SHEVUOS 46 - 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 רישא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we don't question the witnesses.)

ואיירי כולה ששכרו בעדים


Explanation: Both cases are where the worker was hired in front of witnesses.

וא"ת ניחזי עדים מאי קאמרי דכה"ג דייק בח"ה (ב"ב דף מה.) בהלכתא דאומן


Question: Let us see (i.e. hear) what the witnesses say! A similar question is posed in Bava Basra (45b) regarding a worker.

וי"ל כגון דלא ידעי עדים כמה קצץ


Answer: The witnesses do not know the amount of wages they agreed upon.

והתם נמי ה"מ לשנויי הכי


Implied Question: There, (in Bava Basra 45b) as well, the Gemara could have given this answer. (Why didn't it give this answer?)

ובלאו הכי משני התם שפיר


Answer: It did not need to give this answer, as it gave a different good answer.



תוספות ד"ה לא קצצתי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the employee must bring proof.)

ע"כ איירי כגון דאמר שעדיין לא פרע אותה אחת דאי פרעה כבר ה"ל כופר הכל ובסמוך מוקמי' לה כרבי יהודה דבעי הודאה במקצת


Explanation: The case must be when the employer says that he did not yet pay. If he already paid, he is considered to be denying any claim. Later, the Gemara indeed establishes that this is according to Rebbi Yehudah who requires a partial admittance in order for an employer to have to take an oath.

וקשה דבעבר זמנו אמאי המע"ה והא מפרש לעיל טעמא משום דחזקה אין בעה"ב עובר בבל תלין ואין שכיר משהה שכרו והכא הרי השהה והרי עבר


Question: This is difficult. Why should we say that if his wages are already passed due the employee must bring proof? The Gemara explained earlier that the reason the employer is believed (at the time the wages are due) is because there are two assumptions. There is an assumption that the employer will not transgress the prohibition against paying later, and there is another assumption that an employee does not wait to claim his wages. In this case, the employee clearly waited and the employer transgressed not paying him!



תוספות ד"ה בדרבנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding the explanation of the Beraisa.)

פירוש שצריך לתקן שבועה וגם צריך לעוקרה ממקום שהיא ראויה להיות דהיינו בעל הבית ולא עבדי תקנתא לתקנתא


Opinion#1: This means that an oath has to be instituted, and it has to be uprooted from the person who is supposed to take it, namely the employer. We do not make a decree for a decree.

ולא כמו שפירש הקונט' תקנתא היא כדרב נחמן דאמר משביעין אותו שבועת היסת


Opinion#2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation that this is the decree of Rav Nachman who says that we make him take a Shevuas Heses.

שהרי אותה שבועה לא היתה בימי תנאים דהתנן אין לך בידי פטור ואמרינן נמי בפ"ב דקידושין (דף מג:) והשתא דתקון רבנן שבועת היסת


Implied Question: This is because that oath did not yet exist in the time of the Tannaim, as the Mishnah states that if someone says, "I have nothing of yours in my hand" he is exempt. We also say in Kidushin (43b), "Now that the Rabbanan have instituted a Shevuas Heses etc." (Accordingly, how can this be used to explain the Beraisa?)



תוספות ד"ה ורבנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this oath is not considered "turned around.")

לא דמי להא דאמרי' בפרק שבועת הדיינין (לעיל דף מא.) גבי שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה דמדרבנן לא מפכינן שבועה דתקנתא לתקנתא לא עבדינן


Implied Question: This is unlike the Gemara earlier (41a) that discusses a case where the person supposed to take the oath cannot do so. The Gemara there says that we do not turn around a Rabbinic oath, as we do not make a decree for a decree. (How, then, can we say a Rabbinic institution that the employer should swear can be turned around so that the employee should swear?)

דהתם בתחלה נתקנה על החשוד ולא רצו לעוקרה אבל הכא מעיקרא מתקנינ' לה על השכיר


Answer: In that case, the oath was originally instituted on the one who is suspected of lying, and they did not want to uproot it from that person. However, here the original institution is that it should be taken by the worker.



תוספות ד"ה עביד

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a person who is harvesting a tree is believed that he bought it, as opposed to someone who is chopping it down.)

פירש ברוקח דוקא בסתם אדם אבל במוחזק לכך לא וכן נראה


Explanation: The Rokeach explains that this is specifically regarding a regular person. However, when someone's status is that he carries out his threats, this does not apply. This is logical.

