Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THINGS A PERSON NEED NOT KNOW

(a) Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon; Shimon said 'I paid you in front of Ploni and Almoni'. Ploni and Almoni denied having seen this.
(b) (Rav Sheshes): Shimon is Huchzak Kafran (established as a liar, he is no longer believed to say 'rather, I paid you, not in front of them').
(c) (Rava): No - anything that is not incumbent on a person (Rashi - Shimon need not name witnesses that saw payment; R. Chananel - the witnesses were not asked to witness the payment), he is not mindful about it (therefore, Shimon is not Huchzak Kafran).
(d) Levi claimed 600 Zuz from Yehudah; Yehudah said 'I paid you with 100 Kavim of gallnuts, each Kav was worth six Zuz.' Levi said that a Kav was worth four Zuz, and brought witnesses to this effect.
(e) (Rava): Yehudah is Huchzak Kafran (therefore, he is not believed to say that he paid the remaining 200 with money).
(f) Question (Rami bar Chama): You yourself say that anything that is not incumbent on a person (Rashi - Yehudah need not say how he paid; R. Chananel - at the time, the witnesses were not asked to remember the price of gallnuts), he is not mindful about it (therefore, Yehudah is not Huchzak Kafran)!
(g) Answer (Rava): People remember prices (therefore, he is Huchzak Kafran).

(a) Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon, and showed the loan document. Shimon claimed that he paid him; Reuven said 'You paid a different debt, not the loan of this document'.
(b) (Rav Nachman): Reuven's admission that he received money taints the document (Tosfos - he cannot collect with it; R. Chananel - to collect, he must swear that he was not paid).
(c) (Rav Papa): The document is not tainted.
(d) Question: According to Rav Papa, what is different about the following case (in which the document is tainted)?

1. Levi claimed a Maneh from Yehudah (from a business venture, Yehudah was to buy cattle, slaughter and sell them), and showed the document.

i. Yehudah: You came to where I was selling, and I paid you!
ii. Levi: You paid a different debt.

2. (Rav Papa): The document is tainted.

(e) Answer: There, since the money was given to buy cattle, and he was paid where he was selling them, there are grounds to say that he paid that debt;

1. In the previous case, we have no such grounds (and since he did not take back the document, there are grounds to say that it was for a different debt).

(f) Question: What is the Halachah?
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Papi): The document is not tainted.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi): The document is tainted.

1. The Halachah is, the document is tainted.
2. This is only if he paid in front of witnesses, without mentioning the document - but if he paid without witnesses, Migo that Reuven would be believed to say that he was not paid, he is believed to say that he was paid for a different debt.
3. This is like the case of Avimi brei d'R. Avahu.

(a) Reuven lent money to Shimon; Shimon said, if you will say that I did not pay, I will trust you (i.e. repay you). Shimon brought witnesses that saw him pay.
(b) (Abaye and Rava): Shimon said, he will trust him!
(c) Rejection (Rav Papa): He only meant, if the two of them argue, but he did not trust him against witnesses!
(d) Version #1: Levi lent money to Yehudah; Yehudah said, if you will say that I did not pay, I will trust you like two witnesses. Shimon brought three witnesses that saw him pay.
(e) (Rav Papa): Shimon only trusted him like two witnesses, not like three!
(f) Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We only follow the majority of opinions regarding estimation (of property value), there, the more opinions, the better the estimate;

1. Regarding testimony, two witnesses are as good as 100!

(g) Version #2: Levi lent money to Yehudah; Yehudah said, if you will say that I did not pay, I will trust you like two witnesses. Shimon brought three witnesses that saw him pay.
(h) (Rav Papa): Shimon only trusted him like two witnesses, not like three!
(i) Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Regarding testimony, two witnesses are as good as 100!

1. However, if he said 'I will trust you like three witnesses', and Shimon brings four witnesses that saw him pay, he is exempt;

i. By specifying three witnesses, we see that Shimon considers more witnesses to be more reliable.

(a) (Mishnah): We need not swear to deny the claim of a child, fool or deaf person; we do not make a child swear.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer: "Ki Yiten Ish...money or vessels to guard" - but when a child gives, nothing takes effect.
(d) (Mishnah): We do swear to a child and to Hekdesh.
(e) Question: But the previous clause said that we need not swear to deny the claim of a child, fool or deaf person!
(f) Answer #1 (Rav): We swear if the child claims money that was owed to his father; the Mishnah is R. Eliezer ben Yakov.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Sometimes, a person swears on account of his own claim: Shimon told Reuven, your father gave me a Maneh; I returned half to him.- Shimon must swear that he only owes half, on account of his own claim;
2. Chachamim exempt him from swearing, like one who returns a lost object.
3. Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Yakov say that one who returns a lost object must swear (Rashi - an enactment exempts him; Tosfos - he is believed that he returned everything, Migo that he could have kept it all)?!
4. Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, a child claims from Shimon.
5. Objection: But our Mishnah teaches that we need not swear to deny the claim of a child, fool or deaf person!
6. Answer: Rav really means, an adult claims (money of his father) from Shimon;

i. He is called a child, because a person is (ignorant) like a child regarding his father's affairs.

