SHEVUOS 42 - 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 כל מילתא

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

וי"ל דרבא סבר ליה כמ"ד אין צריך לברר


Answer#1: It is possible to answer that Rava holds like the opinion that one does not need to clarify his claim (as long as it is a winning claim).

אי נמי כמו שפירש רבינו תם צריך לברר אמיתות הדברים כמו שיכול ומכל מקום אי לא משכח להו או אתו ואמרו להד"ם לא מפסיד


Answer#2: Alternatively, as Rabeinu Tam explained, one must verify the truthfulness of his words as much as he can. Even so, if he cannot find the witnesses or they came and deny this ever happened, he does not lose.

וכן מוכח בירושלמי שהביא ר"ח דגרסי' התם הבא לידון בשטר וחזקה רבי אומר נידון בשטר פירוש שצריך לברר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נידון בחזקה בא מעשה לפני רבי והורה כרשב"ג קשיא דרבי אדרבי לא קשיא רבי לא רצה אלא לעמוד על אמיתת הדבר


Answer#2(cont.): This is also apparent from the Yerushalmi that Rabeinu Chananel quotes. The text in the Yerushalmi is that if someone claims he has a document of ownership and that he has a Chazakah, Rebbi says he is judged by the document, meaning that he must prove this claim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, he must prove the Chazakah. An incident occurred before Rebbi, and he ruled according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Yerushalmi asks, this is a contradiction! The Yerushalmi answers that Rebbi only wanted to clarify what had happened.

ואית דגרס התם בא מעשה לפני רבי חייא ופריך מינה אדרבי לפי שתלמידו היה כדפריך בפרק מפנין (שבת דף קכח.) מדרב הונא אדרב משום דרב הונא תלמידו דרב הוה


Text: Some have the text there that the incident came before Rebbi Chiya, and that the Gemara asks a question from that incident on Rebbi, as Rebbi Chiya was Rebbi's student (and therefore presumably held like him). This is similar to the question in Shabbos (128a) from Rav Huna on Rav, because Rav Huna was Rav's student.

ובקונטרס פירש בריש פרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כג:) למ"ד צריך לברר שאם בקש ולא מצא הפסיד


Opinion: Rashi explains in Sanhedrin (23b) that according to the opinion that one must clarify his claim, if he seeks to do so but fails, he loses.



תוספות ד"ה איתרע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the practical result of a weakened document.)

מפר"ח וכן ר"ת דצריך בעל השטר שבועה שלא נפרע


Opinion#1: Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam explain that (practically) this means that the owner of the document must swear he was not paid.

והא דאמרינן בפרק אלו נערות (כתובות דף לו:) הא שטרא ריעא לא מגבינן ביה


Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (36b) says that one does not collect with a weakened document. (How can Rabeinu Tam say he can collect with an oath?)

דוקא בכי הך ריעותא דהתם כיון דמהדר אזיופא אימור זיופי זייף וחתים


Answer: The Gemara there is referring to a specific type of weakened document. Being that the claimant there already tried to hire witnesses to forge a document, it is understandable to say that he forged the document that he presented to Beis Din and forged the signatures.

וקשה מההוא דהכותב (שם פה. ושם) דההוא שטרא דאתא קמיה דרבא א"ל רב פפא ידענא ביה דשטרא פריעא הוא א"ל איכא איניש אחרינא בהדי דמר כו' וקאמר לא יהא רב פפא אלא כבת דרב חסדא


Question: There is a difficulty from the Gemara in Kesuvos (85a). A document was presented to Rava. Rav Papa said to him that I know that this document has been paid. Rava asked him, "Is there anyone else who supports your claim etc.?" [Rava did not believe Rav Papa alone. However, in a similar circumstance, Rava believed his wife (the daughter of Rav Chisda) that a document had been paid.] The Gemara concludes that Rav Papa should not be worse than the daughter of Rav Chisda.

והשתא מה היה יכול לעשות יותר מלהשביעו דלית ליה לקרועי כדקתני התם קרעיה ס"ד והשתא אפילו כל אדם דלא קים ליה בגויה נאמן להשביעו מידי דהוה אעד אחד מעיד שהוא פרוע


Question(cont.): What could Rava have done more than making him swear? He cannot tear up the document, as the Gemara there asks, "Do you think he tore up the document?!" Anyone who a judge does not know (his nature) well is still believed to make the claimant swear, as one witness is testifying that the document is paid! (In other words, what practical difference occurred due to Rava's wife's statement that did not occur when Rav Papa stated the document was paid?)

על כן נראה דבשטרא ריעא לא מיקרע קרעינן ליה ולא מיגבא גבינן ביה כי ההוא דאלו נערות (שם דף לו:)


Opinion#2: It therefore appears that a weakened document is not torn or collected from, as stated in the case in Kesuvos (36b).



תוספות ד"ה ורבי אליעזר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Eliezer's statement.)

פירוש במיגו


Explanation: This means he is not exempt with a Migu.




תוספות ד"ה אלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains where this is explained in depth.)

