Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2016 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 4

The gemara concludes that the kal va’chomerย from which Rabbi Chiya derived that two witnesses who testify to half a claim can obligate the defendant to swear about the rest t was referring to was learned out jointly (by a b’meh hatzad from both one who admits to part of a claim modeh bemiktzat and from one witness who both need to swear. ย The gemara questions the proof for this halacha that Rabbi Chiya brought from our mishna and concludes that our mishna was brought for proof for a different halacha – one where one admits to half a claim and then says heilach. ย Rabbi Chiya hold that in that case one is still obligated to swear and that halacha can be proven from our mishna. ย An opposing opinion is brought by Rav Sheshet. ย Then the gemara brings a braita to first disprove Rabbi Chiya but reconciles it. ย Then brings the same braita to prove Rabbi Chiya (or question Rav Sheshet) but rejects it. ย Then brings another question on Rav Sheshet;s opinion from a mishna but also rejects it.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข

Would you say the same with regard to two witnesses, in which case the defendant takes an oath with regard to the claim that he denies, and not with regard to the debt about which they testify?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืชื™ ืžื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s a fortiori inference is derived from the extension of an oath that the testimony of one witness obligates him to take. Once a defendant is obligated to take an oath, the plaintiff can demand that he take an oath with regard to other claims that he has against him as well.

ืžื” ืœื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื’ื•ืจืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ืžืžื•ืŸ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the extension of an oath that is obligated by the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that one oath leads to another oath. The obligation to take the second oath is not caused directly by the witness. Would you say the same in the case of witnesses, whose testimony renders the defendant liable to pay money? Incurring liability to pay one part of the claim does not extend further and incur liability to pay the rest.

ืคื™ื• ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืžื” ืœืคื™ื• ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื•ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

The Gemara responds: The admission of oneโ€™s mouth can prove that an element other than an oath can cause the defendant to be obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the claim. Although the a fortiori inference from admission alone was already rejected, due to the claim of: What is notable about the admission of oneโ€™s mouth, it is notable in that it is not subject to contradiction; the testimony of one witness can prove that even testimony that is subject to contradiction renders one liable to take an oath.

ืžื” ืœืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉืžืขื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืคื™ื• ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The a fortiori inference from the testimony of one witness was also rejected, as what is notable about the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that the defendant takes an oath with regard to the matter concerning that which he testifies. Would you say the same with regard to two witnesses, in which case the defendant takes an oath with regard to the claim that he denies? Admission to part of a claim by oneโ€™s mouth can prove this difference irrelevant, as a defendant can be required to take an oath even with regard to a claim that he denies.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื”ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. At this point, the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, admission, is not like the aspect of that case, the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common denominator is that these cases come before the court with a claim and its denial, and the defendant is obligated to take an oath. I will also include in the obligation to take an oath the case of Rabbi แธคiyya, where there is testimony of two witnesses about part of the debt, which comes before the court with a claim and its denial. And therefore the defendant is obligated to take an oath. This is the inference to which Rabbi แธคiyya was referring.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common denominator, i.e., the common denominator shared by admission to part of a claim by the defendant and the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that the defendant does not assume the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts. He has not been proven to be lying, so he is trusted to take an oath. Would you say the same with regard to the case of two witnesses who contradict the defendantโ€™s denial of the plaintiffโ€™s claim, where the defendant assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts? In this case, he is no longer deemed trustworthy and his oath may not be credible.

ื•ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื•ืคืจ ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืงื“ื•ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื“ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But in a case where his denial is contradicted by two witnesses, does he assume the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts? But doesnโ€™t Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav แธคisda says: One who denies a claim that he received a loan and is contradicted by witnesses is fit to bear witness in a different case. He does not assume the status of a confirmed liar, as perhaps he intended to return the money afterward and denied the claim only in order to buy time until he acquired the necessary funds to repay the loan. By contrast, if one denies receiving a deposit and witnesses testify that he is lying, he is disqualified from bearing witness in other cases, as in that case he has no reason to buy time and is clearly a robber. Therefore, Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s a fortiori inference stands.