וא"ת בלאו הכי מהימן במגו דאי בעי אמר דזבנה מיניה דמהימן כדאמרינן בח"ה (ב"ב דף לו.) האי מאן דנקיט מגלא ותובילא בידיה ואמר איזיל ואגדריה לדקלא דפלניא דזבניה ניהלי מהימן דלא חשיד איניש למיגדר דקלא דלאו דיליה


Question: Even without this logic, he should be believed with a Migu that he could have said he bought it from him. This is as the Gemara in Bava Basra (36a) says that a person who took a sicle and rope (or basket) and said that he was going to chop down a palm tree that he had bought from someone else is believed. This is because a person is not suspected to go cut down someone's palm tree if it does not belong to him.

וי"ל דהתם איירי בלקיטת פירות ולהכי נקט מגלא ותובילא ולשון גדירה דשייכא בלקיטת תמרים ולהכי נאמן שדרך הוא למכור פירות אבל הכא איירי בקציצת הדקל ולהכי נקט נרגא ואיזיל ואקטליה דאין דרך למכור אילן העושה פירות לקציצה


Answer: The Gemara there is referring to gathering fruit (not cutting down a tree). This is why it mentioned a sicle and rope, and the term of "Gedirah" referring to picking dates (not cutting down the tree, as we thought). This is why he is believed, as it is normal to sell fruit. However, here we are talking about chopping down a palm tree. This is why our Gemara mentions an ax, and going to "kill" the tree. It is not normal to sell a fruit tree that bears fruit in order for it to be chopped down.

וכן מוכח בהדיא בהחובל (ב"ק דף צא: ושם) דלא מהימן אקציצה דאוקי הא דתניא שורי הרגת נטיעתי קצצת והלה אומר אתה אמרת לי להורגו אתה אמרת לי לקוצצו פטור בשור העומד להריגה ואילן העומד לקציצה


Proof: It is also clearly implied in Bava Kama (91b) that a person is not believed if he is going to chop down the tree. This is apparent from the fact that the Beraisa where a person accuses someone by saying, "You killed my ox, you chopped down my tree!" The defendant says, "You told me to kill it, you told me to chop it down!" We only say the defendant is believed if the ox was going to be killed anyway, or if the tree was going to be chopped down.



תוספות ד"ה בטוענו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not the law follows Rebbi Chiya, and explains the Gemara's statement (46b), "this is said regarding things that are made to lend and rent.")

והכירו העדים במקצתם והוא טוען שהטמין יותר ממה שראו העדים


Explanation: The witnesses noticed he had some vessels, and the borrower claims that the lender hid more than the witnesses noticed.

והיה נראה מתוך פי' זה דאין הלכה כר' חייא דאמר בריש ב"מ (ד' ג.) מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידים שיש לו נ' נותן לו נ' וישבע על השאר שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים מק"ו


Opinion#1: It appears from this explanation that the law does not follow Rebbi Chiya who discusses a case in Bava Metzia (3a) where a person claims a Manah (one hundred Zuz) from his friend and his friend denies owing anything. Witnesses testify that he owes fifty. He must give fifty and swear regarding the rest, as his admission should not be greater than the testimony of witnesses based on a Kal v'Chomer.

דהא הכא לא חשיב העדאת עדים כהודאת מקצת מדקאמר ר' יהודה עד שתהא שם הודאה במקצת הטענה


Opinion#1(cont.): In our Gemara we say that the testimony of witnesses is indeed not as strong as partial admission. This is apparent from Rebbi Yehudah's statement that partial admission is required to make him swear (even though witnesses testified that he took some of what is being claimed).

ור"י אומר דאינה ראיה דאיכא לאוקומי כגון שהחזיר לו כבר מה שראו העדים


Question: The Ri says that this is not a proof, as it is possible to establish that the case is where he returned whatever the witnesses saw that he took.

וממאי דאמרי' התם אם איתא לדר' חייא קמייתא אינה ראיה


Implied Question: The Gemara's statement in Bava Metzia (ibid.), "if Rebbi Chiya is correct" is not proof that we do not rule like him. (Why not? It sounds as if the Gemara is saying that he is not correct, but if he would be etc.)

דה"נ אמרי' פ' המדיר (כתובות דף ע:) אם איתא לדרב הונא דאמר יכולה אשה שתאמר כו' ואע"ג דפסיק התם בפרק בתרא (דף קז:) כוותיה


Answer: We also say in Kesuvos (70b), "If Rav Huna is correct that a woman can say etc.," and we still rule that his statement is indeed the Halachah.

