SHEVUOS 41 - 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

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the law in a case where the claimant's claim is totally denied by the defendant.)

אור"ת השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא כחד מהנך לישני היכא דליכא דררא דממונא לא משבעינן ליה מספק דהמע"ה ואעפ"כ לא היה מוחה בדיינים המשביעין


Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam says that being that the Gemara does not decide which opinion is correct, if it is not clear that there was ever money owed we do not make him swear because of this doubt. This is because we apply the principle that whoever wants to take money from his friend must bring proof to this effect. Even so, Rabeinu Tam would not protest when judges would make someone take an oath in this case (the claimant says the defendant owes money, and the defendant denies there is any truth whatsoever to his claim).

וקצת נראה להשביע דאיכא דאמרי טפל ללשון ראשון כמו שאומר ריב"א


Opinion#2: It seems that making him take an oath is appropriate, as some say that the second version of the discussion is always secondary to the first version of the discussion, as stated by the Riva.

מיהו אור"ת דאזלינן בתר המיקל


Opinion#1(cont.): However, Rabeinu Tam says that in such a situation we should follow the lenient opinion.

וכן משמע בפ"ק דב"מ (דף ה.) גבי ההוא רעיא דמייתי התם מילתא דר"נ ארישא דמתני'


Implied Question: This (that the first version is considered the main version, see Maharsha) is also implied in Bava Metzia (5a) regarding the incident with the shepherd, where Rav Nachman's statement is quoted as discussing the first part of the Mishnah (as per the first version of our Gemara). (How, then, can Rabeinu Tam say we follow the lenient version and not the first version?)

ור"ת דוחה דאיכא למימר דהתם רישא דמילתא נקט ומסיפא פריך דמשבעינן ליה היכא דאיכא דררא דממונא דהתם נמי איכא דררא דממונא מאחר שהיו רגילין למסור לו בכל יום


Answer: Rabeinu Tam pushes this aside, as one can say that the Gemara there merely quoted what was said first. It also asks from the second part of the Mishnah, that we make him swear where there is clearly money that was owed. In that case there was also clearly money owed (at one point), as they used to give him their sheep to watch every day.

ועוד דהא איכא סהדי דאכל תרי מינייהו


Answer: Additionally, there were witnesses who saw he ate two of the sheep.

ורב האי גאון פי' דלא משבעינן ליה אלא משמתינן ליה על תנאי שיהא בשמתא אם הוא חייב ואינו משלם


Opinion#3: Rav Hai Gaon explains that while we do not make him swear, we do put him in conditional Cheirem (excommunication). In other words, we say that if he is liable and does not pay, he is in Cheirem.



תוספות ד"ה מאי איכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions Rashi's statement that a person only holds a holy object when taking a Torah oath.)

בפ' הכותב (כתובות דף פח. ושם) גבי הא דאמר רב נחמן אי פקח שמעון מייתי ליה לידי שבועה דאורייתא פירש בקונטרס דנפקא מינה דבדאורייתא בעי למינקט חפצא בידיה ובדרבנן לא בעי


Opinion: In Kesuvos (88a), Rav Papa states that if he was smart (the Bach takes out Nachman and Shimon, as they are not in our text), he would make the other side take a Shevuah according to Torah law. Rashi explains that this is because while someone has to hold a holy object during an oath according to Torah law, he does not have to do so while taking a Rabbinic oath.

ואין נראה דההיא נפקותא לא אמרינן הכא


Question#1: This does not seem correct, as this difference is not stated in our Gemara.

ועוד דבפרק השולח (גיטין דף לה. ושם) גבי אלמנה דקאמר אדרה בבית דין ואשבעה חוץ לב"ד פי' בקונט' גופיה דבב"ד לא בעי אשתבועי משום דבעי אנקוטי חפצא בידיה אף על גב דשבועה דאלמנה שבועה דרבנן היא


Question#2: Additionally, in Gitin (35a) regarding a widow, Rav Yehudah says he should make her take a vow in Beis Din, and make her swear outside of Beis Din. Rashi himself explains that she does not want to swear in Beis Din because she must take a holy object in her hand. This is despite the fact that an oath regarding a widow (the collection of her Kesuvah) is Rabbinic (and is seemingly unlike Rashi's position here).