ืืœื ืคืจื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื”

Rather, refute the inference like this: What is notable about their common denominator, i.e., the common denominator shared by admission to part of a claim by the defendant and the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that these cases are not subject to the halakhot of conspiring witnesses. Even if witnesses testify that the single witness lied, he is not required to pay the defendant the sum that he sought to require him to pay, which is the punishment exacted upon conspiring witnesses. Would you say the same halakhot with regard to two witnesses, who are subject to the halakhot of conspiring witnesses?

ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื” ืœื ืคืจื™ืš

The Gemara rejects this: This is not difficult, as Rabbi แธคiyya does not refute this inference based on the punishment accompanying the halakhot of conspiring witnesses. In other words, Rabbi แธคiyya does not accept this refutation, as while this halakha does not apply at all to the admission of a defendant, it does apply to the testimony of a single witness in that if two witnesses testify that the single witness is a conspiring witness, his testimony is rendered void.

ืืœื ื“ืงืืžืจ ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืœืžืœื•ื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืœื•ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืœื•ื” ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืืฉืชื‘ื•ืขื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืขื™

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which was stated (3a): And the tanna of the mishna also taught a similar halakha to that of Rabbi แธคiyya, there is a difficulty. Is the case of the mishna comparable to the halakha of Rabbi แธคiyya? There, in the case of witnesses to a loan, the creditor has witnesses to support his claim that there was a loan while the debtor does not have witnesses to support his claim that he does not owe the creditor anything. As, if the debtor had witnesses to support his claim that he does not owe the creditor anything, Rabbi แธคiyya would not require him to take an oath. By contrast, here, in the case of the mishna, just as it is clear to us that this claimant has a right to the garment, as he is holding it, so too, is it clear to us that that other claimant has a right to the garment, as he is also holding it. Yet nevertheless, in the mishna each party is required to take an oath.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืืื™ื“ืš ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืืœื ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rather, when the phrase was stated: And the tanna of the mishna also taught a similar halakha, it was stated with regard to another statement of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rabbi แธคiyya says: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says in response: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, and here you are, handing him the money, he is obligated to take an oath that he does not owe the remainder.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื™ืœืš ื ืžื™ ื›ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื“ืžื™

What is the reason? One who says: Here you are, while immediately giving the money, is also considered like one who admits to part of the claim. It cannot be reasoned that by immediately handing over the amount to which he admits, the defendant thereby reduces the claim by the fifty dinars that he denies owing, and he is consequently exempt from taking an oath like any defendant who denies the claim entirely.

ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื™ืช

Concerning this ruling of Rabbi แธคiyya, the Gemara comments: And the tanna of the mishna taught a similar halakha, citing the mishna beginning: If two people came to court holding a garment.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชืคื™ืก ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืžืื™ ื“ืชืคื™ืก ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ืข

The Gemara explains the comparison: And here, in the mishna, since each one grasps half the garment, it is clear to us that what one grasps is in his possession, just as if the other one had said to him: Here you are, I am giving it to you. And the mishna teaches that he takes an oath. Evidently, in a case where one denies part of a claim that is brought against him, and with regard to the rest of the claim he says to the claimant: Here you are, he is obligated to take an oath.

ื•ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืื™ื ืš ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื”ื ืœื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื”ืœื›ืš ืœื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื“ืืช ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื”

And Rav Sheshet says: One who says about part of the claim: Here you are, and denies the rest of the claim, is exempt from taking an oath about the rest. What is the reason? Since he said to him: Here you are, those dinars that he admitted to owing are considered as if the creditor has them in his possession already, and with regard to the other fifty dinars, the defendant did not admit to owing them. Therefore, there is no admission to part of the claim.