7. Question: In the Beraisa, R. Eliezer said 'sometimes a person swears on account of his own claim', but this is the case of another's claim!
8. Answer: It is another person's claim, but his own admission.

9. Objection: The oath of partial admission always comes through another's claim, and his own admission! (Why did R. Eliezer says *sometimes*, and why do Chachamim argue)?!
10. Answer #2 (to Question 3): Rather, R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about Rabah's law (Rashi - really, a child claims; Tosfos - an adult claims).

i. Question (Rabah): Why did the Torah say that one who partially admits to a claim must swear?
ii. Answer (Rabah): Chazakah (of human nature) says that a person (Shimon) lacks the audacity to deny the claim of his creditor (Reuven) (Rashi - because Reuven helped him; Tosfos - because Reuven would know that Shimon is lying);
iii. Really, Shimon would like to admit to the entire claim; he only admits to part, he is stalling until he can pay it all;
iv. The Torah imposes this oath on him in order that he will admit to the entire debt.

11. R. Eliezer says, just as a person lacks the audacity to deny the claim of Reuven (his creditor), also regarding the claim of Reuven's son, therefore, Shimon is not like one who returns a lost object;
12. Chachamim say, he cannot deny Reuven's claim, but he could deny Reuven's son's claim (Rashi - the son did not help Shimon; Tosfos - the son does not know if the debt was paid);

i. Since he *chose* to admit, he is like one who returns a lost object, he is exempt.

(g) Question: The Mishnah cannot be R. Eliezer ben Yakov, as we see from a previous clause!

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed 'You owed my father a Maneh' (and I inherited it), and Shimon admitted that he owed 50, he (pays 50 and) need not swear, for he is like one who returns a lost object.

(h) Answer: There, Reuven's claim was uncertain (he does not know whether or not Shimon paid), so Shimon is exempt.
(i) Answer #2 (to Question (e) - Shmuel): We swear to children and Hekdesh to collect from their property.
(j) Question: Another Mishnah already teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): One who collects from orphans' property must swear.

(k) Answer: The repetition teaches Abaye Kashisha's law.

1. The laws of orphans, i.e. one who collects from orphans' property must swear and we only collect Ziburis from orphans, apply to adult orphans, all the more so to children.

(l) Question: Another Mishnah already teaches the law of Hekdesh!

1. (Mishnah): One who collects from Meshu'abadim (property that was sold or given to someone else) must swear.
2. Why should we distinguish whether it is Meshu'abad to a person or to Hekdesh?!

(m) Answer: One might have thought, we only swear when it is Meshu'abad to a person, lest the borrower is scheming with the creditor to improperly take the property from the buyer (e.g. the loan was already paid), but we are not concerned that someone would scheme to cheat Hekdesh - the Mishnah teaches, we are concerned even regarding Hekdesh.
(n) Question: But Rav Huna taught, if a dying person made all his property Hekdesh, and said that a Maneh of (what we assumed was) his property belongs to Ploni, he is believed; we have a Chazakah, people do not scheme to cheat Hekdesh!
(o) Answer: That only applies to a dying person, he would not lie since he does not stand to benefit from it;

1. Regarding a healthy person, we are concerned that he is scheming with the one who will take the property from Hekdesh (and they will share it).

(a) (Mishnah): We do not swear about slaves, documents, land and Hekdesh;
(b) The following laws apply to these: a thief does not pay double for them, nor four or five (if he later slaughtered or sold a stolen (Hekdesh) animal), a Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through Gilgul), a Shomer Sachar need not pay for them (in fact, all watchmen are exempt from swearing and paying);
(c) R. Shimon says, one swears about Kodshim which have Achrayus (Nedarim, if the animal is disqualified or lost, another must be brought), one does not swear about Kodshim without Achrayus (Nedavos, if the animal is disqualified or lost, he need not replace it).
(d) R. Meir says, some things are like land, but have the law of Metaltelim:

1. If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with ten vines laden with grapes', and Shimon said 'you only entrusted me with five', Shimon must swear;
2. Chachamim disagree, anything connected to land is like land, he need not swear.

(e) One must swear only about something with a measure, weight or number:

1. If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with a full house or wallet (e.g. of grain or coins) and Shimon said 'I don't know how much it was, take what is there' - he is exempt.
2. If Reuven claimed 'It was full up to the ledge and Shimon said 'It was up to the window' - he is liable.

(f) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that double payment does not apply to them?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): "Al Kol Devar Pesha" - this is a generality; "Al Shor Al Chamor Al Seh Al Salmah" - these are specifics; "Al Kol Aveidah" is a generality;

1. From the generality, specific, generality we learn everything similar to the specifics, i.e. something which can be moved and has intrinsic value;
2. We exclude land, for it cannot be moved; we exclude slaves, for the Torah equates them to land; we exclude documents, they lack intrinsic value; we exclude Hekdesh, for the verse says "Re'ehu".

(h) (Mishnah): Nor four or five...
(i) Question: What is the reason?
(j) Answer: (The payment of four or five is double payment and an added two or three. Since the double payment does not apply, we could only obligate two or three above principal;) the Torah never obligated payment of three (for a Seh) or four (for an ox).