ובריש שמעתתא דהכותב (כתובות דף פז: ושם) פירש נמי בקונטרס גבי הא דסבר רמי בר חמא למימר שבועה דאורייתא דנפקא מינה לאפוכי שבועה


Question#3: In Kesuvos (87b), Rashi explains regarding Rami bar Chama's thought that Shevuah is a Torah law that the difference is regarding making the other person (who is not supposed to) take the oath. (Rashi does not differentiate between whether or not he must hold a holy object in his hand.)



תוספות ד"ה ולמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not we turn around a Torah oath.)

ריב"ן פי' בשם הקונטרס דהלכתא כותיה דקיימא לן כמר בר רב אשי במיפך שבועה וכן בתשובת רבינו גרשון מאור הגולה וכן רב האי גאון


Opinion#1: The Rivan says in the name of Rashi that the Halachah follows Mar bar Rav Ashi regarding reversing an oath. This is also stated in the responsa of Rabeinu Gershom "Me'or Ha'Golah" -- "Light of the Exile" and by Rav Hai Gaon.

והביא ראיה דהלכתא כותיה מדקאמר לקמיה האי מאן דמפיק שטרא על חבריה אי אמר ליה היאך אשתבע לי דלא פרעתיך אמרינן ליה זיל אשתבע ליה ומה התם דאית ליה עליה ממון גמור מדאורייתא יכול להפך עליו שבועה היכא דלית ליה אלא שבועה דאורייתא לכ"ש דמצי א"ל אשתבע לי את


Proof: He proves that the Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi from the fact that the Gemara later (41a) says that if someone takes out a loan document and the defendant says, "Swear that I did not pay you," we ask the claimant to swear. If in that case where the defendant clearly owes money (based on the document) according to Torah law, the defendant can change this into a case where the claimant must take an oath, certainly where the defendant only owes a Torah oath he can make the claimant swear!

ולפי דבריו מאן דפליג אמר בר רב אשי כ"ש דפליג אדלקמיה


Observation: According to his words, whoever argues on Mar bar Rav Ashi will certainly disagree with the law quoted above that is brought later in the Gemara.

מיהו הגאונים נחלקו בההיא דלקמיה אי אמר ליה אשתבע לי דלא פרעתיך אם יכול אידך לחזור ולומר אשתבע לי את ותפטר ואם יכול אין ראיה לרב האי משם


Implied Question#1: However, the Gaonim argue regarding the Gemara later, whether if when the defendant says, "Swear that I did not pay you," the claimant can turn around and say, "You swear to me and you will not have to pay." If the claimant can say this, there is no proof to Rav Hai.

ועוד דלא דמי דבההיא דלקמיה ודאי תקנו רבנן משום דשכיחא דמתרמי זימנין טובא דבתר דפרעיה אשתהי שטרא בידיה כדאמרינן בפ"ק דב"מ (דף טז:) אשתמוטי דקא משתמיט דאמר ליה למחר יהבינא לך השתא ליתיה גבאי אי נמי אפשיטי דספרא זייר ליה אבל לגבי שבועה דאורייתא למה להם לתקן שיכול להופכה והשתא ההיא דלקמיה אתיא אפי' כמאן דפליג אמר בר רב אשי


Implied Question#2: Additionally, the cases are not similar. In the Gemara's case later, the Rabbanan certainly decreed this because it is common that after a loan has been paid, the loan document languishes in the hands of the lender. This is as stated in Bava Metzia (16b) that the person is avoiding the claim, as he tells him that he will give him the document tomorrow as he does not presently have the document. Alternatively, the lender wants the value of the document (i.e. the parchment). However, regarding a Torah oath, why should they decree that it should be turned around? This would mean that the Gemara later is even according to the opinion that argues on Mar bar Rav Ashi.

