Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE ADMISSION AND DENIAL

(a) Support (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, Trisis, Pundyon or Perutah, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for all coins are considered to be the same kind.

1. We understand why he must swear if the claim was the value of a gold Dinar, for the admission was like the claim;
2. But if the claim was a gold Dinar, the admission was unlike the claim, he should be exempt!

(b) Rejection (R. Elazar): The case is, he claimed a minted gold Dinar (Rashi; Tosfos - Reuven claimed that he gave to Shimon a gold Dinar to change into smaller coins, and did not receive them); he is liable because all coins are considered the same species.

1. Support (Mishnah): All coins are considered to be the same kind.'
2. Rav explains, this means that all the coins listed (i.e. even a Perutah) have the same law (each is sufficient admission to obligate an oath).

(c) Suggestion: Since R. Elazar learns the end of the Mishnah like Shmuel (specific coinage, not just the value), he also learns the beginning (two Ma'os) like Shmuel!
(d) Rejection: No - he learns the end like Shmuel, but he could learn the beginning like Rav (the value) or like Shmuel.
(e) Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar *of gold*, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, he is liable (our text, Rashi; Tosfos - he is exempt).

1. Inference: We say that he claimed a coin because of the redundancy - had he only said 'gold Dinar', we would say that he claims its value!

(f) Answer: No, the Beraisa says that claiming a gold Dinar is like claiming a gold Dinar of gold, i.e. he claims a coin.
(g) Support (for Rav - R. Chiya): If Reuven claimed a Dinar from Shimon, and he admitted to a Dinar less two Ma'os, he must swear (because he denies two Ma'os);

1. If he admitted to a Dinar less one Ma'ah, he is exempt (because he denies less than two Ma'os).

(h) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak citing Shmuel): The minimal claim of two Ma'os only applies to the oath of partial admission, but if Reuven claims even a Perutah and one witness supports him, Shimon must swear.
(i) Question: Why is this?
(j) Answer: "Lo Yakum Ed Echad b'Ish l'Chol Avon ul'Chol Chatas" - one witness does not obligate payment, but he obligates swearing;

1. (Beraisa): Whenever two witnesses obligate payment, one witness obligates swearing.

(a) (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): If Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon must swear.
(b) R. Yitzchak: Correct! R. Yochanan also taught thusly.

1. Inference: This implies that Reish Lakish (who often argues with R. Yochanan) disagrees!
2. Rejection: This cannot be inferred, for R. Yitzchak left before Reish Lakish had a chance to argue.

i. Version #1: Reish Lakish never disagrees with R. Yochanan until R. Yochanan finishes speaking.
ii. Version #2: Reish Lakish was drinking when R. Yochanan said this law.

(c) Support (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt; R. Gamliel says, he is liable.

1. Inference: Chachamim exempt because the admission was unlike (any part of) the claim, but if Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon must swear.

(d) Rejection: No, Chachamim exempt even in that case;

1. The Mishnah gives the case when he only claimed wheat, to teach that R. Gamliel obligates even in this case.

(e) Support (Mishnah): 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);
3. Inference: When he admitted to all the vessels but denied all the land, he is exempt because we do not swear about land - but in a similar case of a claim of two kinds of vessels, if he admitted to one kind, he would be liable!

(f) Rejection: No, even if two kinds of vessels were claimed and he admitted to one kind, he is exempt;

1. The Mishnah teaches vessels and land to teach that if he admits to part of the vessels but denies the land, he must swear even about the land.

(g) Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!

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

(h) Answer: Our Mishnah is the primary place this law is taught; there, it is taught along with other laws of land.
(i) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt from swearing.
(j) Question: But R. Yitzchak said that R. Yochanan taught that he must swear!
(k) Answer: Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan.
(l) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt; R. Gamliel says, he is liable.

1. Inference: Chachamim exempt because the admission was unlike the claim, but if Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, he must swear.

(m) Answer: No, Chachamim exempt even in that case;

1. The Mishnah gives the case when he only claimed wheat, to teach that R. Gamliel obligates even in this case.

(n) Question (Mishnah): 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;

1. If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the vessels, he is exempt;
2. If he admitted to part of the vessels but denied (all) the land, he must swear (also about the land);
3. Inference: When he admitted to all the vessels but denied all the land, he is exempt because we do not swear about land - but in a similar case of a claim of two kinds of vessels, if he admitted to one kind, he would be liable!

(o) Answer: No, even if two kinds of vessels were claimed and he admitted to one kind, he is exempt;

1. The Mishnah teaches vessels and land to teach that if he admits to part of the vessels but denies the land, he must swear even about the land.

(p) Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!

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

(q) Answer: Our Mishnah is the primary place this law is taught; there, it is taught along with other laws of land.

(a) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed an ox and Shimon admitted that he owes a Seh (or vice-versa), Shimon is exempt; if he claimed an ox and Seh and Shimon admitted to one of them, he must swear.
(b) Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is like R. Gamliel.
(c) Rejection: R. Gamliel obligates even in the first case (Reuven claimed an ox, Shimon admitted to a Seh)!
(d) Answer #2 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is Admon.

1. R. Chiya: This is not a flimsy defense, to say that *perhaps* the Beraisa is Admon - R. Yochanan explicitly said this!

(e) (Rav Anan citing Shmuel): Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley: if he rushed to admit because he sensed that Reuven was about to claim barley as well, Shimon must swear; if not, he is exempt.
(f) (Rav Anan citing Shmuel): Reuven claimed two needles, and Shimon admitted to one of them - he is liable;

1. The Torah specified "Kelim", to teach that one is liable for a claim of any two vessels (Tosfos - as long as each is worth a Perutah; Rambam - even if they are not worth a Perutah).

(g) (Rav Papa): Reuven claimed vessels and a Perutah: if Shimon admitted to the vessels and denied the Perutah, he need not swear;

1. If he admitted to the Perutah and denied the vessels, he must swear.

(h) Rav Papa holds like Rav in one respect, and like Shmuel in another.

1. He holds like Rav regarding the denial (it must be two Ma'os); he holds like Shmuel regarding a claim of wheat and barley, and an admission of barley (he must swear).

(a) Version #1 - (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh, and Shimon denied owing anything, he is exempt.
(b) (Rav Nachman): Shimon must swear a (Rabbinical) oath called Heses.
(c) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer: Chazakah (i.e. of human nature) says that Reuven would not claim if Shimon did not owe him.
(e) Objection: Just the contrary, Chazakah says that a person is not so brazen to deny owing his creditor!
(f) Answer: Shimon intends to pay, he just wants to evade Reuven until he can pay.

1. (Rav Idi bar Avin): One who denies a loan (and is contradicted by witnesses) is not disqualified from testifying (we assume that he intended to pay when he is able);
2. One who denies a deposit (and witnesses testify that he did have it) is disqualified from testifying (surely, he intended to steal it).

(g) Version #2 - Rav Chaviva - (Mishnah): 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;

(h) (Rav Nachman): Shimon must swear Heses.

1. According to Version #1, surely Heses also applies to the case of Version #2.
2. According to Version #2, Heses only applies in the case of Version #2, when there are grounds to believe the claim, but not in the case of Version #1.