SHEVUOS 40 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.


תוספות ד"ה בטוענו

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of "b'Dinar Matbei'os.)

פי' בקונטרס טבוע במטבע צורה ולא טענו משקל וזה הודה לו מטבע ואע"פ שזה כסף וזה נחושת ממין הטענה היא דכולהו מטבע נינהו

(a) Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he claimed coins that had a picture on them (i.e. legal tender), and not weight (of a certain metal). The defendant admitted he owed coins. Even though one is silver and one is copper, this is considered to be the type of claim he is making, as the claim involves coins.

וקשה דלעיל (דף לט:) גבי שתי כסף יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה מסקי' לשמואל דפטור משום דמה שטענו לא הודה לו

(b) Question: This is difficult. Earlier (39b), regarding the case where a person claimed two Kesef from another person and he replied that he only owed a Perutah, we conclude that Shmuel says he is exempt because he did not admit to his claim. (He claimed specifically silver coins, and he admitted a copper coin.)

וכ"ת דאיירי בשאינן טבועים א"כ חסרא לה טענה דאין כאן שוה ב' מעות דחסר מה שצריך ליתן כדי להטביעה

1. Question(cont.): If you will say that the case is when they are not stamped as coins, there is not even the amount necessary for a claim of two Ma'os. This is because the silver is less the amount of money needed to mint it into a coin!

וזה דוחק לומר שאין שוה פרוטה באותו חסרון

2. Question(cont.): It is difficult to say that there is not a Perutah's worth of value lacking because it is not minted.

ועוד דמשמע בטוענו מטבעות דעד השתא לא איירי במטבעות וסתם ב' כסף טבועים הם

3. Question(cont.): Additionally, the implication of the Mishnah is that it is discussing a case where the person is claiming minted coins, as until now we were not discussing coins. When the Mishnah mentions two kesef, the general understanding is that this should mean minted coins.

ועוד דקאמר הא קמ"ל דפרוטה בכלל מטבע איתא משמע דאין חידוש אלא מפרוטה דקתני והלא בשאר מטבעות נמי יש חידוש גדול דחשיב ממין הטענה

(c) Question#2: Additionally, Rebbi Elazar says that the novelty is that a Perutah is considered a coin. This implies that the entire novel aspect is because of the mention of a Perutah. Isn't there a novel teaching regarding other coins as well, that they are considered part of the claim (even though they are not the same type of coin that was claimed)?

ועוד דאפי' עבד גדול ועבד קטן חשיב מה שטענו לא הודה לו בפרק השואל (ב"מ דף ק.) ומנורה גדולה ומנורה קטנה אמרינן נמי לקמן (דף מג.) דמה שטענו לא הודה לו אע"פ שצורתם שוה

(d) Question#3: Additionally, even a claim of a large slave and an admission of a small slave is considered that he did not admit to the claim in Bava Metzia (40a). Similarly, even a claim of a large Menorah and an admission of a small Menorah is considered that he did not admit to the claim in the Gemara later (43a), even though they have a similar shape.

ועוד דלשון בדינר מטבעות לא משמע בדינר טבוע

(e) Question#4: Additionally, the term "b'Dinar Matebei'os" does not imply an imprinted coin.

ועוד דבסמוך בברייתא דדינר זהב זהוב גרסי' בכל הספרים פטור ובקונטרס לפי פירושו דוחק להגיה חייב

(f) Question#5: Additionally, later in the Beraisa regarding a "Dinar Zahav Zahuv" our text in all of the Sefarim is that he is exempt. Rashi, according to his explanation, forces in a correction that it should read he is liable.

על כן נראה לפרש בטוענו בדינר מטבעות שנתן לו דינר להחליף וליתן תחתיו מטבעות ושואל אותן מטבעות והלה טוען החזרתי כולם חוץ מדינר כסף או טריסית או פונדיון או פרוטה

(g) Explanation#2: It therefore appears that the explanation of him claiming from him "b'Dinar Matebei'os" is that he gave him a Dinar to change into small coins for him. He is now claiming these coins, and the other person claims that he returned all of them besides for a Dinar of silver or a Trisis or a Pundyon or Perutah.