וקצת היה נראה להביא ראיה דהלכה כר' חייא כדמוכח בפ"ק דב"מ (דף ה.) דר' חייא כרבנן דר"ג דפטרי טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין דמוקי תרי קראי הוא וזה חד להודה במקצת הטענה וחד להודה ממין הטענה והכי קיימא לן דפטור


Opinion#2: It seems one could somewhat prove that the law follows Rebbi Chiya from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (5a) that says that Rebbi Chiya rules like the Rabbanan of Rabban Gamliel who say that if a person claims wheat and the defendant claims barley, the defendant is exempt. The Gemara there establishes that there are two Pesukim, one teaching us that one must partially admit, and one teaching he must partially admit to the type of claim made by the claimant. We indeed rule he is exempt.

וה"ר יוסף בה"ר ברוך אומר דאינו ראיה דאפילו מאן דפטר בטענו חטין והודה בשעורין אפשר דפליג אדרבי חייא


Question: Rabeinu Yosef ben Harav Baruch says that this is not valid proof. Even the opinion that says one is exempt in such a case (claims wheat and admits barley) might argue on Rebbi Chiya.


משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן אינן בתורת הזמה ור' חייא תורת הזמה לא פריך כדאמרי' התם


Question(cont.): This is because one can ask, the case of claiming wheat etc. and partial admission both do not involve the possibility of the defendant becoming a Zomem (as opposed to witnesses creating the partial admission where they can become Zomimim). Rebbi Chiya clearly does not learn that this is a question, as stated in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (3b).

וכן צריך לומר לר' יוחנן דפליג אדר' חייא בירושלמי דפרק קמא דבבא מציעא אע"ג דפטר בטענו חטין והודה בשעורים לעיל וע"כ צריך לומר דפריך תורת הזמה


Proof: This also must be stated according to Rebbi Yochanan, who argues on Rebbi Chiya in the first chapter of Bava Metzia in the Yerushalmi, despite the fact that he says one is exempt if someone claims wheat from him and he only admits to owing barley. One must say that Rebbi Yochanan asks the question regarding Zomimim as well (and therefore argues on Rebbi Chiya's law).

בקונטרס גרסי' ולא אמרן אלא בדברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר פי' הא דאינו נאמן


Text#1: Rashi has the text that we only say this regarding things that are normally lent and rented. Rashi explains that this means that in cases where he is not believed, he is (also) not believed regarding such items. (The Tosfos Ha'Rosh explains that this is in a case where all of the previous reasons that he would be believed cited in the Gemara earlier did not apply.)

וקשיא לרבינו תם דקאמר בסמוך דרבא אפיק זוגא דסרבלא וספרא דאגדתא מיתמי בדברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר משמע דמההוא טעמא לחוד מפיק וכן בפרק המקבל (ב"מ דף קטז. ושם) לא מדכר אלא ההוא טעמא לחוד


Question: Rabeinu Tam finds this explanation to be difficult. The Gemara later says that Rava took a scissors used by those who comb clothes and a book of Aggadah from orphans (whose father had taken these things from someone else), as they are things that are normally lent and rented. This implies that for this reason alone he took them away. In Bava Metzia (116a) as well, only this reason is mentioned. (In other words, these Gemaros imply that this reason alone is enough not to believe him, even if the previous exceptions in the Gemara did apply!)

ונראה לר"ת כגר"ח ושערים דרב האי דגרסי ובכולהו לא אמרן אלא בדברים שאין עשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר אבל דברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר אינו נאמן


Text#2: Rabeinu Tam understands that the text of Rabeinu Chananel and the She'arim of Rav Hai Gaon is correct. Their text is that all of these things (the above exceptions mentioned in the Gemara where he is believed, as explained below) are only regarding things that are not normally lent and rented. However, regarding things that are normally lent or rented, he is (never) believed.

וה"פ ובכולהו לא אמרן דנאמן לומר לקוחין הן בידי אלא בדברים שאין עשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר וכגון דהוי איניש דצניע או דברים שדרכן להטמין או בעה"ב העשוי למכור את כליו אבל דברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר אינו נאמן אפי' איכא כולהו לטיבותא ואפי' אומר בעה"ב גנובין הן


Text#2(cont): This is what this means. Regarding all of these cases he is only believed to say that he bought these items if they are things that are not normally lent or rented. For example, if he is a modest person or they are items that are normally hidden or the owner was someone who normally sells his items. However, regarding things that are made to lend or rent out he is not believed, even if all of these things are in his favor. This is even if the owner says they are stolen.

