Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) GENERAL AND INDIVIDUAL OATHS

(a) Shevu'as ha'Pikadon: Shimon told Levi 'Give me the deposit you are holding for me...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who takes a general oath is liable once; if he takes individual oaths, he is liable for each one.

1. R. Yehudah says, if he said 'I swear that you do not have a deposit by me, and not you, and not you...' he is liable for each one.
2. R. Eliezer says, if he said (Ramban - swore) 'Not you, and not you, and not you - Shevu'ah' he is liable for each one.
3. R. Shimon says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

(c) (Shmuel): When he says '*and* not you' to each one (after the first), R. Meir calls this a general oath, R. Yehudah calls it individual oaths; when he says 'not you' to each one, R. Meir calls this individual oaths, R. Yehudah calls it a general oath.
(d) (R. Yochanan): All agree that when he says '*and* not you', these are individual oaths;

1. They argue when he says 'not you' to each - R. Meir calls this individual oaths, R. Yehudah calls it a general oath.
2. Question: According to R. Meir, what is a general oath?
3. Answer: When he says 'I swear that you (plural) do not have a deposit by me'.

(e) Question: What do Shmuel and R. Yochanan argue about?
(f) Answer: Shmuel learns from the Beraisa, R. Yochanan learns from the Mishnah.

1. Shmuel learns from the Beraisa - since R. Yehudah says that 'and not you, and not you...' are individual oaths, he must know that R. Meir considers this a general oath.
2. R. Yochanan explains, R. Meir considers them individual oaths with or without '*and*', and R. Yehudah says, 'I only agree with you when he says 'and'.
3. Shmuel: If this was so, R. Yehudah would rather teach the case in which he argues with R. Meir!

(g) R. Yochanan learns from the Mishnah (since the first Tana is not mentioned, we assume it is R. Meir): since it gives 'I swear that you (plural) do not have a deposit by me' as the case of a general oath, we infer that 'and not you' would be individual oaths;

1. If it was a general oath, the Tana should have taught this, and all the more so we would know that 'you (plural) do not have by me'! (We prefer to infer from the first clause, even though the second clause teaches this explicitly, because the text of the second clause is subject to dispute (as we will see soon).)

(h) Shmuel disagrees - R. Meir considers 'and not you, and not you' to be just like 'you (plural) do not have by me' (both are general oaths), it is not a bigger Chidush.
(i) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): 'You do not have a deposit by me, '(and not; Tosfos - not) you, and not you...' - he is liable for each one.
(j) Answer #1: The text should read '...Not you, not you'.
(k) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): '...(I swear, you do not have by me a deposit, (*and* - Tosfos deletes this from the text) (not) a loan, (*and* - Tosfos deletes this) (not) an object you stole from me *and* (not) an object I lost' - he is liable for each one
(l) Answer #1: The text should read '...(Not) a loan, (not) a stolen object, (not) a lost object'.
(m) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): '...(I swear, you do not have by me wheat, (*and* - Tosfos deletes this) (not) barley, *and* (not) spelt' - he is liable for each one
(n) Answer #1: The text should read '...(Not) barley, (not) spelt'.
(o) Objection: We cannot say that there are so many mistakes in the text!
(p) Answer #2 (to all three questions): The Tana is Rebbi.

1. (Rebbi): (While a Kohen was offering a sacrifice, he expressed intention to eat part when it is Nosar (i.e. after the allotted time), and part outside the permitted place. If the intention to eat Nosar *preceded* the intention to eat outside, the sacrifice is Pigul (and one who eats gets Kares); if not, the sacrifice is Pasul, (there is no Kares for eating it) (this is like R. Yehudah's opinion regarding Pigul)). Whether he said '(I will eat) an olive's worth (Nosar), an olive's worth (outside)' or 'an olive's worth (Nosar), *and* an olive's worth (outside)', these are individual intentions, the sacrifice is Pigul. (If we considered them as a combined intention, since the intentions come at the same time, it would only be Pasul.)

