Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN A "SHOMER" IS EXEMPT

(a) A Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through Gilgul)...
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" - generality; "Kesef O Chelim" - specifics; "Lishmor" - generality;

1. From the generality, specific, generality we learn everything similar to the specifics, i.e. something which can be moved and has intrinsic value;
2. We exclude land, for it cannot be moved; we exclude slaves, for the Torah equates them to land; we exclude documents, they lack intrinsic value; we exclude Hekdesh, for the verse says "Re'ehu".

(d) (Mishnah): A Shomer Sachar need not pay for them...
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" - generality; "Chamor O Shor O Seh" - specifics; "v'Chol Behemah" - generality;
(g) From the generality, specific, generality we learn everything similar to the specifics, as above.
(h) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, some things are like land, but have the law of Metaltelim...
(i) Question (Mishnah): This implies that R. Meir holds that things connected to land are not like land;

1. Rather than argue about laden vines, he should argue with Chachamim about barren trees!

(j) Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about grapes ready to be harvested:

1. R. Meir holds that we consider that they are already harvested; Chachamim disagree.

(a) One must swear only about something with a measure, weight or number...
(b) (Abaye): Shimon is exempt only if Reuven claimed *a* full house, but if he claimed *this* full house, this quantifies his claim (and Shimon must swear).
(c) Objection (Rava): If so, why does the end of the Mishnah give the case when Reuven claimed up to the ledge and Shimon admitted up to the window;

1. Rather, it should teach the more similar case, he claimed *this* full house, and Shimon must swear!

(d) (Rava): Rather, one must swear only if the claim and denial were both about something with a measure, weight or number.
(e) Support (Beraisa): If Reuven claimed 'You owe me 30 Sa'im of wheat', and Shimon denied it all, he is exempt;

1. If Reuven claimed a large lamp or belt and Shimon admitted that he owes a small one, he is exempt;
2. But if Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of wheat, and Shimon admitted to owing 15, he is liable; if Reuven claimed a lamp weighing ten Literin and Shimon admitted that he owes one of five Literin, he is liable.
3. The general rule is: one must swear only if the claim and denial were both about something with a measure, weight or number.
4. Question: What does the general rule come to include?
5. Answer: Even if he claimed this full house, Shimon is exempt.

(f) Question: When Reuven claims a large lamp and Shimon admits to a small one, he is exempt - presumably, this is because the admission is unlike the claim;

1. The same should apply when Reuven claims a lamp weighing ten Literin and Shimon admitted that he owes one of five Literin!

(g) Answer #1 (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The lamp is composed of rings, a five Liter lamp is part of a ten Liter lamp.
(h) Objection: If so, the Beraisa could have taught a case of a belt in which one is liable, i.e. a belt of loops sewn together (a short belt is part of a long belt)!

1. Rather, we must say that the Beraisa does not discuss belts of loops;
2. Similarly, it does not discuss lamps of rings!

(i) Answer #2 (R. Aba bar Mamal): A five Liter lamp is part of a ten Liter lamp, because the latter can be converted to the former by scraping off some of the metal.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven lent Shimon four Dinarim and took a security; the security was lost (Reuven is liable for it).

1. If Reuven claims that the security was worth two (Dinarim, therefore Shimon still owes two) and Shimon claims that it was worth four, he is exempt (Shimon denies the entire claim);
2. If Reuven claims that the security was worth two, and Shimon claims that it was worth three, he must swear (Shimon admits to a Dinar and denies a Dinar);
3. If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight (so Reuven owes him four), and Reuven claims that it was worth four, he is exempt (Reuven denies the entire claim);
4. If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight, and Reuven claims that it was worth five, he must swear.
5. The one who was watching the security (i.e. Reuven) swears;

i. If Shimon would swear, perhaps Reuven would show the security (Rashi - and prove that Shimon swore falsely about its value, disqualifying Shimon from swearing again; Tosfos - it would turn out that Shimon's oath was not needed (since we later saw the security, we can evaluate it ourselves).

(b) (Gemara) Question: To which case does the last clause (Reuven must swear, lest...) refer?
(c) Answer (Shmuel, R. Chiya bar Aba, R. Yochanan): To the first case.

1. Question: What does this mean?
2. Answer #1: It means, the second of the first two clauses: Reuven claims that it was worth two, Shimon claims that it was worth three), he must swear;

i. Mid'Oraisa, Shimon swears that it was worth three; Chachamim enacted that instead Reuven swears (lest Shimon swear and Reuven will then show the security).

3. Another answer is suggested by Rav Ashi's law.

i. (Rav Ashi): The Halachah is, Reuven swears that he does not have the security, Shimon swears how much it was worth.

4. Answer #2: The Mishnah means, Reuven swears *first*, for if Shimon would swear first, perhaps Reuven would show the security.

(d) (Shmuel): Levi lent 1000 Zuz to Yehudah, and took a handle (of a shovel, which is worth very little) for a security. If he loses the handle, he forfeits the loan;

1. If he took two handles for securities, he does not forfeit (even) half the loan if he loses one of them. (If he loses both, he forfeits the loan.)

(e) (Rav Nachman): If he took two, he forfeits half the loan if he loses one of them;

1. If he took a handle and an ingot, he does not forfeit half the loan if he loses the ingot (since the loan can be collected from it, he only deducts its value from the loan).

(f) (Chachamim of Neharde'a): Even if he took a handle and an ingot, he forfeits half the loan for losing either one.
(g) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claims that the security was worth two, and Shimon claims that it was worth three, he must swear;

1. Since he lost the security, the loan should be forfeited! (This argues with all three opinions above, all agreed with Shmuel when only one security was taken.)

(h) Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer: The Mishnah is when Reuven stipulated that if he loses the security, he will collect the remainder of the loan; Shmuel's law is when no stipulation was made.
(i) Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer: Shmuel's law is when Reuven stipulated that he accepts the security as if it was worth the value of the loan; the Mishnah is when no stipulation was made.
(j) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Reuven lent Shimon, taking a security; he lost the security. He swears (that he lost it) and collects the debt; (He is only a free watchman, because the security is not for collection, only a reminder of the loan.)
2. R. Akiva says, he only lent on account of the security - now that he lost it, he lost the loan.
3. If there was also a loan document, all agree that it was for collection, he is a paid watchman, he lost the loan.
4. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If the security was worth as much as the loan, why does R. Eliezer argue?

5. Answer: Rather, the security was worth less than the loan; R. Akiva holds like Shmuel, R. Eliezer does not.