Previous daf

1)

(a) Having already taught us the Din of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' by 'Nigzal', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add the case of 'Mesachek be'Kuvya' (a person who gambols with dice) - to include a P'sul de'Rabanan in the list

(b) He is only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan - because he does not really steal, only he does not acquire the money he wins due to the principle of 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' (according to one opinion [as we learned in Sanhedrin]).

(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, in the case of 'Sheneihen Chashudin', Rebbi Yossi holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah', and Rebbi Meir, 'Yachloku' (as it stands in our Mishnah), or vice-versa, he replied that he did not know. When he asked him what the Halachah was - he didn't know either.

(d) All the other opinions cited here, including Rav Yosef bar Minyumi quoting Rav Nachman, invert the opinions in our Mishnah. According to Rav Yosef bar Minyumi, when such a case came before Rav Nachman - he actually ruled 'Yachloku'?

(a) When Rebbi Ami quotes Raboseinu she'be'Bavel, who say (in connection with 'Hayu Sheneihen Chashudin') 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', he means - that the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai, where Hashem made us swear that we would not steal (and that Shevu'ah will pertain here to the guilty party). Other than that, there is no Shevu'ah, and the case is dissolved.

(b) Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael hold - 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav Lah', meaning that the Shevu'ah ends at the door of the one who was originally obligated to make it, and if he cannot do so, he is obligated to pay.

(c) Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael says Rav Papa, are Rav and Shmuel. 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' is - Rebbi Aba.

(a) When the Tana adds Yesomim to the list of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin', he cannot be referring to an ordinary debtor - because seeing as their father could claim from him without a Shevu'ah, why should *they* have to swear?

(b) In fact, he is referring - to a debtor who is also a Yasom (and from whom the father would have therefore only been able to claim with a Shevu'ah).

(a) Rav and Shmuel establish this exclusively in a case where the creditor died in the lifetime of the debtor, because, had the debtor died first - the creditor would have already been Chayav a Shevu'ah to the debtor's Yasom, and an heir cannot inherit money that requires a Shevu'ah ...

(b) ... because he is unable to swear that he did not receive the money (like his father was obligated to do).

(c) The practical application of this ruling is - that in such a case, the Yesomim would lose their claim.

(d) This proves that 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' are synonymous with Rav and Shmuel - because we see that there where neither party is able to swear, the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai (despite the fact that the Shevu'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan [see Toras Chayim]; whereas according to those who say 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomo' the Yesomim of the Malveh would claim without a Shevu'ah [presumably, because it is only a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan). Clearly then, they are the ones who hold 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', which according to Rav Papa, is the opinion of Raboseinu she'be'Bavel.

(a) In the case that came before Rebbi Ami, where Reuven grabbed a lump of silver from Shimon in front of one witness, and claimed that it belonged to him, Rebbi Ami ruled 'Mitoch she'Eino Yachol Lishava, Meshalem' (meaning that since the defendant is unable to counter the witness's testimony with a Shevu'ah, he has to pay, as we learned in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus'') ...

(b) ... which is synonymous with 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav Lah', a proof that 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' is Rebbi Aba.

(a) Rebbi Ami Darshened from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein Sheneihem" - 've'Lo Bein ha'Yorshin' (meaning that Yorshin do not swear to Yorshin).

(b) This cannot refer to a case where Reuven's heirs claim that their father lent Shimon's father a Manah, and Shimon's heirs admit to fifty Zuz and deny the other fifty - because, if the Yorshin are sure of the facts, there is no reason why they should not swear, just as their father would have done.

(c) The case must therefore be - when they respond with a Safek (claiming that their father might have only borrowed fifty Zuz).

(d) This supports Rebbi Aba's opinion - because it is only if their father would have had to pay under such circumstances that a Pasuk would be required to exempt his heirs; but if he would be Patur (like the opinion of Rebbi Aba), it is obvious that they would be Patur too.

7)

(a) Rav and Shmuel Darshen the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein Sheneihem" like Shimon ben Tarfon in a Beraisa, who interprets it to mean - that the Shevu'ah pertains to someone who causes his fellow-Jew to swear as well as to the person who actually swears (as we already learned in 'Shevu'as ha'Dayanim').

(b) Shimon ben Tarfon also includes in the La'av of "Lo Tin'af" 'Okef Achar No'ef', which refers to - someone who encourages prostitution by providing the women (such as the owner of a brothel).

