Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST CHILDREN PAY FOR THEIR FATHER'S CRIME?

(a) [Version #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah) - (Beraisa): Reuven collected usury; he died. Even if his children know that the money was from usury, they need not return it.
(b) (Rami bar Chama): This teaches that heirs are as buyers.
(c) Rejection (Rava): Really, heirs are not as buyers;

1. Usury is different, because it says "Do not take from him interest and usury" - return it to him in order that he will live with you.

i. The Torah only commanded the lender, not his son.]

(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah says that Rami bar Chama learned from the Beraisa of usury that heirs are as buyers - all the more so, he may learn this from our Mishnah (the heirs may keep the money, even though we have no verse teaching this);

1. The first version says that Rami bar Chama learned from our Mishnah that heirs are as buyers - but he would not learn from the Beraisa, as Rava's objection.

(e) (Beraisa #1): One who stole and fed his children- they are exempt;

1. If he left the theft in front of them - if they are adults, they are liable; if they are minors, they are exempt.
2. If his adult children say 'We do not know our father's dealings with you', they are exempt.
3. Objection: Why do they exempt themselves by saying this?!
4. Correction (Rava): Rather, if they say 'We know our father's dealings with you - he did not owe you anything', they are exempt.

(f) (Beraisa #2): One who stole and fed his children- they are exempt;

1. If he left the theft in front of them and they ate - whether they are adults or minors, they are liable.
2. Objection: Are minors really liable - this is no worse than damage, for which they are exempt!
3. Correction (Rav Papa): Rather, if he left the theft in front of them and they did not yet eat it - whether they are adults or minors, they are liable.

(a) (Rava): If Reuven borrowed a cow and died, leaving it to his children, they may use it as long as Reuven borrowed it for;

1. If it dies through Ones, they are exempt.
2. If they thought it was their father's and slaughtered and ate it, they pay a discounted price for the meat (two thirds of the standard price).
3. If Reuven left them property with responsibility, they are liable.

i. [Version #1: This refers to the first law (if it dies through Ones, they are exempt).]
ii. [Version #2: This refers to the second law (if they ate it, they pay a discounted price for the meat).]
iii. Version #1 surely agrees to (the law of) Version #2, and argues on Rav Papa (as follows);
iv. Version #2 argues on Version #1, as Rav Papa.

(b) (Rav Papa): Reuven stole a cow; he slaughtered it on Shabbos - he pays (5 cows), because he was liable even before he transgressed Shabbos;

1. Reuven borrowed a cow; he slaughtered it on Shabbos - he is exempt, because the theft and transgression of Shabbos come simultaneously.

(c) (Beraisa): "He will returned the stolen object that he stole" - that is, like he stole;

1. If he stole and fed his children- they are exempt;
2. If he left the theft in front of them - whether they are adults or minors, they are liable;

i. Sumchus says, adults are liable, minors are exempt.

(a) The son of R. Yirmeyah's father-in-law (was a minor; he) locked the door to prevent R. Yirmeyah from making a Chazakah on his father's house (after his father died). R. Yirmeyah came before R. Avin.

1. R. Avin: The son is justified - it is his house!
2. R. Yirmeyah: But I have witnesses that I made a Chazakah on the house in his father's lifetime (it was a gift or sale)!
3. R. Avin: We do not accept witnesses in the defendant's absence - a minor is not considered present!

4. Question (Beraisa): (If he left the theft in front of them) whether they are adults or minors, they are liable (it must be, we accept testimony on minors)!
5. Answer (R. Avin): Sumchus argues, he exempts minors (because we do not accept testimony against them).
6. R. Yirmeyah: Do you hold as Sumchus, to deprive me of my house?

(b) The case came to R. Avahu.

1. R. Avahu: R. Oshiya ruled that if a child took someone's slaves and claimed them, we do not wait until he matures - rather, we return the slaves immediately; when the child matures, he can bring witnesses.