ורבינו יצחק מצא בתשובות קדמוניות דלא מפכינא שבועה דאורייתא וכן בה"ג ובסדר תנאים ואמוראים דהלכתא כמר בר רב אשי בכוליה הש"ס בר ממיפך שבועה ואודיתא


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak found in the earlier responsum that we do not turn around a Torah oath. This is also the opinion of the Bahag. The Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim says that we always rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi aside from in this case of turning around a Shevuah and in the case of Odisa (an admittance document).

אך מה שכתב בסדר תנאים ואמוראים דמיפך שבועה כגון שהיה המחויב שבועה חשוד וקאמר מר בר רב אשי דמפכינן אכנגדו אין נראה


Implied Question: However, the Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim's statement that the case of turning around a Shevuah is when the person who is supposed to take the oath cannot because he is suspected of lying, and that Mar bar Rav Ashi holds that the oath is therefore given to the other party, does not appear correct.

דבחשוד לא איירי אלא בסמוך דאמר איכא בינייהו שכנגדו חשוד


Implied Question(cont.): We only discuss someone who is suspected of lying later when the Gemara says that the difference between them is someone who is suspected to lie.

אלא כפירוש הקונטרס דאמר נתבע לתובע השבע וטול


Observation: Rather, the case is as stated by Rashi, that the defendant says to the claimant that he should swear and take the money.

ור"ח נמי פסיק דהלכתא כותיה בכל הש"ס בר ממיפך שבועה וחיורי וסימנך הפך לבן וחיורי בפ' בהמה המקשה (חולין דף עו: ושם) גבי צומת הגידין דקאמר זייגי אף על גב דלא חיורי


Opinion#2(cont.): The Rach also rules that the law is like Mar bar Rav Ashi throught the Gemara, aside from the case of turning around a Shevuah and "white" (see below). The sign that it is these two cases is, "he turned white." "White" in Chulin (76b) is regarding a case of the "Tzomes ha'Gidin" -- "intersection of the sinews." Mar bar Rav Ashi says there that even if they are slightly white, and not totally white, they are considered part of the Tzomes ha'Gidim.



תוספות ד"ה ולרבי יוסי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that the discussion of Darchei Shalom should not be relevant to our Gemara.)

קצת תימה דרבנן נמי לא איירי אלא בההיא דלא הוי גזילה אלא מפני דרכי שלום אבל היכא דהוי גזל גמור מודו דנחתינן לנכסיה וה"נ היכא דאיכא שבועה דרבנן


Question: This is slightly difficult. The Rabbanan are only discussing a case that is considered stealing because of "Darchei Shalom" -- "keeping the peace." However, where there is actual stealing involved, they will agree that we go and take from his property. The same should also apply regarding a Rabbinic Shevuah.



תוספות ד"ה וכי מה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the reason we make claims for the orphans is not because we are in place of their father.)

וא"ת תקשה ליה אמתני' דהבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה וטעמא משום דלמא אי הוה אבוהון קיים הוה טעין ואמר אשתבע לי אלמא מצי משתבע ליה


Question: Rav Acha should ask this on our Mishnah (45a) that says that one who comes to collect from the possessions of orphans may only do so with a Shevuah! The reason for this is that perhaps if their father was alive he would claim and say, "Swear to me!" This implies that the defendant can make him swear.

ומיהו נראה דטעמא לאו משום הכי הוא דאפי' לא מצי אבוהון טעין טענינן ליתמי


Answer: It seems that this is not the reason (why we make claims for orphans). Even if their father could not make this claim, we (Beis Din) make claims for the orphans.

דבפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פו: ע"ש) אמרינן כתב לאשתו נקי נדר נקי שבועה לא תפרע מן היתומים אלא בשבועה אלמא עבוד רבנן תקנתא ליתמי אפי' במקום שאין האב יכול להשביע


Proof: This is apparent from Kesuvos (86b) where we say that if he wrote to his wife, "Clean (are you from taking) the vow, clean (are you from taking) the oath" she can only collect from the orphans with an oath. This implies that the Rabbanan instituted to make claims for the orphans even if their (dead) father could not have forced his wife to swear.



תוספות ד"ה אין לך

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rabban Gamliel's opinion was not introduced earlier in the Mishnah.)

מהשתא הו"ל לרב לאפלוגי [ר"ג] כדפליג בסיפא בשטענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין ולשמואל אדלעיל שתי כסף יש לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כו'


Implied Question: According to Rav, the Mishnah should have inserted at this point in the Mishnah that Rabban Gamliel argues, as it did later in the Mishnah regarding a case where the claim was for wheat and the admission was for barley. Similarly, Rabban Gamliel should have been inserted now according to Shmuel (40b). Shmuel says that the Mishnah means that when a person claims two Kesef and the defendant says he only owes a Perutah, the admission is not relevant to the claim (as it is from a different type of item). (Why did the Mishnah wait until later to discuss Rabban Gamliel's position?)

אלא נטר עד לבסוף ופליג אכולהו


Answer: Rather, the Mishnah waited until the Rabbanan were done with their statements, and then quoted Rabban Gamliel who argues on all of them.

וצריך לדקדק אמאי צריכי כל הנך


Question: One must try to understand why we need so many cases in our Mishnah.

ואיכא מינייהו דתני איידי


Answer: Regarding some of them we indeed say that because a previous case was stated, this case was stated as well.




תוספות ד"ה תיובתא דרב אסי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is not a question on Shmuel.)

אבל לשמואל ניחא


Implied Question: There is no difficulty according to Shmuel. (Why not?)

דמצי לפרש דה"ק נתתיו לך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים


Answer: This is because he can answer that when the Mishnah says, "I gave it to you" it means in front of Ploni and Ploni, and they went overseas.

ולמאי דמפרשינן דלשמואל נאמן לומר פרעתיך ביני ובין עצמך במגו דאי בעי אמר פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני אתי שפיר טפי


Answer(cont.): Based on our explanation that Shmuel holds one is believed to say he paid without witnesses with a Migu that he could have said I paid you in front of Ploni and Ploni, it is even more understandable. (It is more understandable, as this more simply fits into the explanation of the words, "I gave it to you (implying without witnesses)," as this is exactly what he is saying.)



תוספות ד"ה תיובתא דשמואל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Shmuel's position, and why this Mishnah is a question on his position.)

תימה מאי קושיא דלמא נתתיו לך שלא בעדים קאמר ולהכי חייב


Question: Why is this difficult? Perhaps his claim is that he paid without witnesses, and this is why he is liable? (After all, Shmuel only says he is exempt when he says that he paid in front of witnesses who went overseas!)

וי"ל דשמואל הכי קאמר מתוך שיכול לומר פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים כי אמר נמי פרעתיך ביני ובין עצמך נאמן במגו


Answer: Shmuel means that being that he can claim that he paid in front of witnesses who went overseas, if he says that he paid privately he should also be believed with a Migu (that he could have said he paid in front of witnesses who went overseas).

ומיהו רב פפא בסמוך ודאי לית ליה האי מגו דהא קאמר בסמוך צריך לפורעו בעדים


Implied Question: However, Rav Papa later clearly does not hold of this Migu, as he says later that one must actually pay with witnesses. (How can we answer Shmuel according to Rav Papa?)

וצריך לדחוק לפי' זה דפליגי רב פפא ושמואל בדברי רבי יהודה בן בתירא


Answer: One is pressed to say according to this explanation that Rav Papa and Shmuel argue regarding the words of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (quoted later in our Gemara).

