[70a - 31 lines; 70b - 21 lines]

1)[line 1]ודייני גולהDAYANEI GOLAH- the judges of the Diaspora, i.e. the Amora'im Shmuel and Karna (RASHBAM; however, see Sanhedrin 17b where only Karna is mentioned)

2)[line 1]כל שהעול כובשוKOL SHEHA'OL KOVSHO- all trees that are bent over by the thick wooden yoke (of the plowing oxen) [as it passes alongside them]

3)[line 5]מסדן פלוניSEDAN PLONI- the [sycomore] trunk of so-and-so (see Background to Bava Basra 68:30-31)

4a)[line 28]מי אמרינן, "מיגו דאי בעי אמר 'נאנסו', מהימן, השתא נמי מהימן?"MI AMRINAN, "MIGO D'IY BA'I AMAR 'NE'ENSU,' MEHEMAN, HASHTA NAMI MEHEMAN?"- Do we say, "Since had he (the Nifkad, the one with whom the money was deposited) wanted to [lie], he could have said [a better, more believable lie, claiming] 'Ne'ensu,' 'They (the coins or money) were stolen or lost in an unavoidable accident [for which I am not responsible],' [for which] he is believed, now [that he claims that he returned them,] he is also believed?"

b)[line 28]מי אמרינן, "מיגו..."MI AMRINAN, "MIGO..." (MAH LI L'SHAKER?)

The phrase translated in the previous entry (#4a) is colloquially known as a "Migo" (lit. "Since"), which is usually the first word of a legal device known as a "Mah Li l'Shaker." "Mah Li l'Shaker" literally means, "Why should I lie," and with this concept, a person's claim is believed because had he wanted to lie, there was a lie that he could have used that would have been more readily believed by Beis Din. However, if a person's believability in Beis Din is based solely upon a Mah Li l'Shaker and there are witnesses who testify against his claim (or, as in our Sugya, outstanding documents that refute his claim), the witnesses (or the documents) are believed.

5)[last line]וליטעמיך, וכי אמר ליה "נאנסו", מי מצי אמר ליה, "שטרך בידי מאי בעי"?!V'LIT'AMICH, V'CHI AMAR LEI "NE'ENSU," MI MATZI AMAR LEI, "SHETARACH B'YADI MAI BA'I?!"- the claim "Shetarach b'Yadi Mai Ba'i?!" "[If you returned the money, as you claim, then] what is your document doing in my hand?!" does not have the legal weight of witnesses to override a "Mah Li l'Shaker." For example, with a claim of "Ne'ensu," we totally discount the presence of the document in the hands of the Nifkad.

70b----------------------------------------70b

6)[line 1]לאו שבועה בעי?!LAV SHEVU'AH BA'I?! - Does he not need to take an oath?! (SHEVU'AH: SHEVU'AS HA'SHOMRIM)

(a)The Torah (Shemos 22:6-14) mentions four types of watchmen and the different Halachos that apply to them:

1.SHOMER CHINAM - the Shomer Chinam is one who watches an item without demanding compensation from the owner. He is liable for damages only in cases of Peshi'ah (negligence), but not in cases of theft or loss, and certainly not in a case of Ones (an unavoidable accident).

2.SHO'EL - the Sho'el, the borrower, is one who borrows an item in order to use it and becomes obligated to take care of it. He is liable for damages in cases of Peshi'ah (negligence), theft or loss, and Ones (an unavoidable accident). He is exempt from damages only in a case of "Meisah Machmas Melachah," when the item was damaged in the normal manner of usage, or if the item was damaged while its owner was working for the borrower ("Be'alav Imo").

3.NOSEI SACHAR - Nosei Sachar, or Shomer Sachar, is one who is paid to watch an item but is not permitted to use it. He is liable for damages in cases of Peshi'ah (negligence), theft or loss, but is not liable in a case of Ones (an unavoidable accident).

4.SOCHER - the Socher, or renter, is one who pays money to rent an item. He is liable for damages in cases of Peshi'ah (negligence), theft or loss, but is not liable in a case of Ones (an unavoidable accident), just like a Shomer Sachar, according to some of the Tana'im. Others assert that a Socher is liable for damages only in cases of Peshi'ah (negligence), but not in cases of theft or loss, and certainly not in a case of Ones (an unavoidable accident), just like a Shomer Chinam (Bava Metzia 93a).

(b)When one of the Shomrim exempts himself from payment by claiming that the item was stolen, lost or Ne'enas (respective to their individual liabilities, as above), the Torah obligates him to support his claim by taking an oath (Shemos 22:7-10). Accordingly, a Shomer Chinam swears that he was not negligent; a Shomer Sachar swears that the item was Ne'enas and a Sho'el swears that the item was damaged in the normal manner of usage. In addition, a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar must swear that they did not use the object that they were guarding. (Using the object without the owner's permission would make the Shomer liable even for Ones.) Only after they swear are they exempt from payment. These oaths are among the Shevu'os ha'Shomrim.

(c)The explanation above follows the opinion of the RASHBAM. TOSFOS, however, citing Rabeinu Tam, states that the Shevu'ah to which our Gemara is referring is a Shevu'ah d'Rabanan that was enacted before the Shevu'as Heses (see Background to Bava Metzia 103:3).

7)[line 3]שטר כיסSHTAR KIS- a document [recounting the investment] of a money bag [with the father of the orphans. The investor now uses the document to reclaim his money.] (See entry #9.)

8a)[line 4]דייני גולהDAYANEI GOLAH- see entry #1.

b)[line 5]ודייני ארץ ישראלDAYANEI ERETZ YISRAEL- the judges of Eretz Yisrael, i.e. the Amora'im Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi (Sanhedrin 17b)

9)[line 7]האי עיסקא, פלגא מלוה ופלגא פקדוןHAI ISKA, PALGA MILVEH U'FALGA PIKADON - this investment arrangement of "Iska" is considered to be half a loan and half a deposit (ISKA)

When two people embark upon an Iska (a business deal) in which one of them provides merchandise and the other deals with the sales aspect, it is prohibited to divide the profits equally. Half of the merchandise is considered to be a loan and the other half to be a Pikadon. As such, the salesman must receive an extra payment for his efforts, or else his efforts with regard to the Pikadon of the owner will be considered Ribis in exchange for receiving the loan.

10)[line 13]מלאך המות הוא דאנסיהMAL'ACH HA'MAVES HU D'ANSEI- [it is possible to claim on the behalf of his orphans that he would have told them about the outstanding Iska, but] the Angel of Death caused him to have an unavoidable accident (i.e. he died) [before he was able to tell them]

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF