Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if Reuven asks witnesses to testify that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a lost article belonging to him, and they reply with a Shevu'ah ...

1. ... that they know of no such testimony - they are Chayav only one Korban Oleh ve'Yored.
2. ... that they are not aware that Shimon has a deposit, a loan, theft and a loss of his - they are Chayav four (one for each item).

(b) The Tana draws the same distinction, in a case where Reuven asks witnesses to testify that Shimon has of his a deposit comprising wheat, barley and spelt, as he drew in the previous case.

(c) The Tana finds it necessary to repeat the Halachah - because of its slightly different composition; whereas the first case refers to one species but different claims, the second case refers to one claim but different species.

(a) The Tana rules that if Reuven says to two witnesses 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni ...

1. ... she'Yesh Li be'Yad P'loni Nezek, ve'Chatzi Nezek, Tashlumei Kefel, ve'Tashlumei Arba'ah ve'Chamishah' - they are Chayav (as will be explained in the Sugya), and the same applies to ...
2. ... 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti, u'Pitah es Biti'.

(b) And he says the same about 'Mashbi'a Ani Aleichem Im Lo Tavo'u Ve'te'iduni she'Hikani B'ni', ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim'. 'she'Hikani B'ni' must be speaking about a wound that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah (even though 've'she'Chaval bi Chaveri' speaks about one that is more) - because otherwise, the son would be Chayav Misah, in which case he would be Patur from paying, and the Chiyuv Korban of witnesses only applies where they cause a monetary loss.

(c) The last case in the Mishnah 've'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim' is coming to teach us - that even though the culprit is Chayav Kareis, it nevertheless constitutes a monetary claim, since Kareis does not exempt him from the Chiyuv Mamon.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with payment of a K'nas) "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim" - that it is only someone who is sentenced to pay by the Dayanim who is Chayav to pay K'nas, but not by his own admission.

(b) We ask whether Eidei K'nas who deny knowledge of the testimony are Chayav to bring a Korban or not. They might be ...

1. ... Patur - because since the defendant will be Patur if he admits his guilt, it is not considered Mamon.
2. ... Chayav nonetheless - because at this point in time, he has not yet admitted his guilt, in which case, it is Mamon.

(c) The She'eilah does not even begin according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who obligates the defendant to pay K'nas even after he has admitted, should the witnesses subsequently testify against him (in which case it is definitely Mamon).

(d) Neither can the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon hold like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the previous Sugya ('Mashbi'a Eid Echad, Chayav') - because, even if he will be permanently Patur from K'nas by his own admission, it is no worse than 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obligates a Korban.

(a) In rejecting the proof from 'Chatzi Nezek' in our Mishnah, that the witnesses are Chayav for their denial in cases of K'nas, we initially establish the case according to those who hold in Bava Kama 'Palga Nizka Mamona'. Even according to those who hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' however, we establish it - in a case of 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros' (when an animal damages by kicking up stones as he walks), which is considered Mamon (in spite of the fact that he only pays half).

(b) We cannot resolve the She'eilah from the cases of K'nas in our Mishnah ...

1. ... 'Tashlumei Kefel' and 'Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah' - where the witnesses may well be Chayav only because of the Keren, which they denied, too.
2. ... 'she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti u'Pitah es Biti' - where, by the same token, they may only be Chayav because of the 'Boshes and P'gam' (the embarrassment and the depreciation of the girl, which are Mamon, and for which the witnesses are Chayav too).

(c) The Chidush both in the Reisha and in the Seifa, is not 'K'nas', but ...

1. ... in the Reisha ('Chatzi Nezek, Kefel, Arba'ah va'Chamishah') - the fact that (due to a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai') 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros' is Mamon and not K'nas.
2. ... in the Seifa ('she'Anas Ish P'loni es Biti ve'she'Pitah es Biti ... ve'she'Hidlik es Gedishi be'Yom ha'Kipurim') - that someone who is only Chayav Kareis is not absolved from paying.

(d) This comes to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah, who would rule, in a case where Reuven lit Shimon's haystack on Yom Kipur - that he is Patur from paying (just like he would be if he was Chayav Misah at the hand of Beis-Din).

(a) We try and prove from the Beraisa, which obligates witnesses who deny knowledge that Shimon married Reuven's daughter and then claimed that she had not been a virgin when he married her, to bring a Korban - that witnesses are Chayav even for denying K'nas too.

(b) We reject the proof however - by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules that should the witnesses subsequently testify, the defendant remains Chayav to pay (as we explained earlier).

(c) We query this however, by pointing out that the Seifa 'Hodeh mi'Pi Atzmo, Patur', which, at first glance, speaks - even if the witnesses subsequently testify, seems to go like the Rabbanan.