(q) Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah - R. Meir): Even if he swore (You do not have by me) 'wheat *and* barley *and* spelt' in the singular forms of these words, he is liable for each one.
(r) Answer: The text should read 'wheat, barley, spelt'.

1. Question: What is the special Chidush (that he says *even*)? (Presumably, R. Meir only changed the language (from the previous Tana) regarding the singular forms of wheat, barley and spelt, not regarding 'and'.)
2. Version #1 - Rashi - Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Even though the claimant used the singular forms, we do not say that he was only claiming a single kernel of each (which is not worth a Perutah) - the singular forms also apply to larger amounts.
3. Version #2 - Ri mi'Gash (brought in Ramban) - Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): One might have thought, the *defendant* used the singular forms to make clear that he does not owe even a single kernel of any of these (but he did not intend to take individual oaths) - R. Meir teaches, this is not so.

(a) Shimon claimed from Levi: 'You have a deposit from me, (and) a loan, (and) an object you stole from me and an object I lost'...
(b) 'Give me my wheat and barley...'
(c) (R. Yochanan): All of them combine to a Perutah (to be liable for a false oath).
(d) (Rav Acha or Ravina): The language(s) of individual oaths does not include a general oath. (So R. Yochanan's teaching was not said regarding the individual oaths of the Mishnah, only regarding 'Give me my wheat and barley...')
(e) (The other of Rav Acha or Ravina): The language(s) of individual oaths also includes a general oath. (R. Yochanan's teaching also applies to the individual oaths of the Mishnah.)
(f) Question (Beraisa #1 - R. Chiya): (If one swore 'You do not have by me wheat, barley and spelt', (and) not you, (and) not you (and) not you and not you' he is liable 15 Chatas offerings (for three individual oaths to each person- there is no additional liability for a general oath to each person). (Rashi (we must say, R. Chiya was not so precise, *Asham* offerings are brought); Tosfos - he discusses liability of witnesses for Shevu'as ha'Edus, for which Chatas offerings are brought.)
(g) Answer: R. Chiya only teaches the liability for the individual oaths.
(h) Question (Beraisa #2 - R. Chiya): He is liable 20 Chatas offerings. (We must say, Beraisa #1 only teaches the liability for the individual oaths, Beraisa #2 also teaches liability for the general oaths!)
(i) Answer: Beraisa #2 is when he took four individual oaths to each person (denying a deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object).
(j) Question (Rava): If five people claimed from Levi a deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object, and he said to one 'I swear that you do not have by me a deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object', and to the others 'And not to you, and not to you...', what is the law?

1. Is he is only liable once for each of the last four people (because 'and not to you' does not refer to the individual oaths, only to a general oath)?

2. Or, is he liable for all the individual oaths to everyone?

(k) Answer (Beraisa #2 - R. Chiya): He is liable 20 Chatas offerings.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: He explicitly said the individual oaths to each person.
ii. Rejection: If so, R. Chiya comes to teach multiplication!

2. Answer: Rather, he only specified the individual oaths tot he first person (and he is liable for them for everyone).

(a) (Mishnah): 'You raped or enticed my daughter'...(and he denied...R. Shimon says, he is exempt, for even if he admitted, he would not pay the fine.)
(b) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): He exempts because he holds that the primary claim is the fine (not the embarrassment and Pegam).
(d) (Rava): A parable for R. Shimon's reasoning: Reuven claimed from Levi wheat, barley and spelt; Levi swore 'You do not have wheat by me'. This was true, but he did have Reuven's barley and spelt' - he is exempt, for he swore truthfully about the wheat.
(e) Rejection (Abaye): No - in your parable, Levi only denied wheat; in the Mishnah, he denied liability for anything!
(f) (Abaye): Rather, this a parable for the Mishnah: Reuven claimed from Levi wheat, barley and spelt; Levi swore 'You do not have anything by me'. Levi did not have Reuven's wheat, but he did have his barley and spelt' - he is liable!
(g) Answer #2 (Ravin): R. Shimon exempts because he holds that the claim *only* claims the fine;

1. Chachamim says, he also claims the embarrassment and Pegam.

(h) Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?
(i) Answer (Rav Papa): R. Shimon holds, a person claims something that is a fixed amount (a fine), not something variable;

