Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna stated that if a Shechiv-Mera declared all his property Hekdesh, and then said that one Manah belonged to so-and-so - we give one Manah to so-and-so ...

(b) ... because - a person would not arrange a collusion against Hekdesh.

(c) Rav and Shmuel draw a distinction in the case of a Shechiv-Mera who said 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' between whether he said 'T'nu' - in which case we would follow his instructions, or not - in which case we would not.

(d) The reason for the Reisha of Rav and Shmuel's ruling is - because as long as he has not said 'T'nu', we suspect that he only declared 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' in order to convey the impression that he and his sons are not wealthy.

(a) Rav Nachman asks from the Reisha of Rav and Shmuel on Rav Huna's previous ruling - that there too, perhaps he only declared 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' for that reason (so that when he recovers, and retracts from his illness, people will not take him for a wealthy man).

(b) We reject the answer that Rav Huna is speaking when P'loni is holding a Sh'tar - because of the inference that Rav and Shmuel speak when he is not, in which case it is a oral loan, which one cannot claim from Yesomim.

(c) The principle 'Mitzvah Le'kayem Divrei ha'Meis' - would only apply after the father's death, whereas Rav and Shmuel are speaking during his lifetime.

(d) So Rav Nachman establishes both cases when P'loni is holding a Sh'tar - and the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa of Rav and Shmuel lies in the fact that the Sh'tar was not verified. 'T'nu verifies the Sh'tar. Otherwise we are afraid that he only said 'T'nu' in order to convey the impression that he is not wealthy, and the claimant cannot claim before he has verified the Sh'tar.

(e) Rav Huna speaks - when the Sh'tar was verified.

(a) If a Shechiv-Mera says 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi be'Yadi', Rabah believes the Yesamim to say that they paid. In a case where he said 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', and the Yesamim claim that they have paid, he says - 'Ein Ne'emanin'.

(b) We repudiate this dual ruling - because, we argue 'K'lapei Laya' (the reverse would be more logical). Consequently - when he said 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', which is an order, the Yesomim are more likely to have subsequently paid, than if he said 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi', which does not obligate them to pay (and which he may have only said in order to convey the impression that he and his sons are not wealthy [as we learned earlier]).

(c) So we amend Rabah's statement. What he really said in a case of ...

1. ... 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' was - that if the Yesomim testified that their father then told them that he had paid, we assume that he subsequently recalled his debt, and they are believed.
2. ... 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', and the Yesomim testified that their father then told them that he had paid - they are not believed, because had he paid, he would not have (forgotten and) told them to pay in the first place.

(a) In a case where Reuven claims money from Shimon, who admits to the claim in front of two witnesses - he must also declare 'Atem Eidai' before the witnesses can tie him down to his admission ...

(b) ... otherwise, he can claim that he was merely pulling the creditor's leg.

(a) Rava asks - whether a Shechiv-Mera who admits to the claim of a claimant is also required to declare 'Atem Eidai', or whether his admission is conclusive anyway.

(b) He also asks - whether the Shechiv-Mera needs to say 'Kesuvu' before one records his instructions on a Sh'tar, or whether one does so anyway.

(c) With regard to ...

1. ... the first She'eilah - Rava concludes that it is not necessary to declare 'Atem Eidai' (since a person on his death-bed does not usually pull peoples' legs).
2. ... the second She'eilah - he concludes with the principle 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami', in which case, one certainly records his instructions.

6)

(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between whether Reuven lends Shimon money with a Sh'tar - in which case he can claim Meshubadim (from the debtors purchasers), or without one - in which case he cannot.

(b) The former ruling will apply - even if Acharayus is not writen in the Sh'tar, because of the principle 'Acharayus Ta'us Sofer Hu', as we already discussed earlier in the Perek.

(c) If Reuven produces a signed i.o.u. that Shimon owes him money, he can only claim from B'nei-Chorin, and not from Meshubadim - because the Kol (that protects the purchasers) is created by a combination of a Sh'tar and witnesses.

(a) If Arvus appears on the Sh'tar after the witnesses signatures, the creditor can only claim from the Areiv's B'nei-Chorin - because since the Arvus is not signed, it is considered an oral loan, which cannot b claimed from Meshubadim.