ועוד יש לתמוה לגמרא שהקשה לשמואל מסיפא דמתני' מנ"ל לפרש דברי שמואל כך מאחר שרב פפא לית ליה האי סברא


Question: There is another difficulty. Why does the Gemara ask a question on Shmuel from the second part of the Mishnah? How does the Gemara know that this is the explanation of Shmuel's statement, especially after Rav Papa clearly indicates that he does not agree with this understanding?

לכן נראה שהמקשה משמע ליה דמפני שצריך ליתן לו בעדים משמע שצריך לברר שפרעו בעדים וקצת משמע כן בכל הסוגיא


Answer: It therefore appears that the questioner in the Gemara understands that the Mishnah's statement, "Because the borrower must give him the money in front of witnesses," implies that it must be made clear that he paid with witnesses. This is slightly implied throughout this Gemara.



תוספות ד"ה ורב פפא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules that this is the Halachah, and explains why.)

אר"ת כן הלכה


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that this is the Halachah.

דהא אמר רבי אבא בגט פשוט (ב"ב דף קע.) וקיימא לן המלוה את חבירו בעדים אין צריך לפורעו בעדים וכן רבא ורמי בר חמא ס"ל הכי בריש כל הנשבעין (לקמן דף מה:)


Proof: This is as Rebbi Abba says in Bava Basra (170a) that we hold that someone who lends money to his friend with witnesses does not have to pay back his friend with witnesses. Rava and Rami bar Chama also hold this way in the Gemara later (45b).



תוספות ד"ה אזל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi regarding the nature of the borrower's claim that he had witnesses.)

פי' בקונטרס וזה אומר עדי שקר הם


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the lender claims that these are false witnesses.

ואם תאמר ואיך נאמן לומר שמשקרין


Question: How is the lender believed to say they are liars?

ויש לומר דכיון דאמר באפי ראובן ושמעון בעי למימר מהימנת לי כל היכא דאמרת לא פרען עד דפרענא באפי ראובן ושמעון כדלקמן


Answer: Being that he said, "In front of Reuven and Shimon" the borrower meant that he accepts that as long as the lender claims that he was not paid he has a good claim, unless he pays in front of Reuven and Shimon, as explained later.

ומיהו הא דקאמר בסמוך להכי קאמר באפי ראובן ושמעון כי היכי דלא לידחייה לא אתי שפיר לפירושו


Implied Question: However, the Gemara later which says that he specifically said, "In front of Reuven and Shimon" in order that he should not push him aside (and claim he paid when he did not) is not compatible with Rashi's explanation.

דמה דיחוי שייך כיון דמייתי סהדי וה"ל למימר כי היכי דלא למיפטר אי אייתי סהדי אחריני


Implied Question(cont.): How is pushing aside (i.e. claiming he paid by himself) relevant here? He is bringing witnesses! The Gemara should have said that the lender said this in order to ascertain that the borrower would not be exempt if he brings other witnesses.

לכן נראה לר"י דמיירי דקאמר פרעתיך באפי סהדי והלכו להם למדינת הים


Opinion#2: This is why the Ri says that the case is where he says he paid in front of witnesses who have now went overseas.

ויש פירושים שכתוב בהן כן וגם ר"ח פירש כן


Opinion#2(cont.): There are commentaries that indeed write this explanation. This is also the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel.



תוספות ד"ה הא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this was said jokingly.)

בדיחותא בעלמא הוא דקא מהדר ליה ולאו משום דצריך לקיים תנאו


Explanation: He answered jokingly, and not because he must fulfill his condition.)



תוספות ד"ה כל האומר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Abaye certainly agrees with the rule, "Whoever says he didn't borrow is as if he says he didn't pay.")

ואביי לית ליה


Explanation: Abaye does not agree with this rule.