1. Chachamim hold, a person (also) claims something that the defendant is liable for through his own admission.

4) THE ADMISSION MUST BE LIKE THE CLAIM

(a) (Mishnah): Shevu'as ha'Dayanim: the claim must be at least two (Ma'os) of Kesef (a third of a Dinar), the admission must be at least a Perutah;

1. If the admission is not the same type as was claimed, the defendant is exempt (from paying and from swearing).

(b) If Reuven claimed (the weight of) two Ma'os of Kesef, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, Shimon is exempt;
(c) If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef and a Perutah, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah - he must (pay the Perutah and) swear.
(d) If Reuven claimed a Maneh (100 Dinarim), and Shimon denied owing anything, he is exempt;
(e) If Reuven claimed 'You owed my father a Maneh' (and I inherited it), and Shimon admitted that he owed 50 Dinarim, he (pays 50 and) need not swear, for he is like one who returns a lost object.
(f) Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon in front of witnesses, Shimon admitted that he owes it; the next day, Reuven claimed it again.

1. If Shimon answers 'I paid you', he is exempt;
2. If he answers 'I do not have (i.e. never had) your money', he must pay.

(g) Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon in front of witnesses, Shimon admitted that he owes it; Reuven told him 'you must repay it in front of witnesses'. The next day, Reuven claimed it again.

1. Shimon is not believed to say 'I paid you', for he was told to pay in front of witnesses.

(h) If Reuven claimed a liter of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a liter of silver, Shimon is exempt;
(i) If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for all coins are considered to be the same kind.
(j) If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'os of grain, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'os of legumes, Shimon is exempt;
(k) If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'os of produce, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'os of legumes, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for legumes are a type of produce.
(l) If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt;
(m) R. Gamliel says, he must (pay it and) swear (even though they are different species).
(n) Admon says, If Reuven claimed barrels of oil, and Shimon admitted that he owes (empty) barrels, Shimon must (pay them and) swear, for he admitted to part of what was claimed;
(o) Chachamim say, his admission is unlike the claim (so he is exempt).

1. R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(p) If Reuven claimed vessels and land, and Shimon admitted to (all) the land but denied the vessels, or admitted to (all) the vessels but denied the land, he is exempt; (in the first case, because (an admission to) land cannot obligate an oath; in the latter, because we do not make a (primary) oath about land);

1. If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the vessels, he is exempt (we do not make a (primary) oath about land);
2. If he admitted to part of the vessels but denied (all) the land, he must swear (about the remaining vessels, and also about the land);

i. When one must swear about Metaltelim, the claimant can also force him to swear about land (through Gilgul).

(q) We need not swear to deny the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf person;

1. We do not make a child swear;
2. We do swear to a child and to Hekdesh (this will be explained).

(a) (Gemara) Question: How do we make him swear?
(b) Answer (Rav Yehudah): We make him swear as we find in the Torah - Avraham imposed an oath on Eliezer "Ba'Shem Elokai ha'Shamayim".
(c) Question (Ravina): Is this like R. Chanina bar Idi, who says that he must swear with the name 'Hash-m'?
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): No, it is even like Chachamim, who say that one may swear with other names of Hash-m;

1. He must hold an article of a great Mitzvah, as we find in the Torah (Eliezer put his hand near Avraham's circumcision).
2. (Rava): If a judge administered a (mid'Oraisa) oath without making the defendant hold such an article, this is a clear-cut mistake, the oath was invalid, it must be repeated (holding an article).
3. (Rav Papa): If a judge administered a (mid'Oraisa) oath when the defendant only held Tefilin (not a Sefer Torah), such an article, this is a clear-cut mistake, the oath must be repeated.

(e) The Halachah follows Rava, since he did not hold anything, the oath is invalid;

1. The Halachah does not follow Rav Papa, since he held an article, the oath is valid.

(f) The defendant should stand when he swears; a Chacham may sit;
(g) The defendant should hold a Sefer Torah; l'Chatchilah, a Chacham may hold Tefilin.