The lecture for Sunday March 9, 6:15 PM Israel time (11:15am EST)
will be given by Hagaon Rav Dov Zupnik, shlit'a
Sources appear below (in Hebrew)
followed by some basic material on the subject, in English
(Background To The Daf -- Bava Metzia 3:8)
SHEVU'AH: MODEH B'MIKTZAS HA'TA'ANAH
(a) If a person admits that he owes part of a claim, we suspect that the
claim is true and the debtor wants to temporarily postpone part of the
payment but does not have the audacity to completely deny the claim. He is
therefore required to take an oath, mid'Oraisa, that he does not owe the
part he denies (Shemos 22:8). If he refuses to take the oath, he must pay
the entire amount being claimed.
(b) Rebbi Chiya extends this ruling to a case where the debtor denies the
entire claim (a situation that normally does not require an oath to be
taken), but *witnesses* testify that he owes part of the claim. According to
Rebbi Chiya, he is likewise required to take an oath, mid'Oraisa, that he
does not owe the part that he denies (RAMBAM Hilchos To'en v'Nit'an 4:10).
(Background To The Daf -- Bava Metzia 4:7)
HEILACH - here it for you, i.e. it is yours; take it!
(a) The Torah obligates a person to take an oath supporting his claim if he admits to part of the claim against him and denies the other part (Modeh b'Miktzas). If he is Kofer ha'Kol, i.e. he denies the entire claim, the Torah does not require him to take an oath (but the Rabanan instituted that he must swear a Shevu'as Heses supporting his claim -- see Background to Bava Metzia 103:3). The logic behind the Torah's oath of Modeh b'Miktzas is that if a person admits that he owes part of a claim, the Torah suspects that the person is not a thief but rather wants to temporarily postpone payment. He would have denied the entire claim in an attempt to postpone paying any of it, but he does not have the audacity to do so. He is therefore required to take an oath, mid'Oraisa, on the part he denies, or to pay the entire amount being claimed (Shemos 22:8).
(b) When a person admits that he owes part of the claim and immediately offers that part of the sum to the claimant ("Heilach"), the Amora'im argue whether or not the defendant must swear a Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas. Rebbi Chiya maintains that this is the same as any Modeh b'Miktzas, and the defendant must swear. Rav Sheshes argues that since the defendant has offered to the claimant the amount to which he admits, the claim is only on the remainder, which the defendant has entirely denied. Therefore he is considered to be Kofer ha'Kol and not obligated to swear mid'Oraisa.
(c) If the person has not actually *delivered* to the claimant the part to which he admits but he admits that a specific object that is in his possession belongs to his claimant, it is considered to be Heilach. Since he is holding the object for the claimant, it is considered to be already paid (RITVA and RISHONIM to Bava Metzia 4a, based upon Bava Metzia 98a, RASHI DH Ka). According to RASHI (Bava Metzia 4a DH v'Heilach), even if the defendant *borrowed money* and has not as yet spent it, if he admits that these coins belong to his creditor, it is considered Heilach. Conversely, according to Rashi (ibid., see Ritva), it is only considered Heilach if the defendant admits that a specific item or items that he received from the claimant are in his possession. If he admits to receiving them, but claims that they no longer exist, even if he immediately offers to reimburse the claimant for them it is not considered Heilach. Other Rishonim argue with this and maintain that immediate reimbursement is also considered Heilach, and that this is the only Heilach that applies to loans of money (Ritva and Rishonim ibid.).
|