והא דתנן למחר אמר לו תנהו לי אין לך בידי חייב וטעמא דכיון דאמר לא לוה הוי כמודה שלא פרע


Implied Question: When the Mishnah says that when the lender asks him the next day for the money and the defendant claims he does not owe anything, he is liable to pay. The reason apparently is because he said he never borrowed, it is as if he admits he has not paid. (This is unlike Abaye!)

התם ליכא עדים דאמרי פרעו כי הכא ולהכי אביי גופיה אית ליה בפ"ק דב"ב (דף ו. ושם) דכל האומר לא לויתי כו' כיון דליכא עדים שפרע


Answer: In the Mishnah, there are not witnesses who say that he paid as there are over here. This is why Abaye himself holds in Bava Basra (6a) that whoever says that he did not borrow etc., being that there are no witnesses that he paid. (In other words, Abaye does agree with this rule when the witnesses do not also say that he paid, as they do in our case.)

וא"ת אמאי לא מתרצינן הכא דבוריה לא לויתי כלומר לא עמדתי בהלואתי אלא פרעתי כמו בפ' אמרו לו (כריתות יב.) גבי לא נטמאתי דמתרצינן דבוריה לא עמדתי בטומאתי אלא טבלתי


Question: Why don't we answer that when he says he did not borrow he means that he did not remain as a borrower, but rather he paid his debt? This is akin to the Gemara in Kerisus (12a) that explains that when a person says, "I did not become impure," he could very well mean, "I did not remain impure, but rather dipped in the Mikvah."

ואומר ריב"א דהכא לא קאמר לא לויתי אלא להד"מ דלא שייך לתרוצי לישניה


Answer#1: The Riva answers that in our Gemara he is clearly not just saying that he didn't borrow, but rather that he totally denies ever borrowing. This means that one cannot explains his terminology as meaning anything else.

אבל בפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פח.) קשה דקאמר אבל אמרי יתמי אמר לנו אבא לא לויתי נפרעין מהם שלא בשבועה דכל האומר לא לויתי כו'


Question: However, there is a difficulty from the Gemara in Kesuvos (88a). The Gemara says that if orphans say that their father told them before he died that he never borrowed money from a specific person (and that person has a loan document proving otherwise), he can collect from them without an oath. This is because whoever says they did not borrow is as if they say they did not pay. (Why don't we interpret his words as meaning that he did not remain a borrower, but rather paid his debt?)

ויש לומר דהאב היה יכול לטעון ולתרץ דבריו אבל ליתומים לא טענינן מילתא דלא שכיחא


Answer: It is possible to say that while their father could claim that this was the intent of his words, we do not claim for the orphans something that is uncommon.

ועוד יש לחלק דהכא כשטוענין עליו בבית דין יש לו להשיב בענין שיפטר ואין לנו לתרץ דבריו


Answer#2 (to d): Additionally, it is possible to differentiate that when people are claiming money from him in Beis Din, it is up to him to answer back in a way that he will be found innocent. We have no responsibility to explain his words.



תוספות ד"ה כל מילתא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when a person must clarify his words.)

תימה בגט פשוט (ב"ב דף קע.) גבי עובדא דרב יצחק בר יוסף דהוה מסיק זוזי ברבי אבא מסיק אף על גב דהמלוה חבירו בעדים אין כו' כי טעין ואמר פרעתי בפני פלוני ופלוני צריך לברר ויבואו פלוני ופלוני ויעידו ואמאי הא אמרינן לאו אדעתיה


Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bava Basra (170a) discusses an incident where Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef lent money to Rebbi Abba. The Gemara says that even though we say that if someone lent money with witnesses the borrower does not have to pay back with witnesses, if he says that he paid in front of witnesses he must clarify that fact and bring them to testify. Why? Why don't we say that he wasn't even careful to think whether he indeed had paid with witnesses being that he did not have to pay in front of witnesses (as we do here)?