Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A DISPUTE OVER THE WAGE

(a) Question (Bei Rav): If a worker claims that he was hired for two (Zuz), the employer says he hired him for one, who swears?
(b) Answer (Shmuel): In this case, the employer swears and the worker loses, for people remember the wage. (There is no more reason to say that the employer forgot, therefore, the worker does not collect without proof.)
(c) Question (Beraisa #1): (If a worker claims that he was hired for two Zuz, and the employer says he hired him for one, for the worker) to take money (from the employer), he must bring proof.

1. Inference: If he cannot bring proof, he has no claim.
2. According to Shmuel, the employer should have to swear (to avoid paying two)!

(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): No, the Beraisa means as follows:

1. If the worker can bring proof, he collects;
2. If he cannot bring proof, the employer must swear, and then the worker loses.

(e) Question (Beraisa #2): Reuven gave his garment to a craftsman (Shimon) to be fixed; Shimon claims that he was hired for two, Reuven says that he hired him for one.

1. If Shimon still has the garment, Reuven must bring a proof or pay two;
2. If he returned the garment to Reuven: if it is within the time to claim his wage, Shimon swears and collects;

i. If the time has passed, Shimon must bring proof to collect two from Reuven.

3. Summation of question: In the middle clause, why does Shimon swear and collect? According to Shmuel, Reuven should swear and be exempt!

(f) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, who says that whenever the Torah obligated the employer to swear (as here, Reuven agrees that he owes one), Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects.
(g) Question: Where do we find that R. Yehudah says this?

1. Suggestion: In our Mishnah.
2. Rejection: There, R. Yehudah allows the worker to collect less freely than Chachamim!

i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The worker may swear and collect only when the employer partially admitted to the claim.

(h) Answer: In the following Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): A worker can swear and collect within the time to claim his wage, but not after the time has passed;
2. R. Yehudah says, that is only when the employer admits that he owes part of the wages (and the worker says that he owes all), or when he says that he hired him for one (and the worker says, for two);

i. But if the employer says that he never hired him, or he paid all his wages, the worker must bring proof in order to collect.

(i) Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): It is illogical to say that Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue on it!

1. R. Yehudah is stringent (he only allows the worker to collect when the employer partially admits), Chachamim are more lenient on the worker;
2. Will we say that where R. Yehudah is lenient (to allow the craftsman to swear (in the proper time) and collect after returning the garment), Chachamim are stringent?!
3. Counter-question: If you will say that Beraisa #2 is Chachamim, who is the Tana of Beraisa #1?

i. It is not Chachamim, nor R. Yehudah (for both agree that when they argue about the wage, the worker swears and collects)!

(j) Answer (Rava): It *is* logical to say that Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue!

1. R. Yehudah says that when the Torah obligates the employer to swear, Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects;

i. If mid'Oraisa the employer need not swear, only mid'Rabanan he must swear, Chachamim did not make a second enactment for the worker.

2. Chachamim say that even when only a mid'Rabanan oath falls on the employer, Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects;

i. They hold that everyone remembers the wage, so when they argue about the wage, the worker does not swear and collect.

(a) (Mishnah): The case of a Nigzal: witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security...
(b) Objection: Why does Yehudah swear and collect? Perhaps Levi did not take anything!

1. (Rav Nachman): If Reuven took an axe and said 'I will cut Shimon's date tree', and we later see it cut and lying on the ground, we do not say that Reuven (surely) cut it and must pay;
2. This is because people often make empty, exaggerated threats.
3. Here also, perhaps Levi never took a security!

(c) Answer: The Mishnah means, witnesses testify that Levi took a security.
(d) Question: We should ask the witnesses what he took! (Why must Yehudah swear?)
(e) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The case is, Yehudah claims that Levi took vessels that can be hidden under one's garment.
(f) (Rav Yehudah): If witnesses saw Reuven leave Shimon's house with vessels hidden under his garment, and Reuven claims that he bought them, he is not believed.

1. This is only if Shimon does not normally sell his vessels, *and* Reuven took vessels which people do not normally hide, *and* Reuven does not normally hide (even such) vessels;

i. If any of these is not true, Reuven is believed.

2. This is only if Shimon claims that he lent him the vessels, but we do not believe him if he claims that Reuven stole them.
3. Version #1 (Rashi): We only believe Shimon regarding vessels that are normally lent or rented; regarding other vessels, Shimon is always believed.
4. Version #2 (Tosfos): When we said that Reuven is believed (e.g. if Shimon normally sells his vessels, or regarding vessels which people normally hide, or if Reuven normally hides vessels, or if Shimon claims that Reuven stole them), this only applies to vessels that are not normally lent or rented;

i. Regarding vessels that are normally lent or rented, Shimon is always believed. (End of Version #2)

5. Support: Rav Huna bar Avin taught, if Levi is holding vessels that are normally lent or rented, and they used to belong to Yehudah, he is not believed to say that he bought them.
6. Rava allowed a man to collect a scissors (used by those who comb garments) and a Sefer of Agadah from orphans, because these were known to belong to him (we assume that he lent them to their father).

(g) (Rava): (The Mishnah teaches that if witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security, Yehudah swears about what was taken, and he collects;) even one who guards Yehudah's house, or (the watchman's) wife may swear.
(h) Question (Rav Papa): One who works for and boards by Yehudah, may he swear?

1. This question is not resolved.

(i) Question (Rav Yemar): If Yehudah claims that Levi took a silver cup, what is the law?
(j) Answer (Rav Ashi): If we estimate that Yehudah is wealthy enough to own such a cup, or if he is so trustworthy that people would deposit it by him, he is believed; if not, not.

(a) (Mishnah): The case of a Nechbal...(Levi swears that Yehudah wounded him, and collects).
(b) (Rav Yehudah): Levi only swears about a wound that he could have inflicted on himself; a wound he could not do to himself (e.g. on his back), he collects without swearing.
(c) Question: Perhaps he scratched himself against a wall!
(d) Answer (R. Chiya): The case is, he was bitten on his back.
(e) Question: Perhaps someone bit him!
(f) Answer: The case is, Levi was secluded with Yehudah, no one else was there.

(a) (Mishnah): If the defendant is suspected of swearing falsely, even a vain oath.
(b) Question: Why does it say *even* a vain oath?
(c) The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.

1. Not only (if he swore falsely) an oath which denies money, but even a vain oath disqualifies him from swearing.

(d) Question: The Mishnah should also say that he is disqualified for a false oath of Bituy!
(e) Answer: The Mishnah only lists oaths that are false the moment they are said;

1. Version #1 (Rashi): One who swore a false oath of Bituy never intended to swear falsely (albeit later he did not fulfill his oath), he is not suspected to swear falsely.
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): The Tana only lists oaths that are false the moment they are said (but one who transgresses an oath of Bituy is likewise disqualified from swearing).

(f) Question: Indeed, a (future) oath of Bituy such as 'I will (or will not) eat' is not false the moment it is said;

1. But a oath of Bituy (in the past) such as 'I ate (or did not eat)' is false the moment it is said (why does the Mishnah omit it?)

(g) Answer: The Tana taught vain oaths, this includes false oaths of Bituy in the past.