Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SACRIFICES FOR FALSE OATHS

(a) (R. Yirmeyah): (In the setting of the Mishnah, if the renter and borrower swore falsely and later repented -) sometimes they both bring sin-offerings, sometimes both bring guilt-offerings, sometimes the renter brings a sin-offering and the borrower brings a guilt-offering, and sometimes vice-versa.

1. For a false oath that denies money, one brings a guilt-offering; for a false oath of Bituy (utterance, that does not deny money) he brings a sin-offering.
2. Both bring sin-offerings - for example, it died normally, and they swore that it died through Ones;

i. Even had they sworn truthfully, the law would be the same - the renter is exempt, the borrower is liable.

3. Both bring guilt-offering - for example, it was stolen, and they swore that it died while working;

i. Really, each is liable; by swearing falsely, they exempted themselves.

4. The renter brings a sin-offering and the borrower brings a guilt-offering - for example, it died normally, and they swore that it died while working;

i. Really, the renter is exempt, the borrower is liable; by swearing falsely, the borrower exempted himself.

5. The renter brings a guilt-offering and the borrower brings a sin-offering - for example, it was stolen, and they swore that died normally;

i. Really, each is liable; by swearing falsely, the renter exempted himself.

(b) Question: What Chidush did R. Yirmeyah come to teach?
(c) Answer: He comes to argue with R. Ami, who says that any oath administered by Beis Din is not considered an oath of Bituy for which one brings a sin-offering.

1. R. Ami learns from "Ki Sishava (when will swear) - this connotes, he chose to swear on his own.

(a) (Rav): Reuven was watching a deposit; he gave it to another watchman - Reuven is exempt; (b) (R. Yochanan): He is liable.
(c) (Abaye): Rav's law is not only when a free watchman gave it to a paid watchman, who watches it better (he is liable for theft and loss);

1. Rather, even when a paid watchman gave it to a free watchman, who does not guard it as well, he is exempt.
2. Question: Why is this?
3. Answer: He gives it to one with intellect.

(d) (Abaye): R. Yochanan's law is not only when a paid watchman gave it to a free watchman, who does not guard as well;

1. Rather, even when a free watchman gave it to a paid watchman, who watches it better, he is liable.
2. Question: Why is this?
3. Answer: The owner does not want others handling his object.

(e) (Rav Chisda): Rav did not say his law explicitly, rather it was inferred from the following episode.

1. There were some gardeners who used to deposit their hoes by a certain woman. One day, they left them by Reuven (one of the gardeners); he heard a wedding, and left them by her; they were stolen. Rav exempted Reuven.
2. The one who heard this ruling inferred that Rav says that a watchman who gave to another watchman is exempt - but this is wrong!

i. Rather, because they always deposited them by her, they showed that they consent for her to watch them.

(f) Question (against R. Yochanan - R. Aba bar Mamal - Mishnah): Reuven rented Shimon's cow, and lent it to Levi; it died normally - Reuven swears that it died normally, and Levi pays Reuven.

1. We do not say that (Reuven is liable because) Shimon does not want others handling his object!

(g) Answer (R. Ami): The case is, Shimon permitted Reuven to lend the cow.
(h) Question: If so, it is as if Levi borrowed from Shimon, he should have to pay Shimon!
(i) Answer: Shimon told Reuven 'If you want to lend out the cow, that is your decision.'
(j) Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): Shimon deposited coins by Reuven. Reuven wrapped them and carried them (hanging) over his back, or gave them to his children (minors) to watch, or locked them up inadequately - he is liable, for this is not as people guard.

1. Inference: If his children were adults, he would be exempt - we do not say that (he is liable because Shimon does not want others handling his coins)!

(k) Answer (Rava): One who deposits expects that the watchman will entrust the deposit with (adult) members of the watchman's family.

(l) Support (Chachamim of Nehardai - Mishnah): He gave them to his children (minors);

1. Inference: If his children were adults, he would be exempt - this distinction is only by his own children, but by other people, whether they are children or adults, he would be liable!

i. If the distinction between children and adults was true in general, it should just say 'he gave to children'!

(m) (Rava): The Halachah is: not only a paid watchman who gave it to a free watchman (who does not guard as well), but even a free watchman who gave it to a paid watchman (who watches it better) is liable;

1. The reason is, the owner can say that he only believes the oath of the first watchman, not of the second.

(a) Reuven was negligent with the animal he was watching; it went to the swamp (where it is not guarded), and died normally.

1. (Abaye citing Rabah): He is liable.
2. (Rava citing Rabah): He is exempt.

(b) Abaye: He is liable not only according to the opinion that obligates when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones - rather, even the opinion that exempts in that case obligates in this case;

1. The hot air of the swamp caused the death, it died on account of the negligence.

(c) Rava: He is exempt not only according to the opinion that exempts when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones - rather, even the opinion that obligates in that case exempts in this case;

1. The angel of death would have killed it no matter where it was.

(d) Abaye admits that if he returned it to the owner's house (after being negligent, and it died there) he is exempt - the hot air of the swamp did not cause the death.
(e) Rava admits that if it was stolen from the swamp and died in the thief's house that Reuven is liable;
(f) Question: Why is this?
(g) Answer: Even had it not died, Reuven would be liable - the theft resulted from his negligence.
(h) Question (Abaye): R. Aba bar Mamal asked (why the renter in the Mishnah is exempt), and R. Ami established the case when he had permission to lend it - he did not merely say that the angel of death would have killed it no matter where it was!
(i) Answer (Rava): You understand that a watchman who gave to a watchman is liable because the owner does not want others handling his object - therefore, R. Aba could ask;

1. I say that he is liable because the owner only believes the oath of the first watchman, not of the second - R. Aba has no question (because in the Mishnah, the first watchman can swear that it died normally)!

(j) Question (against Abaye - Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): A watchman brought the animal up a steep mountain and it fell - this is not Ones, he is liable.

1. Inference: Had it died by itself, he would be exempt - we do not say that the cold air of the mountain or the exertion killed it!

(k) Answer: The case is, the watchman took it to a good pasture (this is normal care of an animal).
(l) Question: If so, he should be exempt even if it fell!
(m) Answer: He should have grabbed it.
(n) Question: But the previous clause said, if the animal by itself went up and it fell - this is Ones, he is exempt!
(o) Answer: The case is, he tried to grab it, it evaded him and went up; he tried to grab it, it evaded him and went down.