(c) Question: There is different, the child had no Chazakah on the slaves - here, the child is in place of his father, who had a Chazakah on the house!
(d) (Rav Ashi): We accept witnesses in the defendant's absence.
(e) Objection (R. Yochanan): We do not accept witnesses in the defendant's absence!
(f) Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): If the claiming party is sick, or if the witnesses must leave town - if the defendant was summonsed and does not come, we accept witnesses in his absence.
(g) (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): We accept witnesses in the defendant's absence.

1. (Mar Ukva): Shmuel only said this when they opened the case (the litigants made their claims in front of Beis Din), one side later brought witnesses, and the other side did not come;

i. If they did not open the case, he can say that he wants to go to the great Beis Din (in Eretz Yisrael).
ii. Question: Even if the case was opened, the defendant can say he wants to go to the great Beis Din!
iii. Answer (Ravina): The case is, the great Beis Din sent a letter saying that the local Beis Din should judge the case.

(h) (Rav): We validate documents in the absence of a party to the document;
(i) (R. Yochanan): We do not validate documents in the absence of a party to the document.
(j) (Rav Sheshes): R. Yochanan learns from "Testimony was given (that an ox gored) in front of the owner, and he does not guard it" - the owner must be there.

(a) (Rava): The law is, we validate documents in the absence of a party to the document (Reuven), even if he is protesting;

1. If he requests time to find witnesses that can discredit the document, we grant him time.
2. If he does not come (with witnesses nor to pay) - we warn him 3 times, Monday, Thursday, and Monday;
3. If he still does not come, we write a Pesicha (document of excommunication).
4. For 90 days, we do not confiscate his property (to pay his debt).

i. The first 30 days, we assume he is trying to borrow the money.
ii. The next 30 days, we suppose he is trying to sell things to raise the money.
iii. The last 30 days, we suppose he found a buyer, but the buyer has not yet raised the money.

5. If he does not come within 90 days, we write an Adrachta (a document authorizing the lender (Shimon) to take Reuven's property as payment).

(b) All this only applies if Reuven said that he would come; if he said that he would not come, we write an Adrachta immediately.
(c) All this only applies by a loan; but by a deposit, we write an Adrachta immediately.
(d) We only write an Adrachta on land - but not on Metaltelim, lest Shimon consume them, and Reuven will later bring witnesses discrediting the document, and Shimon will not have anything to return to him.

1. If Shimon has land, we may write an Adrachta on Reuven's Metaltelim, we are not concerned that Shimon will not have anything to return to him.
2. Rejection: This is wrong - even if he has land, we do not write an Adrachta on Metaltelim, lest Shimon will cause the land to decrease in value.

(e) We do not write an Adrachta on Reuven's Metaltelim before informing him - but only if he is nearby;

1. Even if he is far away, but we can inform him through relatives or caravans that will go to where he is and return, we wait up to 12 months to inform him.

i. Ravina made Acha wait 12 months before writing an Adrachta for him, until a caravan went to and returned from Bei Chuza'i.

2. Rejection: Acha was an exception, he was powerful, when he receives an Adrachta it is impossible to retrieve property from him;

i. Normally, we only wait (on Monday) if a messenger can reach Reuven on Tuesday and return on Wednesday, so Beis Din can finish the case on Thursday.

(f) (Ravina): A messenger of Beis Din is believed as 2 witnesses.

1. This is only regarding excommunication (if he says that Reuven refuses to come) - but not to write a Pesicha, for this will cost Reuven money - he must pay the scribe when he wants to end the excommunication.

(g) (Ravina): We rely on a woman or neighbors to inform Reuven that he must come to Beis Din; if he does not come in time, we excommunicate him.

1. This is only if Reuven is not in the city - if he is, we do not rely on them, they might not bother to tell him, assuming that a messenger of Beis Din will tell him.
2. This is only if Reuven does not often come by Beis Din - if he does, a woman or neighbor might assume that Beis Din told him.
3. This is only if Reuven normally returns home each day - if not, we are concerned that they will forget to tell him.

(h) (Rava): A Pesicha was written against Reuven for not coming to Beis Din - we do not tear it until he comes to Beis Din;

1. If it was written for not complying with the verdict - we do not tear it until he complies with the verdict.
2. Rejection: This is wrong - once he agrees to comply with the verdict, we tear it up.