תוספות ד"ה שהכל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks a question on Rashi's explanation of the Gemara.)

פירש בקונטרס שאף בקטנה שבהם יש בה כדי הודאה לחייבו שבועה

(a) Explanation: Rashi explains that even regarding the smallest of them there is an amount required for admission.

ותימה הא שמעינן מרישא דקתני ההודאה שוה פרוטה ודוחק לומר דסלקא דעתך דגבי תביעת דינר זהב שהיא גדולה לא חשיבא הודאה פרוטה

(b) Question: This is difficult. We already know this from the first part of the Mishnah that says that admission is a Perutah. It is difficult to say that we thought that regarding a claim of a golden Dinar, a Perutah is not considered an amount of significant admission (though it would be if the claim was less).


תוספות ד"ה אבל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Shmuel's reasoning and states that we do not rule like Shmuel.)

וא"ת דבשילהי הכותב (כתובות פז: ושם) אמרינן דאין נשבעין על כפירת שעבוד קרקעות אפי' בהעדאת עד אחד אלמא משוינן עד אחד להודאה במקצת

(a) Question: In Kesuvos (87b), we say that one does not swear regarding the denial of a lien on land, even if one witness testifies against him. This implies that we equate one witness with partial admittance (unlike our Gemara)!

ויש לומר דשמואל דהכא לטעמיה דמחייב לעיל בכפירת פרוטה דכיון דמשתבע אפרוטה מוקמיה קרא דאבל קם לשבועה בפרוטה אבל בקרקעות לא משכחת דמשתבע בשום מקום

(b) Answer: It is possible to say that Shmuel's statement here is based on his reasoning earlier that a person is liable if he denies one Perutah. Once he says one would swear on a Perutah, it is understandable that he says the teaching, "But he can establish for a Shevuah" is referring to a Perutah. However, regarding land we never find that one would swear.

ולפי זה צ"ל דלית הלכתא כותיה דשמואל בהך דהכא

(c) Observation: Based on the above, we must say that the law does not follow Shmuel in this law.

כיון דתליא בההיא דלעיל דבההיא דלעיל לית הלכתא כותיה מדתני ר' חייא לסיועיה לרב

(d) Proof#1: This is evident from the fact that his law here is based on his earlier law, and we do not rule like him in that case. Being that Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa supported Rav, we clearly do not rule like Shmuel.

ועוד דרב פפא דה"ל בתראה סבירא ליה כרב לקמן בשמעתין

(e) Proof#2: Additionally, Rav Papa is a later Amora (whose opinion we consider to have weight in determining the Halachah as he saw the earlier opinions), and he later clearly holds like Rav.


תוספות ד"ה וכל מקום

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this rule is not absolute.)

לאו דוקא דהא איכא כפירת שעבוד קרקעות

(a) Explanation: This rule is not absloute, as there is denial of a lien on land (which will not make one take an oath).


תוספות ד"ה והודה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rabah bar Nasan's position that he is exempt from paying for the barley which he admits he owes.)

בס"פ המניח (ב"ק דף לה: ושם) מסיק רבה בר נתן דפטור אף מדמי שעורין

(a) Observation: In Bava Kama (35b), Rabah bar Nasan concludes that he is even exempt from paying the value of the barley he admits he owes.

ותימה דמנ"ל הא דהא לר"ג חייב בדמי שעורין דאי לאו הכי אין כאן הודאה כלל ואם כן מנ"ל דלרבנן פטור ופליגי אף בדמי שעורין דלמא לא פליגי אלא אם חייב שבועה על החטין דלמר בעי שבועה ולא בעי הודאה ממין הטענה ולמר לא בעי ליה כו'

(b) Question: This is difficult. How does he know this? According to Rabban Gamliel, he is liable to pay for the barley. If not, there would not be considered to be an admittance. If so, how does Rabah know that the Rabbanan say he is exempt, and that they argue on Rabban Gamliel even regarding the value of the barley? Perhaps they only argue regarding whether or not he is liable to swear regarding the wheat. Why not say that Rabban Gamliel holds he must swear because he does not require an admittance that is similar to the claim, while the Rabbanan say he is exempt from swearing because they do require an admittance similar to the claim?

