Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SELLING SOLD GOODS

(a) Rav Kahana paid Shimon money to buy his flax; the price of flax went up, and Shimon sold the flax to others, stipulating that they will pay Rav Kahana.
(b) Question (Rav Kahana, of Rav): May I take the money?
(c) Answer (Rav): Only if Shimon told the buyer 'This is Rav Kahana's flax'.
(d) Question: Is this is as the people of Eretz Yisrael who said, the seller did not know to intend that Reuven (whose money was given) should acquire!
(e) Answer: No - Rav Kahana did not lend the money, that we are concerned that (if the buyers were not told, they pay Shimon and) Shimon pays usury to Rav Kahana;

1. Rather, Rav Kahana owns the flax, it increased in value by itself.

(f) Question: By selling it, Shimon stole it - the Mishnah says, all thieves pay as the time of the theft! (Since it already increased in value, Rav Kahana is entitled to the money!)
(g) Answer: The case is, Rav Kahana never did Meshichah (to acquire the flax); he bought on Amana (for the future, when Shimon will get flax);

1. Rav holds that we may buy on Amana to receive produce later (when it is worth more), but the seller may not give its value in money (for this looks like usury).

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole a Perutah from Shimon and swore that he did not - Reuven must return it, even if Shimon lives overseas;

1. It is not enough to give it to his son or messenger, but it suffices to give it to a messenger of Beis Din.

(b) If Shimon died, he returns the stolen object to Shimon's heirs.
(c) In the following cases, Reuven need not travel to return what he owes:

1. He paid the principle, but did not pay the added fifth (which he owes because he swore falsely);
2. Shimon pardoned from paying the principle, but not from the added fifth;
3. Shimon pardoned the entire obligation, except for less than a Perutah (even) of the principle.

(d) Reuven must travel to return what he owes if he paid or was pardoned from the added fifth, but not from (at least a Perutah of) the principle.
(e) If Reuven paid the principle, and (falsely) swore that he also paid the added fifth, he must pay (the added fifth and) an additional fifth of the added fifth.

1. Each time he swears falsely about paying a fifth (of a fifth...) he is obligated to add a fifth of what he swore about, until the denied money is less than a Perutah.

(f) The same applies to a deposit - "A deposit or withheld wages or theft or oppression of his fellowman, or he found a lost object and denied it or swore falsely, he pays the principle and an added fifth and brings an Asham (guilt-offering).

(a) (Gemara) Inference: He must travel to return a stolen object only if he swore falsely about it;
(b) Question: This is not as R. Tarfon, nor as R. Akiva!

1. (Beraisa - R. Tarfon): Reuven stole from 1 of 5 people, he is not sure from which; each of them says 'You stole from me' - he may leave the stolen object in front of them, he is exempt;
2. R. Akiva says, to correct his sin he must pay each of them the value of what he stole.

i. Our Mishnah is not as R. Tarfon - he holds, even if Reuven swore falsely, he may leave the stolen object in front of them!
ii. It is not as R. Akiva - he holds, even if Reuven did not swear, he must pay every one of them!

(c) Answer #1: Really, it is as R. Akiva - he only obligates him to pay every one of them when he swore falsely.

1. Question: What is his reason?
2. Answer: "To the owner he will give it, on the day of his guilt" (the verse speaks of one who swore falsely and brings an Asham);
3. R. Tarfon holds, even though he swore falsely, Chachamim made an enactment for the thief.

i. (Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok): A great enactment was made - if the cost of returning a stolen object exceeds the principle, the thief gives the principle and the added fifth to Beis Din, and he can bring his Asham and get atonement.

4. R. Akiva holds that this enactment was only when he knows whom he stole from, for then the victim can get his money back;

i. When he stole from 1 of 5 people, we did not make such an enactment, for then the victim would not get his money back.

(d) Objection #1 (Rav Huna bar Yehudah - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): R. Tarfon and R. Akiva did not argue regarding one who bought from 1 of 5 people, he is not sure from which - all agree, he may leave the money he owes in front of them;

1. They argue when he stole from 1 of 5 people, he is not sure from which; each of them says 'You stole from me' - R. Tarfon says, he may leave the stolen object in front of them, he is exempt;
2. R. Akiva says, to correct his sin he must pay each of them the value of what he stole.
3. Summation of question: If he swore falsely, the law should be the same if he bought or stole (either way, he sinned)!

(e) Objection #2 (Rava - Beraisa): There was a case of a Chasid who was not sure from which of 2 men he bought. R. Tarfon told him, it suffices to leave the money in front of them;

1. R. Akiva told him, to clear himself he must pay each of them.
2. Since he was a Chasid, surely he did not swear falsely!

i. Suggestion: Perhaps he swore falsely, then repented and became a Chasid!
ii. Rejection: Whenever it says 'there was a case of a Chasid', this refers to R. Yehudah ben Bava or R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i - neither was a repentant sinner!

(f) Answer #2: Really, it is as R. Tarfon - he admits that he must pay every one of them when he swore falsely.

1. Question: What is his reason?
2. Answer: "To the owner he will give it, on the day of his guilt".

i. R. Akiva fines him, even though he did not swear falsely.

3. Question: The verse speaks of one who admitted his sin (since he brings a sacrifice) - if so, R. Tarfon obligates him even if he did not swear!!

i. (Beraisa): R. Tarfon admits by one who admits to stealing (and wants to clear himself at the hands of Heaven), but he is not sure from which of 2 people he stole, that he must pay both of them.

(g) [Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer #3 (Rava): Our Mishnah (is as both Tana'im, it) is unlike the Beraisa;]

1. [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer (to question l:3 - Rava): Our Mishnah (is as R. Tarfon, it) is unlike the Beraisa;]
2. Since he knows he stole from Shimon, and admitted to him, it is as if Shimon said 'the stolen object is as a deposit by you';

i. If Reuven swore, he must travel to return the stolen object in order to (bring his Asham and) get atonement;
ii. If he did not swear, since Shimon allows him to watch the stolen object, he need not travel to return it