הכל מפורש בפרק שני דכתובות (דף יח: ושם ד"ה ובכולי) ובהניזקין (גיטין דף נא: ושם)


Observation: Everything is explained in Kesvuos (18 DH U'VIKULEI) and in Gitin (51b).



תוספות ד"ה ואין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains where we find that land can be stolen.)

דאפי' בקרקע שייכא גניבה כגון מסיג גבול


Explanation#1: It is possible to steal land as well, as in a case of someone who moves over the border between his property and that of his friend.

אי נמי בגפנים טעונות והלה טוען טענת גנב ורבי מאיר מודה נמי בשאין עומדות ליבצר


Explanation#2: Alternatively, the case is where there are grapevines loaded with grapes, and the guardian claims that they were stolen. Rebbi Meir would also agree (this is land) in a case where they are not ready to be harvested.



תוספות ד"ה ולא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how paying four and five times applies to our Mishnah.)

לא איצטריך אלא משום הקדשות דמשום קרקעות ועבדים לא איצטריך דאין נוהג אלא בשור ושה בלבד כדתנן בפרק מרובה (ב"ק דף סב:)


Explanation: This is only stated in the Mishnah because of things dedicated to Hekdesh. It does not have to be stated regarding land and servants, as it only applies to an ox and sheep, as stated in Bava Kama (62b).



תוספות ד"ה שומר חנם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the law regarding other Shomrim who watch land, servants, etc.)

משום דקרא בשומר חנם כתיב דאיירי בשבועה נקט שבועה וה"ה דאין משלם אם פשע כמו שומר שכר דפטור מחיוב דידיה דהיינו גניבה ואבידה


Explanation: Being that the Pasuk is discussing a Shomer Chinam when it mentions taking an oath, the Mishnah says he does not take an oath. However, he also does not pay if he is negligent (with the items mentioned in our Mishnah), just as a Shomer Sachar is exempt from his liability of (these items) being stolen or lost.

ונראה דשומר שכר נמי פטור מפשיעה


Opinion: It appears that a Shomer Sachar would also be exempt from negligence.

כדמוכח בפרק החובל (שם דף צג.) גבי ההוא ארנקי דצדקה דאתא לפומבדיתא אפקדיה רב יוסף גבי ההוא גברא פשע ביה אתו גנבי וגנבו ובעי למיפטריה משום לשמור ולא לחלק לעניים


Proof: This is as stated in Bava Kama (93a) regarding Tzedakah money that came to Pumbedisa. Rav Yosef deposited it by a person, who was then negligent with the money, which ended up being stolen by thieves. Abaye wanted to say the guardian is exempt, as the Pasuk says (regarding a guardian who is liable), "to guard" implying that the purpose of the deposit is to guard it, not to be distributed to the poor.

והתם שומר שכר היה לרב יוסף דאמר בסמוך שומר אבידה כשומר שכר משום דלא בעי למיתב ריפתא לעניא


Proof(cont.): In that case, the guardian was a Shomer Sachar for Rav Yosef. This is as the Gemara says later that a person watching a lost object is like a Shomer Sachar because he does not have to give bread to a poor person (when he is watching the object).

וה"ל למיתני נמי שומר שכר אין נשבע שנאנס


Implied Question: The Mishnah also could have said that a Shomer Sachar does not swear that he is a victim of forced circumstances.

אלא בשבועה קמייתא דכתיב בקרא איירי וקאמר בה דהשומר חנם אין נשבע דהיינו גניבה קאמר נמי דנושא שכר אין משלם גניבה


Answer: Rather, the Mishnah is discussing the first oath mentioned in the Pasuk. Being that it says that a Shomer Chinam does not swear, meaning he does not swear regarding his claim that the item was stolen, it also says that a Shomer Sachar does not pay for theft. (However, it is not discussing cases of forced circumstances.)

והמ"ל נמי דשואל אין משלם אם נאנסה או אפי' נגנבה דהא איתקיש לשומר שכר ואם שאל בית ונשרף פטור


Implied Question: It also could have said that a borrower does not pay if he was a victim of forced circumstances or even if it the item was stolen, as he is compared to a Shomer Sachar in this regard. Accordingly, if he borrowed a house and it was burned down, he would be exempt. (The answer above answers this question as well.)

ועוד דמש"ה לא תני לה דלא שייך בהקדש שאלה


Answer: Additionally, the Mishnah did not state this case (of borrowing) because one cannot lend Hekdesh.

ואע"ג דתני(א) תשלומי ד' וה'


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah did state the payment of four or five times regarding oxen and sheep (even though it is only relative to Hekdesh (see Tosfos DH "v'Lo" above) and one is not allowed to do so).

משום דשייך בכולהו אם מכר אלא דמיעט קרא אפי' שאר מטלטלין


Answer: This is because all of the things listed can be sold (even though they will not mandate a payment of four to five times the amount). However, the Pasuk excluded even other movable objects from being included in the penalty of four to five times the amount (certainly land and servants are excluded).



תוספות ד"ה על כל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara's derivation is necessary.)