ושמא משמע ליה לרבה בר נתן לשון פטור דפטור לגמרי

(c) Answer#1: Perhaps Rabah bar Nasan understands that the term "exempt" implies totally exempt.

א"נ אע"ג דמיפטר מדמי שעורין אף לר"ג אפ"ה חשיב ליה הודאה

(d) Answer#2: Alternatively, even though he is exempt from paying for the barley even according to Rabban Gamliel, it is still considered admittance.


תוספות ד"ה ור"ג מחייב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rabban Gamliel only "sees (merit in)" Admon's position.)

תימה דבפרק בתרא דכתובות (דף קח: ושם) גבי פלוגתא דאדמון ורבנן קאמר ר"ג רואה אני את דברי אדמון דמחייב בטוען חבירו כדי יין וכדי שמן וקאמר ליה אידך שמן להד"מ קנקנים נמי חמשה אית לך חמשה לית לך משום דיש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים

(a) Question: This is difficult, as in Kesuvos (108b) regarding the argument between Admon and the Rabbanan, Rabban Gamliel states that he sees (the merit in) Admon's position. Admon holds that if a person claims from his friend barrels of wine and oil, and the defendant denies owing oil or wine but admits owing five out of ten empty barrels, he is liable to swear. Admon holds he is liable because part of the claim implied is that he owes the barrels.

והשתא לר"ג אפי' אין בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים חייב דאפילו בטוענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים מחייב

1. Question(cont.): Now, according to Rabban Gamliel, even if the claim does not imply barrels he should still be liable! Rabban Gamliel even holds that if he claims wheat and admits to barley that he is liable! (Why does he only say that he sees (merit in) Admon's position?)

וי"ל דלדידיה נמי נפקא מינה אם טענו עשרה כדי שמן ואמר ליה אידך אין לך אלא חמש חייב גם בקנקנים בהודאתו ולא מצי למימר לא הודיתי לך בקנקנים דיש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים

(b) Answer: There is also a difference according to Rabban Gamliel (aside for partial admittance) in a case where a person claimed ten barrels of oil, and the defendant said that he only owes five barrels. In such a case he is also liable to supply the barrels. He cannot say that I did not admit to you regarding the barrels, as the language implies barrels. (In other words, when Rabban Gamliel said he sees (merit in) Admon's position, he meant regarding the owing of the barrels, not the partial admittance which he obviously agreed with.)


תוספות ד"ה להודיעך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah wanted to show Rabban Gamliel's position.)

דכחו עדיף דמילתא דרבנן הוי כח דפטור

(a) Explanation: Rabban Gamliel has a stronger position, as the Rabbanan are merely saying he is exempt. (The Meleches Shlomo (Shevuos 6:3) understands that Tosfos means Rabban Gamliel is lenient in that he allows him to swear.)



תוספות ד"ה הודה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this case is needed.)


(a) Implied Question: This case is needed. (Why?)

דלא תימא טעמא דפטור ברישא משום דהוי כטענו חטים והודה לו בשעורים

(b) Answer: You should not say that the reason that the first part of the Mishnah says he is exempt is because it is like a case where he claimed wheat and he admitted to barley.


תוספות ד"ה לימוד ערוך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Chiya bar Aba's understanding of Admon.)

