Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE TZAD HA'SHAVAH

(a) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Rather, the Kal va'Chomer is from 1 witness, who obligates an oath of Gilgul (once a man must swear to contradict the witness, the claimant can make him include other matters in the oath).
(b) Question: One witness can only obligate an oath on what he testifies - then, the law of Gilgul obligates swearing on other matters;

1. By 2 witnesses, we have no source that they can obligate an oath!

(c) Answer: We learn from a man's mouth, he must swear on what there was no admission or testimony!
(d) Question: A man's mouth cannot be contradicted - we cannot learn to witnesses!
(e) Answer: We learn from 1 witness, who can be contradicted, yet he obligates him to swear.
(f) Question: But 1 witness makes him swear on what the witness testifies - we cannot learn that 2 witnesses make him swear on what they do not testify!
(g) Answer: We learn from a man's mouth, he must swear on what there was no admission or testimony!

1. The stringencies of his mouth and 1 witness are different. The Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) is that through claim and denial he must swear - also, by 2 witnesses.'

(h) Question: But by both sources, we have not established the defendant as a liar - we cannot learn to 2 witnesses, who established him as a liar (perhaps we do not believe his oath)!
(i) Answer: Two witnesses do not establish him as a liar!

1. (Rav Idi bar Avin): One who (falsely) denies a loan is not disqualified from testifying; one who denies a deposit is disqualified from testifying.

(j) Question: But by both sources, there is no law of Hazamah (to pay for false testimony) - we cannot learn to 2 witnesses, who pay if Huzmu!
(k) Answer: R. Chiya does not consider this a refutation of the Tzad ha'Shavah (since Hazamah applies to 1 witness to invalidate his testimony).
(l) Question: How can R. Chiya support himself from our Mishnah - it is unlike his case!

1. In his case, only the lender is supported by witnesses;

i. If witnesses supported the borrower, R. Chiya would not say he must swear!

2. In the Mishnah, we are witnesses for both sides (that each owns half)!

(m) Retraction: Rather, R. Chiya brought our Mishnah to support a different law.

(a) (R. Chiya): Reuven told Shimon 'You owe me 100 (Ran - that I deposited by you)'; Shimon said, 'I only owe 50 - Heilach (here is what is yours)' and returned 50 - he must swear on the other 50.

1. Question: Why is this?
2. Answer: Even when he says 'Heilach', he admits to part of the claim.

(b) Support (Mishnah): Reuven and Shimon are holding a garment...

1. We are witnesses that each owns half (and he must give up the other half - this is as Heilach), and still they swear

(c) (Rav Sheshes): One who partially admits to a claim and says 'Heilach' is exempt from swearing.
(d) Question: But the Mishnah shows that he is liable!
(e) Answer: The Mishnah is only a Rabbinic enactment (so people will not grab others' garments and claim them).

1. R. Chiya admits that the Mishnah is a Rabbinic enactment - but Chachamim only enact what is similar to Torah law;

i. If Heilach was exempt, they would not enact an oath unlike Torah oaths.

(f) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): A loan document says 'Dinarim', without specifying an amount. The lender says he lent 5; the borrower admits to 3. Since he admitted to part of the claim, he swears;

1. R. Akiva says, he is as one who returns a lost object (since he could easily have said 2), he is exempt.

(g) [Version #1 - Question (against R. Chiya): R. Shimon ben Elazar says that he must swear when he admits to 3 - had he admitted to only 2, he would be exempt (since clearly, the document means at least 2, there is a lien on his land to pay 2 - this is as Heilach, therefore he is exempt)!
(h) Answer #1: No - even by 2, R. Shimon exempts him;

1. He taught 3 to teach that he argues on R. Akiva, and does not exempt him as one who returns a lost object.

(i) Objection: If so, why did he say 'Since he admitted to part of the claim, he swears' - he should say, 'even in this case he swears'!
(j) Answer #2: Really, R. Shimon exempts him when he admits to 2, even though Heilach is liable;

1. Explanation #1: When he admits to 2, the document supports him, therefore he is exempt.
2. Explanation #2: When he admits to 2, there is a lien on his land to pay all he admits to;

i. Just as we do not swear on denial of debts which have a lien on land, also we do not swear on account of admission of debts which have a lien on land.]

(k) [Version #2 - Question (against Rav Sheshes): R. Akiva only exempts him because he is as one who returns a lost object - had he only admitted to 2, he would be liable, even though (there is a lien on land to pay 2,) it is as Heilach!
(l) Answer: Even if he admitted to 2 he would be exempt; the Beraisa speaks of 3 to teach the argument by 3;

1. R. Shimon obligates because he partially admits; R. Akiva exempts as one who returns a lost object.

(m) Support: This must be correct - if R. Akiva obligated an oath by 2, why would he exempt him when he says 3 - he will scheme to says 3 to avoid swearing!
(n) Question: Since we must say that R. Akiva exempts by 2, this refutes R. Chiya! (By 2, he is not returning a lost object - the exemption must be on account of Heilach!)
(o) Answer #1: When he admits to 2, the document supports him, therefore he is exempt.
(p) Answer #2: When he admits to 2, there is a lien on his land to pay this, we do not swear on account of such admissions.]

(a) Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman - Mishnah): Reuven claimed vessels and land from Shimon; Shimon admitted to either 1 and denied the other - he is exempt from swearing;

1. If he partially admitted to the claim of land (and denied all the vessels), he is exempt;
2. If he partially admitted to the claim of vessels, he must swear.
3. Inference: He is only exempt (in the first 2 clauses, in particular, when he admitted to land and denied vessels) because we do not swear on land;

i. In a corresponding case of 2 claims of vessels (the vessels he admits to are in front of him, like land) he would be liable.
ii. Suggestion: Even though he says Heilach, he is liable!

(b) Answer: No - in a corresponding case of 2 claims of vessels, he is exempt;

1. The Mishnah spoke of vessels and land to teach that when he partially admits to the vessels, he must also swear on the land.

(c) Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): (When one must swear on) property without Acharayos (Metaltelim, on which there can be no lien), this forces him to also swear on property with Acharayos (land)!

(d) Answer: The first Mishnah we cited is the primary place the law is taught; the latter Mishnah, which gave laws of land and Metaltelim, merely alluded to the law in passing.
(e) Question: According to Rav Sheshes, who says that Heilach is exempt - why do we need a verse to exempt land from oaths - every admission of land is Heilach!
(f) Answer #1: We need the verse when he damaged the land (and must pay - this is not Heilach).
(g) Answer #2: We need the verse when he admitted to vessels (not in a situation of Heilach) and denied land.