Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
Shevuot 42b discusses the law of מודה במקצת – a defendant who admits to part of the plaintiff’s claim who must take an oath in order to avoid paying the rest of the claim. What is the logic behind this, especially given the supposed honesty of the defendant? Shouldn’t we be more lenient towards the defendant because of their honesty? What does this teach us about partial admissions – the trust they build and the suspicion they arouse?
Shevuot 42 – מודה במקצת הטענה ישבע
Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
- שבועות מב:
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע? חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְהַאי – בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּלִיכְפְּרֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵינוֹ מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ;
As Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who did him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact, i.e., that he does not deny all of it, is because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor.
וּבְכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּלָא אוֹדִי לֵיהּ – אִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּמִיט מִינֵּיהּ, סָבַר: עַד דְּהָוֵי לִי זוּזֵי וּפָרַעְנָא לֵיהּ; וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר רְמִי שְׁבוּעָה עִילָּוֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.
And he wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt; and this fact, i.e., that he did not admit the entire debt to him, is because he may be temporarily avoiding paying him. He rationalizes doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only until the time that I have enough money, and then I will repay him. And therefore, the Merciful One says in the Torah: Impose an oath on him in order to induce the debtor to admit the entire debt to him.
- בבא מציעא ג.-ג:
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז – נוֹתֵן לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְּׁאָר.
- Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars [maneh] in your possession that you borrowed from me and did not repay, and the other party says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars that he owes the claimant, he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder, i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him.
שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָאַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
This ruling is derived via an a fortiori inference from the halakha that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: As the admission of one’s own mouth should not carry greater weight than the testimony of witnesses. Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.
וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּ׳. וְהָא הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּתָפֵיס, אֲנַן סָהֲדִי דְּמַאי דְּתָפֵיס הַאי דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, וּמַאי דְּתָפֵיס הַאי דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי: יִשָּׁבַע!
The Gemara comments: And the tanna of the mishna also taught a similar halakha: In a case of two people who came to court holding a garment, where this one says: I found it, and the other one says: I found it, each litigant takes an oath and they divide the garment. And here, in the case of a found item, since each litigant is holding part of the garment, it is clear to us that what is in this one’s grasp is his, and what is in that one’s grasp is his. This is tantamount to witnesses testifying that part of the claim of each litigant is legitimate. And the mishna teaches that each of them takes an oath.
מַאי ״שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָאַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר״? שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר הוֹדָאַת פִּיו הוּא דְּרַמְיָא רַחֲמָנָא שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבָּה.
The Gemara clarifies: For what reason is it necessary to have the a fortiori inference: As the admission of one’s own mouth should not carry greater weight than the testimony of witnesses? Isn’t the comparison to the case of an admission to part of a claim self-evident? The Gemara answers: It is necessary so that you will not say that it is only in a case of the admission of one’s own mouth that the Merciful One imposes an oath upon him, in accordance with the explanation of Rabba.
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע? חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ, וְהַאי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּנִכְפְּרֵיהּ, וְהָא דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו
As Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who had done him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact that he does not deny all of it is because a person does not exhibit insolence.
ג׳ ב
וְהַאי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ. וְהַאי דְּלָא אוֹדִי – אִשְׁתְּמוֹטֵי הוּא דְּקָא מִישְׁתְּמֵט מִינֵּיהּ, סָבַר: עַד דְּהָווּ לִי זוּזִי וּפָרַעְנָא לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: רְמִי שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ,
And in order not to exhibit insolence, this person wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt, and this fact that he denies owing him in part is because he reasons: If I admit to him with regard to all of the debt, he will lodge a claim against me with regard to all of it, and right now I do not have the money to pay. He was evading his creditor, and thought: I will continue doing so until I have money, and then I will pay him all of it. This rationalization enables one to falsely deny part of a claim. And therefore, the Merciful One states: Impose an oath on him, in order to ensure that he will admit to him with regard to all of the debt.