תימה דר' חייא בר אבא גופיה מוקי מילתא דאדמון כוותיה בפ' בתרא דכתובות (דף קח:) דמסיק לאדמון יש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים ומיגו דמשתבע אקנקנים משתבע נמי על שמן מחמת גלגול

(a) Question: This is difficult. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba himself establishes Admon's statement as being in accordance with his position in Kesuvos (108b). He concludes that according to Admon the implication of this statement is that he also owes him the barrels. Being that he must swear on the barrels, he also must swear on the oil due to a Gilgul Shevuah (once he must swear on one thing he must swear on other related issues as well). (However, this implies that the only reason he must swear is because he admits to five out of ten empty barrels, as the case is presented in Kesuvos (ibid.). If he would not admit to owing any barrels, the Gemara there implies he would not swear at all according to Admon. This is unlike Rebbi Chiya's statement here that he would swear according to Admon!)

וי"ל דמשום רבנן הוא דאצטריך לאסוקי דאיירי שהודה במקצת קנקנים ואפ"ה פטרי רבנן

(b) Answer: The reason why the case there was set up with the defendant admitting owing five out of ten empty barrels was due to the position of the Rabbanan. Even so the Rabbanan say he is exempt.

משום דלא תקשי ליה ממילתייהו דרבנן כדקאמר מעיקרא טעמא דאין בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים הא יש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים חייב אבל אדמון לעולם מחייב אפי' הודה בכל הקנקנים

1. Answer(cont.): This is in order that you should not ask a question from the Rabbanan's own words. One could say that they originally said he is exempt because claiming ten barrels of oil does not mean the actual barrels. This implies that if it would mean the actual barrels as well, he would be liable to swear. However, Admon always says one is liable even if he admits owing all of the barrels.

דבתרתי פליגי בטענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן וביש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים

2. Answer(cont.): The Rabbanan and Admon in fact argue regarding two topics. They argue regarding a case where the claimant claimed wheat and barley, and the defendant admitted owing one of the two. They also argue whether or not a claim of barrels of oil includes a claim on the barrels themselves.

ודייק לה מדלא קתני במתניתין פלוגתייהו בחטין ושעורין או בשור ושה ונקט כדי יין וכדי שמן משמע דפליגי ביש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים ומדקאמר נמי ר"ג רואה אני את דברי אדמון ואי דוקא בטענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן פליגי מאי רואה אני את דברי אדמון הא אפי' בטענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין מחייב

3. Answer(cont.): The deduction is from the fact that the Mishnah did not say the case that they argue in is where the claim is wheat and barley or an ox and a sheep. Instead it said a case of barrels of oil and wine. This implies that the argument centers around whether or not this implies a claim for the barrels themselves. Additionally, Rabban Gamliel says that he sees (merit in) Admon's position. If they would specifically argue in a case where he claimed both wheat and barley and he admitted owing one of them, why would he says he sees (merit in) Admon's position? He even says one is liable if he claims wheat and admits barley!

ופליגי נמי בטענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהם דאי ביש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים דוקא פליגי הוה להו לרבנן למימר בהדיא אין בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים ואדמון מחייב במודה בכל הקנקנים מדלא נקט במתניתין והודה לו מקצת קנקנים אלא נקט בקנקנים דמשמע בכולהו ולא מוקי לה במקצת קנקנים אלא משום רבנן דלא משתמע מילתייהו דאין בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים אלא בכה"ג

4. Answer(cont.): They also argue regarding a case where he claims wheat and barley, and the defendant admits one of them. If they only argue regarding whether or not the barrels are part of the claim, the Rabbanan should have explicitly said that the claim does not include the barrels themselves. It should also have said that Admon only says he is liable if the person admits owing all of the barrels. This is because the Mishnah does not say, "he admitted owing some of the barrels," and just says, "barrels." This implies he admits owing all of the barrels in question. The only reason we say Admon means some of the barrels is because of the Rabbanan, in order that we should not think they hold that this does not imply a claim on the barrels only in this case.