תימה בשלמא למ"ד במרובה (ב"ק סג:) חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב איצטריך למעוטינהו מכפל משום גנב עצמו אלא למ"ד תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב לא איצטריך כיון דאימעוט משבועה


Question: This is difficult. It is understandable according to the opinion in Bava Kama (63b) that one Pasuk refers to a thief who stole the deposit, and the other is discussing the Shomer who is claiming it was stolen. The Pasuk is needed to exclude the thief himself from paying Keifel. However, according to the opinion that they are both regarding a case where the Shomer claims the item was stolen, there is no reason to have our Gemara's exclusion from Keifel, being that he is excluded from taking an oath altogether! (In other words, it is obvious he would never pay Keifel without the derivation from the Pasuk mentioned in our Gemara.)

דאין שייך כפל בטוען טענת גנב אלא היכא דנשבע כדאמרינן התם וליכא למימר בקפץ ונשבע דבהגוזל קמא (שם דף קו.) משמע דליכא כפל אלא אם כן השביע בבית דין


Question(cont.): This is because it is not possible to collect Keifel from the Shomer when he claims the item was stolen unless he swears (falsely before he is discovered to have stolen the object), as is stated in Bava Kama (ibid.). One cannot say that the case is where the Shomer jumped up and swore, as in Bava Kama (106a) the Gemara implies that he would not pay Keifel unless he swore in Beis Din.

וי"ל דאיצטריך להיכא דנתחייב לו שבועה ע"י גלגול


Answer: It is needed in a case where he is required to take this Shevuah through Gilgul Shevuah. (Gilgul Shevuah means that a person must take an oath he would normally not be obligated to take once there is a different related oath he is obligated to take.)

אבל קשה דאמאי איצטריך רעהו למעוטי הקדש מכפל דהתם לא שייך גלגול


Question: However, this is difficult. Why do we require the Pasuk "his friend" to exclude Hekdesh from Keifel? Gilgul does not apply to Hekdesh!

וי"ל דלמסקנא דריש מרובה (שם דף סג. ושם) ליכא אלא חד כלל ופרט וכלל אשבועה ואכפל ותרוייהו מימעטי מעל כל דבר פשע כדמשמע במרובה (שם) וקרא אכולה עניינא קאי דקאמר אי ס"ד על כל דבר פשע לכלל ופרט הוא דאתא ליכתבינהו הני פרטי גבי הנהו כו' וכי היכי דדרשא דכי יתן קאי אכולה פרשתא ה"נ על כל דבר פשע קאי אכולהו


Answer: In the conclusion of the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid,) there is only one "Klal, u'Perat, u'Klal" regarding Shevuah and Keifel, and both of these are excluded from the Pasuk, "On every criminal act," as is implied in Bava Kama (ibid.). The Pasuk is discussing the entire topic. It says, if "on every criminal act" is used for a Klal u'Perat, it should say these exclusions regarding these etc. Just as the derivation of "When he will give" is referring to the entire topic, so too "On every criminal act" is referring to everything.

וכ"ת פרטי דכסף או כלים למה לי


Implied Question: You might say that there is no need to specify "money or vessels."

הא דרשינן לעיל מה כלים שנים כו'


Answer: We derive earlier that just as vessels is a minimum of two etc. (see 39b).

וא"ת ומ"מ אמאי איצטריך רעהו למעוטי הקדש תיפוק ליה מוגונב מבית האיש דדרשינן במרובה (שם דף עו. ושם) ולא מבית הקדש


Question: Even so, why do we require "his friend" to exclude Hekdesh? We should derive this from the Pasuk, "And it will be stolen from the house of the person." This is as we derive in Bava Kama (76a), "and not from the house of Hekdesh."

וי"ל דהתם ארעהו סמוך ועיקר קרא לא אתא אלא לדרוש וגונב מבית האיש ולא מבית הגנב ונקטיה נמי לענין הקדש


Answer#1: It is possible to answer that this derivation actually relies on the words "his friend." The main aspect of the verse is to teach, "And it will stolen from the house of the man" and not from the house of the thief. This is also stated regarding Hekdesh.

אי נמי התם בגנב עצמו והכא איצטריך לטוען טענת גנב


Answer#2: Alternatively, that Pasuk is referring to the thief himself. In our Gemara, we require this for a Shomer who claims the object was stolen.

ולמסקנא דמרובה (שם) לא הוי כלל ופרט קרא דעל כל דבר פשע דמסיק כל ריבויא הוא והני פרטי חד למעוטי קרקע וחד למעוטי עבדים וכו' ואגב ריהטא נקט האי תנא כלל ופרט וכלל דבמדה זו נמי ממעטי כל הני


Observation: According to the conclusion of the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.), the Pasuk is not derived through Klal u'Perat. The Gemara concludes that "on every criminal intent" is a Ribuy (inclusive). One of these exclusions excludes land, and one excludes servants etc. The Tana here said, "Klal u'Perat u'Klal" because he was talking quickly, as the things mentioned in our Gemara can also be excluded using Klal u'Perat u'Klal.