 2 double payments on 1 principle?

1. Question: What is the case?

(e) Answer #1 (Regarding 2 fifths): Reuven swore that a deposit was lost, admitted that he swore falsely, and again swore that it was lost, and admitted that this also was false.
(f) Answer #2 (Regarding 2 double payments): Reuven swore that a deposit was stolen, witnesses testified that he really stole it; he again swore that it was stolen, witnesses testified that he really stole it.

1. Do we say - the Torah was concerned that a man not pay 2 types of monetary fines (double and an added fifth) on 1 principle - but the same type may be paid more than once?

i. Or - the Torah does not obligate more than 1 fine on 1 principle?

(g) Answer: We may learn from Rava.

1. (Rava): "V'Chamishisav (and its fifths) he will add" - the Torah teaches that many fifths can be added for 1 principle.

(a) Question: Reuven claimed his deposit from Shimon. Shimon swore that it was stolen; he then decided to pay for it (even though he is exempt). The thief was found - who receives the double payment?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): Reuven.
(c) Answer #2 (Rava): Shimon.

1. Abaye holds that Reuven gets it - since Shimon did not pay immediately, Reuven does not give Shimon (ownership of the object in order that Shimon should acquire) the double payment (if the thief will be found).
2. Rava holds that Shimon gets it - since Shimon paid in the end, Reuven gives him (ownership in order that Shimon should acquire) the double payment.

(d) They argue on how to explain the Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): Levi deposited an animal or vessels by Yehudah, a free watchman; they were lost or stolen. He could have sworn to be exempt, but he paid and did not want to swear. If the thief is found, he pays double (or 4 or 5, if he slaughtered or sold) to Yehudah.

i. If Yehudah swore and did not want to pay, and the thief is found, he pays double (or 4 or 5) to Levi.

(e) Abaye learns from the first clause - it says, he paid and did not want to swear;

1. We infer, had he sworn, even if he later paid, the thief would pay Levi.

(f) Rava learns from the second clause - it says, he swore and did not want to pay;

1. We infer, had he paid, even though he swore, the thief would pay Yehudah.

(g) Question: The second clause is not as Abaye!
(h) Answer (Abaye): It means, if he swore and did not want to pay before swearing, only after swearing, he pays Levi.
(i) Question: The first clause is not as Rava!
(j) Answer (Rava): It means, if he swore and did not want to rely on his oath, rather he paid, he pays Yehudah.

(a) Levi claimed the deposit from Yehudah, and Yehudah swore. It became known that Reuven had stolen it; Yehudah claimed from him, and Reuven admitted. Levi claimed from Reuven, and Reuven denied the theft. Witnesses testified that he stole it.
(b) Question: Is Reuven exempt from double payment because he admitted to Yehudah?
(c) Answer (Rava): If Yehudah swore truthfully (that it was stolen), Reuven is exempt (because Levi still trusts Yehudah, Yehudah was in Levi's place when he claimed the deposit, it is as if Reuven admitted to Levi);

1. If Yehudah swore falsely (e.g. that it died), Reuven is liable (Levi no longer trusts Yehudah, Yehudah was not in Levi's place when he claimed the deposit, it is not as if Reuven admitted to Levi).

(d) Question (Rava): Yehudah was about to swear falsely, but Levi did not allow him - what is the law (is it as if he swore falsely)?
(e) This question is unsettled.
(f) Levi claimed the deposit from Yehudah, and Yehudah paid. It became known that Reuven had stolen it; Levi claimed from him, and Reuven admitted. Yehudah claimed from Reuven, and Reuven denied the theft. Witnesses testified that he stole it.
(g) Question: Is Reuven exempt from double payment because he admitted to Levi?

1. Can Yehudah tell Levi - since I paid you, you have no further claim on the stolen object?
2. Or - Can Levi say, just as you acted kindly to me (by paying), I should act kindly for you (to claim from Reuven to return your money)?

(h) This question is unsettled.
(i) (Abaye): A deposit was stolen through Ones (the watchman was not negligent); the thief was found - if the watchman was a free watchman, he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear that it was stolen through Ones;

1. If he was a paid watchman, he must claim the deposit from the thief - swearing that it was stolen through Ones will not exempt him.

(j) (Rava): Even a free watchman must claim the deposit from the thief.
(k) Suggestion: Rava argues on Rav Huna bar Avin.

1. (Rav Huna bar Avin): A deposit was stolen through Ones; the thief was found - if the watchman was a free watchman, he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear that it was stolen through Ones;
2. If he was a paid watchman, he must claim the deposit from the thief - swearing that it was stolen through Ones will not exempt him.

(l) Rejection: No - Rav Huna speaks when the watchman already swore (but l'Chatchilah, he must claim from the thief).
(m) Question: But it says, he may choose to claim the deposit from the thief, or to swear!
(n) Answer: It means, he may choose to rely on his oath, or to claim the deposit from the thief.
(o) Question (Rabah Zuti): A deposit was stolen through Ones; the thief returned it to the watchman's house, then it died through negligence - what is the law?

1. Do we say - once it was stolen through Ones, he ceases to be a watchman (even after it is returned, so he is exempt)?
2. Or - when the thief returns it, he resumes being a watchman (and is liable)?
3. This question is unsettled.