וה"ק אין ההודאה ממין הטענה דלא מיבעיא במודה בכל הקנקנים דפטרי דהא אפי' יש בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים נמי פטור אלא אפילו הודה במקצת קנקנים נמי פטור דאין בלשון הזה לשון קנקנים

5. Answer(cont.): This is what he means to say. The admission is not from the type of item that was claimed. Certainly if he admitted owing all of the barrels, he would be exempt from swearing. Even if the claim implies the barrels themselves he would be exempt. Rather, even if he admitted owing some of the barrels he would be exempt, as the claim does not imply the barrels themselves.


תוספות ד"ה וחדא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whose opinion is the Halachah.)

וכן הלכה

(a) Opinion: This is the Halachah.

ואע"ג דקי"ל כרבי יוחנן לגבי שמואל

(b) Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we usually rule like Rebbi Yochanan over Shmuel. (Why do we not follow this rule in this case?)

חדא דלרבי יוחנן נמי חייב אליבא דחד אמורא

(c) Answer#1: First of all, one Amora holds that Rebbi Yochanan would also say one is liable to swear in this case.

ועוד דקי"ל כרב נחמן בדיני

(d) Answer#2: Additionally, we rule like Rav Nachman in money matters.

ועוד דרב פפא דהוא בתרא סבירא ליה כשמואל

(e) Answer#3: Additionally, Rav Papa is a later Amora, and he rules according to Shmuel.

וכן פר"ח בשמעתין וכן עיקר ולא כמו שפסק ר"ח בכתובות (דף קח:) כרבי חייא בר אבא

(f) Opinion#2: This is also how Rabeinu Chananel rules in our Gemara, and this is the main opinion. This is unlike Rabeinu Chananel's opinion in Kesuvos (108b), where he rules like Rebbi Chiya bar Abba.


תוספות ד"ה אדרבה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a person will not brazenly deny a claim fully if it is true.)

וא"ת דאמרי' בפירקין מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז כו'

(a) Question: Don't we say in this chapter, "Why did the Torah say that a person who partially admits swears? It is because there is a Chazakah that a person does not brazenly etc." (Later (42b), this is reason to establish an oath, not reason to exempt from an oath!)

וי"ל אע"ג דכופר הכל נמי משתמיט מ"מ אין לו כל כך פנים לכפור הכל כמו לכפור במקצת וליכא מיגו

(b) Answer: Even though a person who denies owing anything may also be trying to evade the claim, there is a Chazakah that he cannot totally deny the claim as easily as he could partially admit to the claim, and there is no Migu.


תוספות ד"ה אשתמוטי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara in Bava Metzia does not quote this logic.)

תימה דבפ"ק דב"מ (דף ו. ושם) דייק אלא הא דאמר רב נחמן משביעין אותו שבועת היסת (דרבנן) נימא מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא אמאי לא משני דאשתמוטי קא משתמיט כדמשני אהתם דלעיל

(a) Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (6a), the Gemara deduces that when Rav Nachman says that we make him take a Shevuas Heses, why do we allow him to swear? We should say that being that he is suspected to be lying about money, we should suspect that he will swear falsely! Why doesn't the Gemara there answer that he is merely avoiding paying (he is not a liar), as we answer here?

וי"ל משום דפריך בהדי הך פירכי טובא

(b) Answer#1: This is because there are a lot of questions on this answer.

ותו הא דתני רבי חייא כו' דלא מצי לשנויי הכי

(c) Answer#2: Additionally, one cannot answer this for the question from Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa (which is also a question asked on Rav Nachman in the Gemara there).


תוספות ד"ה בפקדון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a denier of a deposit is unfit while a denier of a loan is fit.)

בפרק קמא דב"מ (דף ה:) מוקי לה דנקיט ליה בידיה ובמלוה אפילו נקיט ליה בידיה זוזי כשר דמלוה להוצאה ניתנה והוא שמא צריך למעות

(a) Observation: In Bava Metzia (5b), the Gemara establishes that the case is where he takes it in his hands. Regarding a loan, even if he took the money in his hands, he is still fit to testify. This is because a loan is meant to be spent, and perhaps he needed the money.