(d) We finally establish the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - and the Seifa when there are no witnesses (and the Beraisa is in fact, saying that the only time that 'Hodeh mi'Pi Atzmo' is Patur, is when there are no witnesses to come and override his admission.

6)

(a) Our Mishnah exempts the witnesses from a Korban where, following Reuven's claim, they deny knowledge that ...

1. ... Reuven is a Kohen, or a Levi, not a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, or that Shimon is a Kohen ... ' - that they are Patur from a Korban - because this is not a monetary claim.
2. ... Levi raped Shimon's daughter or enticed her - because it is a third person who is claiming from the witnesses and not the claimant himself (and this reason as well, pertains to the previous case too).

(b) The Tana cannot mean that Shimon raped his own daughter and he is Patur because he is Chayav Misah - because if a father receives K'nas from others who rape his daughter, he is certainly not obligated to pay her if he is the culprit, in which case the witnesses are Patur anyway, since there is no monetary claim. Note, that even if it was the daughter who received the K'nas (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) seeing as she is not the one who is claiming from the witnesses, what difference does it make whether the father is Chayav Misah or not?

(c) The Tana concludes 've'she'Chaval bi B'ni, ve'she'Chaval bi Chaveri ve'she'Hidlik Gedishi be'Shabbos' - where the witnesses are Patur, because seeing as all these three are Chayav Misah, they are Patur from paying and there is no monetary claim.

(a) The Tana inserts the case of 'Ish P'loni Kohen Hu ... ', implying that in a case 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yad P'loni (which involves a monetary claim), the witnesses would be Chayav (in spite of the fact that it appears to be a third person who is claiming from the witnesses - because, Shmuel explains, the Mishnah is speaking when the real owner authorized the claimant by means of a Harsha'ah to claim the debt.

(b) The Neherda'i prohibit writing an Urch'sa (which is another word for Harsha'ah, based on 'Urchan' meaning rulership [or authority]) on Metaltelin, because they are in the borrower's domain, and the Sh'tar stating that the claimant is giving them to the third person, appears false [Mechzi ke'Shikra']).

(c) We now reconcile Shmuel (who was Rosh Yeshivah in Neherda'a) with the Neherda'i - by restricting the latter's ruling to a loan which the debtor denies (whereas Shmuel speaks about a case where he admits that he owes the money, in which case 'Mechzi ke'Shikra' does not apply).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the fact that the Torah writes "O Ra'ah O Yada" here (by Shevu'as ha'Eidus), and "O bi'Sesumes Yad O be'Gazel O Ashak" - that Shevu'as ha'Eidus is confined to cases which involve a monetary loss.

(b) We prefer to learn from the "O"s of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon rather than from the "O"s of Rotze'ach ("O be'Eivah Hikahu O Hishlich Alav bi'Tzedi'ah"), which do not refer specifically to Mamon, because it is not speaking about Shevu'ah. Neither can we learn from the "O"s of Sotah ("O Avar Alav Ru'ach Kin'ah O Ish Asher Ta'avor Alav ... "), which does mention Shevu'ah, and which, like Rotze'ach, is not confined specifically to Mamon - because it involves a Kohen, which Shevu'as ha'Eidus and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon do not.

(a) And ...

1. ... Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk (by Shevu'as Oleh ve'Yored) "Vehayah Ki Ye'sham le'Achas *me'Eileh*" - that the witnesses are only Chayav a Korban for some cases, namely, those that involve a monetary claim (as will be explained later).
2. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "ve'Hu Eid O Ra'ah O Nishba" - that they are only Chayav for cases that are subject to Yedi'ah without Re'iyah (knowing the facts without having seen them), and Re'iyah without Yedi'ah (seeing them without knowing them).

(b) A case of ...

1. ... Re'iyah without Yedi'ah is - where Reuven counted out the money that he gave Shimon without informing him whether it was a gift, a loan or whether he was not repaying a loan in front of P'loni u'Peloni, and Shimon agreed to pay if P'loni u'Peloni would come and testify (see Ritva).
2. ... Yedi'ah without Re'iyah - where Reuven admitted that he owed Shimon money (without the witnesses having witnessed the actual loan).

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns Shevu'as Eidus from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon - with regard to confining it to a case that involves a monetary claim.

(d) Rebbi Shimon initially backs this up with a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because he says, if a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, which pertains to women, relatives Pesulim and on each item even not in the presence of Beis-Din is confined to monetary issues, then Shevu'as Eidus which is restricted to men, non-relatives, Kesheirim and they are Chayav only one Korban and in the presence of Beis-Din should certainly be confined to monetary issues.