דהא גודרות אין להם חזקה אפילו זה אומר גנובין דדברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר נינהו וכשאומר לקוחין הן בידי לית דין ולית דיין דלא מהימן


Text#2(cont.): Little animals (i.e. goats) do not have a Chazakah, even if a person claims that they were stolen from him. This is because they are things that are made to lend and rent. When he says that he bought them it is obvious that he is not believed.

ור"ח עצמו פי' כפירוש הקונטרס


Opinion: Rabeinu Chananel himself explains as does Rashi.

ואין נראה דסוגיא לא מוכח הכי כדפי'


Question#1: This does not appear to be correct. The Gemara does not seem to say this.

ועוד דגר"ח גופיה מוכח דאין לפרש כן מדשינה הכא לומר ובכולהו לא אמרן משמע דלא איירי כשיטה דלעיל דקיימת אאינו נאמן


Question#2: Additionally, Rabeinu Chananel himself shows that this is not the correct explanation, from the fact that he changed here to say, "And regarding all of these (exceptions) we only say this etc." This implies that he does not hold as he did previously, that this is a case where he otherwise would not be believed.



תוספות ד"ה וספרא דאגדתא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this certainly applies to other Sefarim.)

נראה דכ"ש שאר ספרים שדרך להשאילן יותר כדאמרי' בפרק נערה בכתובות (דף נ.) וצדקתו עומדת לעד זה הכותב ספרים ומשאילן לאחרים


Opinion: It appears that this is certainly true regarding other Sefarim that it is normal to lend. This is as stated in Kesuvos (50a), "And his righteousness will stand forever," refers to someone who writes Sefarim and lends them to others.

ותימה כיון דספרים עשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר הא דתנן בהגוזל בתרא (ב"ק דף קיד:) המכיר כליו וספריו ביד אחר ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול ופריך בגמ' ודלמא איהו אפקיה לקלא ומסיק כגון שלנו בני אדם בביתו ועמד והפגין בלילה וכגון שהיתה מחתרת חתורה ובני אדם שלנו יצאו והכל אומרים נגנבו כליו וספריו של פלוני


Question: Being that Sefarim are made to lend and rent, this is difficult. The Mishnah says in Bava Kama (114b) that if someone recognizes that his vessels and Sefarim are in someone else's possession (and that person claims he bought them), the person who bought them should swear how much he had to pay for them, and the claimant takes them after reimbursing the buyer. (This is only if there was a rumor that his things had been stolen.) The Gemara asks, perhaps he (the claimant) himself spread the rumor! The Gemara concludes the case is where people slept in his house. He woke up in the middle of the night, and there was a hole dug into his house, and the people who slept by him had disappeared. Everyone was saying how his vessels and books had been stolen.

ואמאי בעי כולי האי ניהמני' במגו דאי בעי אמר שאולין הם בידי דאין האחד נאמן לומר לקוחין הן בידי כיון דעשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר בההוא טעמא לחוד כדפי' לעיל


Question(cont.): Why does the Gemara need to say that so much happened? We should merely believe him (the claimant) with a Migu that he could say they were lent to me! The other person is not believed to say that he bought them, being that they are normally lent and rented. This reason alone is enough to make him unbelievable, as I explained earlier (in the previous Tosfos).

וליכא למימר התם טעמא דאחזוקי אינשי בגנבי לא מחזקינן כדאמרי' הכא דהתם לא קאמר שהוא גנבם אלא אומר שהגנבים גנבום וכמה גנבים איכא בעלמא


Question(cont.): One cannot say in the Gemara in Kesuvos (ibid.) that the reason that is because we do not maintain that people have the status of thieves, as stated there. This is because the Gemara there does not say that the defendant stole them, but rather that thieves stole them (and he bought the item from them, not realizing it was stolen). There are many thieves in the world!

אר"ת דהתם איירי באדם שאינו רגיל עמו דאנן סהדי שלא השאיל לו ורבא דאפיק הכא היה יודע שבעל הספר היה דרכו להשאיל לאביהם בחייו


Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam says that the Gemara in Kesuvos is referring to a person who he does not normally deal with. It is clear that he did not lend him anything. In our Gemara, Rava who took the Sefarim away, knew that the owner of the Sefer would normally lend the orphan's father different things when he was alive.