- רמב”ם הלכות גזלה ואבדה פרק ד הלכה טז
אמר החוטף עשרים חטפתי ועשרים שלי הן והנגזל אומר מאה חטף הואיל ואין העד יודע מניינן הרי משלם העשרים שהודה בהן שחטפן ונשבע שבועת התורה על השאר שהרי נתחייב במקצת, ודעתי נוטה בזה שישבע הסת שהרי לא הודה בכלום אלא אמר שלי חטפתי.
There are opinions that maintain that the following rule applies when, in the above situation, the person who took the coins said: “I seized twenty gold coins; they were mine,” while the person who was robbed says, “He took 100.” The defendant must pay the twenty he admitted to having taken, and take an oath required by Scriptural Law with regard to the remainder, for he was obligated for a portion of the plaintiff’s claim. My opinion is that he is required merely to take a Rabbinic oath, for he did not admit any liability. Instead, he said that he took what belonged to him.
- ירושלמי בבא קמא א:א, ז עמוד ד’
תַּנֵּי. אָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תֵּן לִי מְנָה שֶׁאַתָּה חַייָב לִי. אָמַר לוֹ. לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחַייָב לוֹ נ̇ זוּז. רִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָה אָמַר. הוֹדָייַת עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָייַת פִּיו וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין הוֹדָייַת עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָייַת פִּיו שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר.
It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear.
- רב ישראל גוסטמן הקונטרסי שיעורים בבא מציעא בשיעור על מודה במקצת והעדאת עדים
ואשר מוכרח מזה לומר דזו הלכה מיוחדת בעדים דמה שהעדים מעידין נחשב כאילו הבע”ד עצמו יודע והודה אעפ”י שבאמת הוא מכחישן
And what must be said from this is that there is a special rule regarding witnesses, such that the witnesses are considered as if the defendant knew and admitted, even though in reality the defendant denies what the witnesses declare.
- תוספות ב”מ ג. ד”ה מפני
פי’ יהא נאמן במגו דאי בעי כופר הכל או נילף מהכא דלא נימא מגו בעלמא ומשני דאין זה מגו דאין אדם מעיז פניו לכפור הכל הואיל וחבירו מכיר בשקרו אבל במקום שיכול להעיז כגון בבנו ואמר מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס נאמן במגו דאי בעי כפר הכל כדאיתא פ”ב דכתובות (דף יח. ושם) ובפרק שבועת הדיינים (שבועות דף מב.)…
Meaning that a person should be believed because the defendant could have denied owing anything! Or perhaps we should learn from here that migo is illegitimate in general! And he answers that this is not a case of migo because a person would never be so brazen as to deny everything in front of their creditor because their creditor knows they’re lying..But in a case in which the defendant would be willing to deny it all, as in the case of the plaintiff being the creditor’s child, and the defendant states: Your father had 100 zuz in my possession, but I gave him half of it already, the defendant is believed because (migo) the defendant could have denied everything – as brought in the second chapter of Ketubot (18a) and in the chapter called “The oaths of the judges (Shevuot 42a.).
- ר”י מיגאש שבועות מה:
לא אמרינן מיגו לאיפטורי משבועה דהא שומרין דאיכא למימר מיגו לא מיפטר נפשיה משבועה ושבועת מודה במקצת נמי הא קא חזינן דאיכא למימר מיגו ואפי’ הכי חייב ביה רחמנא שבועה הילכך כי אמרינן מיגו לאיפטורי מממון אבל משבועה לא
We do not say that migo absolves a person from an oath, for in the case of shomrim where we could utilize migo, the shomer/et does not absolve themselves from taking an oath. And the oath of modeh/ah be-miktzat is likewise we see that one could have employed migo, and yet the Torah still requires the defendant to take an oath. Therefore, when we use migo, we mean it to exempt the defendant from payment but not from taking an oath.
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
