Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, his friend may nevertheless pay his annual half-Shekel for the Korbanos as well as his debts. The third thing that the Tana of the Mishnah in Nedarim permits him to do is - to return his lost articles.

(b) If both are Mudar Hana'ah from each other, says the Tana, then, in a place where it is customary to pay the returner for his services, the owner of the lost article must pay the money to Hekdesh. He cannot just keep it - because then he will be contravening the Neder forbidding him to benefit from the returner.

(c) When we ascribe the concession to pay the Mudar Hana'ah's half-Shekel to the fact that he is only performing a Mitzvah - we mean that the half-Shekel is only a Mitzvah, and that even he fails to give it, he acquires a portion in the public Korbanos anyway. Consequently, the only benefit that he receives is a Mitzvah, in which case, we will apply the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Le'hanos Nitnu'.

(d) When the Tana of the Mishnah in Shekalim says 'Tormin al he'Avud', he means that when the Kohen empties the boxes for the public Korbanos, he is taking even on behalf of people who sent their half-Shekel but it got lost. When he says ...

1. ... ve'Al ha'Gavuy' - he is referring to people whose half-Shekel got lost after they had already given it to the treasurer of Hekdesh.
2. ... ve'Al he'Asid li'Gavos' - he is referring to those who had not yet given their half-Shekel (even if they fail to subsequently give it).

(a) The Madir Hana'ah is permitted to return the Mudar's lost article - because, as far as the article is concerned, he is merely giving him what is already his; whereas as far as the trouble of returning it is concerned, he is performing a Mitzvah (and no doing him a personal favor).

(b) In order to explain how the Madir is permitted to pay the Mudar's debts, Rav Oshaya establishes this Mishnah like Chanan in our Mishnah - who holds that someone who volunteers to pay someone's debts cannot reclaim it (since it is considered as if he gave the creditor a personal gift, rather than having paid the debtor's loan).

(c) According to Rava, the author of the Mishnah in Nedarim could even be the Rabbanan (the B'nei Kohanim Gedolim) - and the Tana speaks when he borrowed the money on the express condition that it need not be returned (in which case he has not given him anything).

(d) Rava disagrees with Rav Oshaya, because he prefers to establish the Mishnah in Nedarim like the Rabbanan. Rav Osshaya declines to learn like Rava - because even if he did make such a condition, the Madir supplies him with the benefit of alleviating his shame, which a person who borrows and does nor pay back is bound to experience.

3)

(a) Admon said seven things: According to the Tana Kama, when a man dies leaving little property, the girls are fed and the boys can go begging at the doors. By 'little property' - the Tana means that there is insufficient property to feed all parties concerned for even twelve months.

(b) Admon asks - why the boys should lose out just because there is little property.

(c) We reject Abaye's explanation of Admon, that since the boys are able to learn Torah, they ought not to lose - because then, boys who do not learn Torah, ought not to inherit.

(d) So Rava explains that what Admon means is - that since when there is a lot of property, the boys inherit the bulk of the property, why should they lose out just when there is little property?

(a) According to Admon, if someone claims jars of oil from his friend, who counters that he owes him empty jars, he is Chayav to swear - the Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' (like any defendant who admits to part of the claim).

(b) According to the Chachamim - he is Patur from swearing.

(c) Raban Gamliel agrees with - Admon both in this Mishnah, in the previous one and in the one that follows.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that someone whose friend claims from him wheat and barley, and he admits to owing him one of them ('Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh be'Achad Meihen') - is Chayav a Shevu'ah.

(b) The problem with this from our Mishnah is - that we assume 'Kadei Shemen' to imply that he claimed from him the barrels as well as the oil, in which case Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules like Admon, rather than the Chachamim (who say 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh be'Achad Meihen, Patur').

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav answers this by explaining 'Kadei Shemen' to refer to a quantity, rather than to the barrels themselves. The problem with this answer is - that if that is so, our Mishnah is discussing a classical case of 'Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin', where everyone agrees that he is Patur from a Shevu'ah (so why does Admon obligate him to swear).

(a) Rava divides the issue into three categories. He places ...

1. ... 'Melo Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li be'Borcha' - into the category of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin' (since he is claiming only oil, but not the barrels), and he is Patur.
2. ... 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Melei'im Yesh Li be'Borcha' - into the category of 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen' (since he is claiming both the oil and the barrels), and he is Chayav (according to Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel).

(b) Rava therefore explains that someone who says 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li be'Borcha' - is the case over which they argue in our Mishnah: according to Admon, this Lashon includes the barrels, and he is Chayav to swear (like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel); whereas the Chachamim hold that it does not, and he is Patur.

(c) We can now infer from this Mishnah - that even the Chachamim will agree that 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen, Chayav'. (d) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba - who says 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihen, Patur'.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to reconcile Rebbi Chiya bar Aba with our Mishnah by comparing to the case of the barrels of oil to a pomegranate with its skin - meaning that, like the latter, they are like one thing, rendering the case like a regular 'Modeh be'Miktzas', whereas 'wheat and barley' are two independent things.

(b) Ravina rejects this comparison - because, whereas a pomegranate needs its skin for protection (rendering it like one thing), the oil does not need the barrel (seeing as it can be guarded in the pit even without it - rendering them two different things).

(c) We conclude that Admon and the Chachamim argue in a case when the claimant claimed 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li Etzlecha', and the defendant admitted to five barrels. The basis of their Machlokes is now -whether 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li Etzlecha' incorporates the barrels (Admon) or not (the Chachamim). Consequently, according to Admon, it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Miktzas Chitin'; whereas according to the Chachamim, it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Miktzas Se'orin'.

(d) Assuming that 'ten barrels of oil' does incorporate barrels (like Admon holds), he nevertheless swear on the oil, despite the fact that he denied it completely - on the basis of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' (someone who is Chayav a Shevu'ah anyway, can be made to swear even on something from which he would normally be exempt, too).