ומורי ה"ר דודי תירץ דהתם הוי מגו להוציא דלא אמרי' [וע"ע תוס' ב"מ קטז. ד"ה והא]


Answer#2: Rabeinu David explains that this would be a Migu that would cause us to take money away. We do not say such Migus. [See Tosfos in Bava Metzia 116a, DH "v'Ha."]



תוספות ד"ה ואפי' שבועת שוא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when a person who swears falsely cannot testify.)

הק' ר"ת דבפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כז. ושם) אמרינן עבריין אוכל נבילות להכעיס אביי אמר פסול ורבא אמר כשר רשע דחמס בעינן ופריך מדתניא אל תשת רשע עד אלו הגזלנים ומועלין בשבועה מאי לאו אחת שבועת שוא ואחת שבועת ממון אלמא לא בעינן רשע דחמס לא אידי ואידי שבועת ממון והשתא אמאי לא פריך ממתני' דפסל בהדיא נשבע לשוא לשבועה ולא פליג שום תנא וה"ה דיפסל לעדות


Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that the Gemara in Sanhedrin (27a) discusses a sinner who eats Neveilos in order to anger Hash-m. Abaye says that he is invalid for testimony, while Rava says that he is valid, as to be invalid one must be an evildoer because he steals money. The Gemara asks a question from the Beraisa that states, "Do not put an evildoer as a witness" refers to thieves and those who lie when taking an oath. This implies that anyone who lies when taking an oath, whether it is merely lying about something that happened or monetary matters, is invalid. This implies that one does not require being a monetary evildoer to be invalid! The Gemara answers that this is incorrect. Both are referring to monetary oaths. Why doesn't the Gemara there ask a question from our Mishnah, which explicitly disqualifies a person who swears falsely from being able to take an oath? Nobody argues on our Mishnah! It would seem that the same law would apply regarding him being unfit to testify.

וי"ל דהתם גבי עדות מכשרינן נשבע לשוא כיון דלא הוי רשע דחמס אבל הכא שהוא כבר רע לבריות אם הוא משקר וכופר ממון וכבר משנשבע לשוא הוי רע לשמים הלכך הוי פסול לשבועה


Answer: We say there that a person who swore falsely may testify, being that he is not a monetary evildoer. However, here where he is already evil to others if he is someone who lies and denies owing money, when he swears falsely he is considered evil towards Heaven (as well). This is why he cannot take an oath.



תוספות ד"ה אבל שבועת בטוי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not a person who does not keep oaths regarding what he will do in the future may take an oath.)

מכאן רצו לדקדק דמי שעבר על החרם לא יפסל לשבועה כיון דבשעת קבלת חרם איכא למימר בקושטא משתבע


Opinion#1: Some want to explain, based on our Gemara, that anyone who transgresses a Cheirem should not be considered unfit to swear, being that when he accepted the Cheirem it could be that he swore truly (he just did not end up keeping it).

ואר"ת דפסול הוא והכא לא קאמר אלא דלא קתני פי' דלא קמיירי במידי דבקושטא משתבע


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam says that he is invalid. Our Gemara only says that "it is not said," meaning that it is not talking about an oath he took sincerely (the fact that it did not mention this does not mean he may still take oaths).

וראיה מפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פה. ושם) דאמרי' ההיא איתתא דאיחייבא שבועה בבי דינא דרבא אמרה ליה בת רב חסדא ידענא בה בההיא איתתא דחשידא אשבועה


Proof: Proof to this can be found in Kesuvos (85a). The Gemara says there that there was a woman who was obligated to swear in Rava's Beis Din. The daughter of Rav Chisda (Rava's wife) said to Rava, "I know that this lady is suspected of lying under oath." (She must have been talking about transgressing oaths she made. Rava indeed did not let this woman swear, showing this alone makes one unfit to take oaths.)

ובה"ג גרס ידענא בה בההיא איתתא דמפקא שם שמים לבטלה ופירושו שנשבעת ואינה מקיימת כגון שלא תאכל ואוכלת ואפכה רבא אשכנגדה אע"ג דאיכא למימר בקושטא משתבע חשיב ליה חשודה


Proof (cont.): The Bahag's text is that Rava's wife said, "I know that this woman says the name of Hash-m for no reason." This means that she swears and does not keep her oaths. For example, she swears she will not eat and she ends up eating. Rava made the other person swear. Even though one can say that she meant to keep these oaths when she swore, she is still suspected to lie.