ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 108
(a) If someone is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, his friend may nevertheless
pay his annual half-Shekel for the Korbanos as well as his debts. The third
thing that the Tana of the Mishnah in Nedarim permits him to do is - to
return his lost articles.
(b) If both are Mudar Hana'ah from each other, says the Tana, then, in a
place where it is customary to pay the returner for his services, the owner
of the lost article must pay the money to Hekdesh. He cannot just keep it -
because then he will be contravening the Neder forbidding him to benefit
from the returner.
(c) When we ascribe the concession to pay the Mudar Hana'ah's half-Shekel to
the fact that he is only performing a Mitzvah - we mean that the half-Shekel
is only a Mitzvah, and that even he fails to give it, he acquires a portion
in the public Korbanos anyway. Consequently, the only benefit that he
receives is a Mitzvah, in which case, we will apply the principle 'Mitzvos
La'av Le'hanos Nitnu'.
(d) When the Tana of the Mishnah in Shekalim says 'Tormin al he'Avud', he
means that when the Kohen empties the boxes for the public Korbanos, he is
taking even on behalf of people who sent their half-Shekel but it got lost.
When he says ...
1. ... ve'Al ha'Gavuy' - he is referring to people whose half-Shekel got
lost after they had already given it to the treasurer of Hekdesh.
2. ... ve'Al he'Asid li'Gavos' - he is referring to those who had not yet
given their half-Shekel (even if they fail to subsequently give it).
(a) The Madir Hana'ah is permitted to return the Mudar's lost article -
because, as far as the article is concerned, he is merely giving him what is
already his; whereas as far as the trouble of returning it is concerned, he
is performing a Mitzvah (and no doing him a personal favor).
(b) In order to explain how the Madir is permitted to pay the Mudar's debts,
Rav Oshaya establishes this Mishnah like Chanan in our Mishnah - who holds
that someone who volunteers to pay someone's debts cannot reclaim it (since
it is considered as if he gave the creditor a personal gift, rather than
having paid the debtor's loan).
(c) According to Rava, the author of the Mishnah in Nedarim could even be
the Rabbanan (the B'nei Kohanim Gedolim) - and the Tana speaks when he
borrowed the money on the express condition that it need not be returned (in
which case he has not given him anything).
(d) Rava disagrees with Rav Oshaya, because he prefers to establish the
Mishnah in Nedarim like the Rabbanan. Rav Osshaya declines to learn like
Rava - because even if he did make such a condition, the Madir supplies him
with the benefit of alleviating his shame, which a person who borrows and
does nor pay back is bound to experience.
(a) Admon said seven things: According to the Tana Kama, when a man dies
leaving little property, the girls are fed and the boys can go begging at
the doors. By 'little property' - the Tana means that there is insufficient
property to feed all parties concerned for even twelve months.
(b) Admon asks - why the boys should lose out just because there is little
(c) We reject Abaye's explanation of Admon, that since the boys are able to
learn Torah, they ought not to lose - because then, boys who do not learn
Torah, ought not to inherit.
(d) So Rava explains that what Admon means is - that since when there is a
lot of property, the boys inherit the bulk of the property, why should they
lose out just when there is little property?
(a) According to Admon, if someone claims jars of oil from his friend, who
counters that he owes him empty jars, he is Chayav to swear - the Shevu'ah
of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' (like any defendant who admits to part of the claim).
(b) According to the Chachamim - he is Patur from swearing.
(c) Raban Gamliel agrees with - Admon both in this Mishnah, in the previous
one and in the one that follows.
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that someone whose friend claims from him
wheat and barley, and he admits to owing him one of them ('Ta'ano Chitin
u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh be'Achad Meihen') - is Chayav a Shevu'ah.
(b) The problem with this from our Mishnah is - that we assume 'Kadei
Shemen' to imply that he claimed from him the barrels as well as the oil, in
which case Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules like Admon, rather than the
Chachamim (who say 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh be'Achad Meihen,
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav answers this by explaining 'Kadei Shemen' to refer
to a quantity, rather than to the barrels themselves. The problem with this
answer is - that if that is so, our Mishnah is discussing a classical case
of 'Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin', where everyone agrees that he is
Patur from a Shevu'ah (so why does Admon obligate him to swear).
(a) Rava divides the issue into three categories. He places ...
1. ... 'Melo Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li be'Borcha' - into the category of
'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin' (since he is claiming only oil, but
not the barrels), and he is Patur.
(b) Rava therefore explains that someone who says 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh
Li be'Borcha' - is the case over which they argue in our Mishnah: according
to Admon, this Lashon includes the barrels, and he is Chayav to swear (like
Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel); whereas the Chachamim hold that it does not, and
he is Patur.
2. ... 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Melei'im Yesh Li be'Borcha' - into the category
of 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen' (since he is
claiming both the oil and the barrels), and he is Chayav (according to Rav
Nachman Amar Shmuel).
(c) We can now infer from this Mishnah - that even the Chachamim will agree
that 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen, Chayav'.
(d) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba - who says 'Ta'ano Chitin
u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen, Patur'.
(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to reconcile Rebbi Chiya bar Aba with our
Mishnah by comparing to the case of the barrels of oil to a pomegranate with
its skin - meaning that, like the latter, they are like one thing, rendering
the case like a regular 'Modeh be'Miktzas', whereas 'wheat and barley' are
two independent things.
(b) Ravina rejects this comparison - because, whereas a pomegranate needs
its skin for protection (rendering it like one thing), the oil does not need
the barrel (seeing as it can be guarded in the pit even without it -
rendering them two different things).
(c) We conclude that Admon and the Chachamim argue in a case when the
claimant claimed 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li Etzlecha', and the defendant
admitted to five barrels. The basis of their Machlokes is now -whether
'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li Etzlecha' incorporates the barrels (Admon) or
not (the Chachamim). Consequently, according to Admon, it is a case of
'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Miktzas Chitin'; whereas according
to the Chachamim, it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Miktzas
(d) Assuming that 'ten barrels of oil' does incorporate barrels (like Admon
holds), he nevertheless swear on the oil, despite the fact that he denied it
completely - on the basis of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' (someone who is Chayav a
Shevu'ah anyway, can be made to swear even on something from which he would
normally be exempt, too).