(b) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael. According to ben Nannes, he cannot even claim from his B'nei-Chorin either - because it was not the Areiv who caused the creditor to enact the loan (as is the case when the Arvus appears as part of the Sh'tar).

(c) ben Nannes illustrated this with a Mashal - of Reuven who promises to pay Levi's debt to Shimon if Shimon stops strangling Levi (where his sole concern is to save Levi, and not to pay Levi's debt).

(d) Rebbi Yishmael declared that the way to become wise is to study Diynei Mamonos, which he compared to a self-generating fountain. He advised going about this - by studying under ben Nannes.

(a) Ula permits claiming a Milveh al Peh (an oral loan) from Meshubadim min ha'Torah - because he holds 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

(b) The Chachamim forbade it - to protect the purchasers, who will have no way of knowing which fields are Meshubad before purchasing them, and will then lose them to the creditors.

(c) They did not extend this stringency to a Milveh bi'Sh'tar (a documented loan) - because they have a 'Kol', enabling the purchasers to protect themselves by making inquiries before buying fields.

(d) Ula's source for 'Shibuda d'Oraysa' is - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot" (permitting the creditor to claim [in the prescribed manner] from the debtor's household objects as payment), and this extends to Karka too.

(a) Rabah holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa', in which case by Torah law - the creditor us not permitted to claim from the purchasers at all.

(b) The source for claiming Meshubadim from the purchasers is - purely mi'de'Rabbanan, because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (because if the creditors have difficulty in obtaining their loans, they will stop lending).

(c) The Chachamim did not decree by an oral loan too - because it has no 'Kol' (as we have already explained).

(d) According to Rabah, the Pasuk "Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot", refers not to the payment of the loan, but to a Mashkon that the creditor claims after the time of the loan).

(a) When Rabah ruled in 'Yesh Nochlin' 'Gavu Karka, Yesh Lo, Ma'os, Ein Lo', he was referring to - a Bechor claiming the Cheilek Bechorah from a loan owed to his father.

(b) The problem this creates is that Rabah appears to hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa - whereas we just saw that he holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa'.

(c) It is not feasible to resolve the discrepancy by switching the opinions of Rabah and Ula - because elsewhere, Ula stated that a Ba'al-Chov claims Ziburis (from the worst-quality fields [even though he borrowed money]), a proof that Ula does indeed hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

(d) We therefore resolve it - by pointing out that Rabah in 'Yesh Nochlin' was only explaining the opinion of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael (who maintain that a Bechor takes double from a loan), but that he himself holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa'.

(a) Rav and Shmuel argue with Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish over the same point as Ula and Rabah - Rav and Shmuel hold 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

(b) The Beraisa discusses Reuven who is digging a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim when Shimon's ox falls into it killing him. The Tana rules - that if ...

1. ... the ox killed Reuven, Shimon is Patur from paying.
2. ... the ox should die, Reuven's heirs remain obligated to pay damages.

(c) This poses a Kashya on Rav and Shmuel - who hold 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa, whereas the Beraisa (which is discussing a Milveh al Peh) clearly holds 'Shibuda d'Oraysa (seeing as the Torah obligates the heirs to pay).

(a) Rebbi Ila'a Amar Rav therefore establishes the case - when the Beis-Din had already obligated Reuven to pay for the ox before he died (and Beis-Din's ruling renders every loan a Milveh bi'Sh'tar.

(b) In view of the fact that the Beraisa says 'Hargo', Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the case further - by confining it to where the ox did not kill Reuven outright, but made him a T'reifah, and he died only after Beis-Din's ruling.

(c) And in light of Rav Nachman, who said 'Meis ve'Kavro' (meaning that the ox killed and buried Reuven) - we finally establish the case when the Dayanim were actually sitting beside the pit when the accident occurred.

(a) Rav Papa rules that one may ...

1. ... claim an oral loan from the heirs - because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (in order not to close the door on potential borrowers, as we have already explained) ...
2. ... but not from the purchasers - because there is no Kol (and they have no way of protecting themselves, as we have already explained a number of times).

(b) Rav Papa - is non-commital with regard to the She'eilah whether Shibuda is d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan. In fact, he could hold either (see Tosfos DH 'Govah').