(c) He Darshens this from "Lo Tin'af" - by reading it as 'Lo Tan'if' (see Agados Maharsha).

(a) Shimon ben Tarfon explains the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Vateragnu be'Ohaleichem" - in the form of an acronym 'Tartem ve'Ginisem be'Ohalo shel Makom' ('You spied out the land, and disgraced the place where Hashem rested His Shechinah').
2. ... "ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar P'ras", referring to the Euphrates as ''ha'Nahar ha'Gadol" - because it is the only of the four rivers that borders Eretz Yisrael.

(b) We cannot understand the Pasuk literally - because size-wise, it is the smallest of the four rivers.

(c) Shimon ben Tarfon extrapolates from here the adage 'K'rav Legabei Dehina ve'Idhen' - meaning that if one touches oil, one becomes oily.

(d) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from it - the adage 'Eved Melech ke'Melech' (a servant of the king receives the same treatment as the king himself).

(a) When Rebbi commented on the Tana Kama's ruling with regard to Chenvani al Pinkaso 'Torach Shevu'ah Zu Lamah', he meant - to object to the fact that Chazal would cause a Shevu'as Shav (in the same way as ben Na'nes objects in our Mishnah).

(b) Rebbi might have meant that both claimants take without a Shevu'ah (like ben Na'nes), or he might have meant that the storekeeper loses with the Shevu'ah of the workers.

(c) Rebbi Chiya cites our S'tam Mishnah, where Rebbi explicitly learns 'Sheneihem Nishba'in ve'Notlin mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis' - querying Rebbi's subsequent doubts, in support of ben Na'nes' objection.

(a) We ask whether Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's observation or not. We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Says 'Po'alin Nishba'in le'Chenvani' - suggesting that the workers swear and claim from the storekeeper, and not from the Ba'al ha'Bayis, like the Tana Kama.

(b) To repudiate this suggestion - we explain this Beraisa to mean that they actually swear to *the Ba'al ha'Bayis*, but in the presence of the storekeeper ...

(c) ... to embarrass them (should they be lying), to force them to confess.

(a) According to Rav Huna, if two pairs of witnesses contradict one another, each one is permitted to testify independently. He does not however, allow them - to combine (one witness from each pair) to testify in the same case.

(b) Rav Chisda says - that seeing as we know for sure that one of the pairs is Pasul, we cannot accept either of them in court.

(c) With regard to the above, we comment that, in a case of ...

1. ... two creditors, two debtors and two Sh'taros - Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will apply their respective rulings (i.e. acceptable according to Rav Huna, and unacceptable according to Rav Chisda).
2. ... 'Malveh ve'Loveh u'Sh'nei Sh'taros' - both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will agree, that since one of the Sh'taros is definitely Kasher, the Malveh will be able to claim the smaller debt.

(d) When we say 'Shenei Malvin ve'Loveh Echad u'Sh'nei Sh'taros, Haynu Masnisin', we mean - that, according to Rav Huna (see Tosfos ha'Rosh), this is precisely the case in our Mishnah, which authorizes both claimants to claim from the unfortunate Loveh.

(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case of 'Sh'nei Lovin u'Malveh Echad u'Sh'nei Sh'taros. According to Rav Huna, we might ...

1. ... not accept either claim against the Loveh - since it is the same creditor who produces both sets of witnesses (one of which is definitely Pasul).
2. ... accept both claims against him - because, seeing as he is claiming from two different debtors, perhaps each one is treated independently, like in Rav Huna's case.

(b) This She'eilah is confined to Rav Huna. According to Rav Chisda, even when the two sets of witnesses are brought by two different creditors they are disqualified, how much more so, when they are brought by the same creditor.

(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah cites a Beraisa which rules that in a case where one witness gives the height of the new moon in the sky as ...

1. ... two ox-goads and the other, as three - their testimony is Kasher.
2. ... three ox-goads and the other, as five - it is Pasul.

(b) Initially, we interpret the Tana's ruling 'u'Mitztarfin le'Eidus Acheres' to mean - that either witness is permitted to join with somebody else to testify in cases of Mamon.

(c) Rav Huna bar Yehudah is asking - on Rav Chisda, who disqualifies even two witnesses under similar circumstances, from testifying at all.

(d) To reconcile Rav Chisda with the Beraisa, Rava interprets it to mean - that either witness may combine with a third witness who sides with him, with regard to the same testimony ...

(e) ... because seeing as there are now two witnesses against one, we apply the principle 'Ein Devarav shel Echad be'Makom Shenayim'.