Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE ARGUMENT IN THE MISHNAH

(a) Question: Let the Mishnah teach that R. Yehoshua admits, if Reuven tells Shimon, I borrowed 100 from you and repaid you, he is believed!
(b) Answer: If we taught this, we would want to teach in the end of the Mishnah, if witnesses know that Reuven borrowed the money, he is not believed to say that he repaid.

1. But we hold that one who borrows money with witnesses (without a document) may return the money *without* witnesses (and thus Reuven *would* be believed!)

(c) Question: Let the Mishnah teach that R. Yehoshua admits, if Reuven tells Shimon, I borrowed 100 from your father and repaid half, he is believed!

1. Question: Like which Tana (of the coming Beraisa) would the Mishnah hold?

i. If as Chachamim - they say, he is as one who returns a lost object (and is believed even if witnesses knew of the loan!)
ii. If as R. Eliezer Ben Yakov - he says that Reuven must swear!

2. (Beraisa): R. Eliezer Ben Yakov says, sometimes a person swears on his own claim, e.g. Reuven tells Shimon, I borrowed 100 from your father and repaid half;
3. Chachamim say, he is like one who returns a lost object, and need not swear.
4. Question: Does R. Eliezer Ben Yakov not agree that one who returns a lost object need not swear?
5. Answer (Rav): The case is, a child claims that he owes the full 100.
6. Question: But we learned, one does not swear in response to the claim of a child, deaf person or fool!
7. Answer: Rav meant that he is an adult; he is called a child, because an adult is as a child regarding his father's affairs.
8. Question: If so, why is this called swearing on Reuven's own claim - it is the claim of another party!
9. Answer: It is the claim of another party, and Reuven's own admission.
10. Question: Every case (of the oath of partial admission) is another party's claim, and a person's own admission!
11. Retraction: Rather, the argument is based on Rabah's teaching.

(d) Question (Rabah): Why did the Torah impose an oath on a partial admission (the person should be believed, Migo he could have denied the entire claim)!
(e) Answer (Rabah): We have a Chazakah (a rule of human nature) that a person lacks Chutzpa to deny the claim of his creditor.

1. He would like to deny it entirely, but he cannot be so brazen.

2. To avoid being so brazen, he would like to admit to the full claim; he denies part, planning to stall until he can pay the full claim.

(f) The Torah imposes an oath on him, in order that he admit to the full claim.
(g) R. Eliezer Ben Yakov says that a person cannot be brazen to the son of his creditor; therefore, he is not as one returning a lost object, and he must swear to the claim of the son.
(h) Chachamim say that a person can be brazen to the son of his creditor; since he chooses to return the money, this is like returning a lost object, and he need not swear.

(a) (Mishnah): Witnesses that say, these are our signatures, but we were forced to sign/children/invalid witnesses - they are believed;
(b) If other witnesses recognize their signatures, or if we can match their signatures to an authenticated document they signed, they are not believed.
(c) (Gemara - Rami Bar Chama): We only say they are not believed when they claim that they signed because of a monetary threat; if they say that they signed to save their lives, they are believed.
(d) Objection (Rava): No way! Once they have testified, they cannot retract their testimony!

1. Suggestion: Maybe this principle only refers to oral testimony, but not to written testimony.
2. Rejection: Reish Lakish taught, witnesses signed on a document are treated as testimony which has been investigated and accepted by Beis Din.

(e) Correction: Rami Bar Chama' law applies to the beginning of the Mishnah: We only say they are believed when they claim that they signed because of a mortal threat; if they say that they signed to save their money, they are not believed.

1. This is because a person cannot invalidate his testimony by saying that he transgressed.

(f) (Beraisa): R. Meir says that they are not believed to invalidate the document; Chachamim say that they are believed.

1. We understand the Chachamim - 'the mouth that prohibited is the mouth which permitted' (we could only verify their signatures through them, so the are believed to say that the document is invalid).
2. Question: What is the reason of R. Meir?

i. We understand why they are not believed to say that they were invalid witnesses - the lender certainly would have checked that his witnesses are valid!

Next daf