ื•ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืงืฉื™ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืชืงื ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, the mishna is difficult, as it seems to be a comparable case and yet an oath is required. The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet could have said to you: The oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance, which pertains specifically to that case. In general, a debtor who immediately hands over the money that he admits to owing is exempt from taking an oath.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืชืงื ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืชืงื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืชืงื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืœื™ืชื ื“ื›ื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื

And how would the other amora, Rabbi แธคiyya, respond to this assertion? Indeed, he would agree that it is a rabbinic ordinance. However, granted, if you say that by Torah law one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath, that explains why the Sages instituted the oath mentioned in the mishna, as it is similar to an oath administered by Torah law. But if you say that by Torah law one who says: Here you are, is exempt from taking an oath, would the Sages institute an oath that has no corresponding oath in Torah law? Clearly, there is a basis for the oath instituted by the Sages in Torah law, and that basis is the case where the defendant says: Here you are.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya from a baraita:

ืกืœืขื™ื ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืœื•ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ

If it is written in a promissory note that one borrowed an unspecified amount of selaโ€™im, or that one borrowed an unspecified amount of dinars, and the creditor says: I lent you five sela, and the debtor says: You lent me only three, in this case Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath. Rabbi Akiva says: Since the wording of the note indicates only that he owes two dinars, the minimum plural amount, by admitting that he owes three he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is exempt from taking an oath.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื ืฉืชื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ืงืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

In any event, the baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath. This indicates that the reason that he is obligated to take an oath is specifically because he said that he owes three dinars, but had he admitted to owing only two, he would have been exempt from taking an oath. And concerning the minimal obligation recorded in this promissory note, to which he admits, which is two dinars, it is as though he said: Here you are. An obligation recorded in a promissory note is tantamount to an obligation concerning which the defendant says: Here you are. And therefore, conclude from it that one who says: Here you are, is exempt from taking an oath with regard to the part of the claim he denies.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually I will say to you that even if he admitted that he owes two dinars he is obligated to take an oath, and the reason that the baraita teaches the dispute specifically with regard to the case of three dinars is not to exclude a case where he admits that he owes only two, but rather it is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that he is the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is therefore exempt. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches us that he is considered like one who admits to part of the claim, and he is obligated to take an oath.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the baraita should have been phrased differently. If the defendant is obligated to take an oath even in a case where he admits that he owes two dinars, rather than stating that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath, the baraita should have stated: Even this one, who admits to owing three dinars, takes an oath, in addition to one who admits to owing two dinars.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืฉืชื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืงื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื

Rather, that explanation should be rejected. Actually, if he admits that he owes two dinars, he is exempt from taking an oath, but nevertheless, one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath. And the reason for this distinction is that here, the case is different, as the note supports him, i.e., it indicates that he owes two dinars. Therefore, he is exempt from taking an oath with regard to the rest.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืคื™ืจืช ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

Alternatively, if he admits to owing two dinars he is exempt for a different reason: Because a promissory note creates a lien on the debtorโ€™s land, and there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a debtorโ€™s denial of a debt that is secured with a lien on land. Oaths are administered only when one denies owing money or movable property.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื”ื™ืœืš ื“ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

There are those who raise an objection to Rav Sheshetโ€™s opinion from the latter clause of this baraita, which teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: He is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item and is exempt from taking an oath. The Gemara infers: The reason he is exempt is that he said that he owes three dinars. But had he admitted to owing only two, he would have been obligated to take an oath. And concerning the minimal obligation recorded in this promissory note, to which he admits, which is two dinars, it is as though he said: Here you are. Learn from it that one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually I will say to you that if he admits that he owes two dinars he is also exempt from taking an oath, and the reason that the baraita teaches the dispute specifically with regard to the case of three dinars is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that he is considered one who admits to part of the claim and he is obligated to take an oath. Rabbi Akiva, therefore, teaches us that in his opinion, the defendant is the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is exempt from taking an oath.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืคื˜ืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืืขืจื•ืžื™ ืงื ืžืขืจื™ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืืฉืชื‘ื•ืขื™ ืื™ืžื ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืื”ื•ื™ ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืคื˜ืจ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืชื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita as just explained, as, if it enters your mind that one who admits that he owes two dinars is obligated to take an oath, how does Rabbi Akiva deem him exempt in a case where he admits that he owes three dinars? Perhaps this debtor is employing artifice, thinking: If I say that I owe two, I will be required to take an oath. Therefore, I will say that I owe three so that I will be considered equivalent to one returning a lost item and will be exempt from taking an oath. Rather, learn from it that even if he admits that he owes only two dinars, he is also exempt from taking an oath.

ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืคื™ืจืช ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But this explanation poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya, that a defendant is obligated to take an oath in a case where he says: Here you are. In other words, Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s opinion is negated by the case of one who admits that he owes only two dinars, where he is exempt from taking an oath. The Gemara answers: The case there is different, as the note supports him. Therefore, he is not required to take an oath. Alternatively, he is exempt because a promissory note creates a lien on the debtorโ€™s land, and there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a debtorโ€™s denial of a debt that is secured with a lien on land.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืคืจ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ื›ืคืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืœื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naแธฅman, raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Sheshet from a mishna (Shevuot 38b): If one claimed that another owed him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied that he owes him land, or conversely, if he admitted to owing him land but denied that he owes him vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath with regard to what he denies. If he admitted that he owes him part of the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to owing some of the vessels, he is obligated to take an oath with regard to the remainder.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื“ืงืจืงืข ืœืื• ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara infers: The reason he is exempt in the first cases is because the claim is for vessels and land, as a claim with regard to land is not subject to an oath. But if the claim is for vessels and vessels, i.e., two sets of vessels, in a manner similar to the case of a claim for vessels and land, he is obligated to take an oath. What are the circumstances of such a case? Is it not a case where he said to him: Here you are? And learn from the mishna that one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืœื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

The Gemara answers: No, actually I will say to you that if the claim is for vessels and vessels he is also exempt. And the fact that the mishna teaches the case of vessels and land teaches us this different halakha: If he admitted that he owes some of the vessels, and is therefore obligated to take an oath, he is also obligated to take an oath with regard to the land that he denied owing his creditor, although in and of itself one does not take an oath with regard to land.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœื™ื”ื

The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? Is this teaching the halakha of binding? According to this halakha, one who is obligated to take an oath in response to a claim can be required to take an oath with regard to an additional claim of land. This cannot be, as we already learned this halakha in a mishna in tractate Kiddushin (26a): When there is a claim brought against a person for movable property and land, and he is obligated to take an oath with regard to the property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., the movable property, it binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that he is forced to take an oath with regard to it too. Why is this halakha repeated in tractate Shevuot?

ื”ื›ื ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ืชื ืื’ื‘ ื’ืจืจื ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara answers: The mishna here, in Shevuot, is the main reference to this halakha, as it discusses the halakhot of oaths, whereas the mishna there, in tractate Kiddushin, cites it incidentally, in the context of a broader survey of the difference between these two types of property.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 4

ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข

Would you say the same with regard to two witnesses, in which case the defendant takes an oath with regard to the claim that he denies, and not with regard to the debt about which they testify?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืชื™ ืžื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“

Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s a fortiori inference is derived from the extension of an oath that the testimony of one witness obligates him to take. Once a defendant is obligated to take an oath, the plaintiff can demand that he take an oath with regard to other claims that he has against him as well.

ืžื” ืœื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื’ื•ืจืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ื“ืžืžื•ืŸ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about the extension of an oath that is obligated by the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that one oath leads to another oath. The obligation to take the second oath is not caused directly by the witness. Would you say the same in the case of witnesses, whose testimony renders the defendant liable to pay money? Incurring liability to pay one part of the claim does not extend further and incur liability to pay the rest.

ืคื™ื• ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืžื” ืœืคื™ื• ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื•ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

The Gemara responds: The admission of oneโ€™s mouth can prove that an element other than an oath can cause the defendant to be obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the claim. Although the a fortiori inference from admission alone was already rejected, due to the claim of: What is notable about the admission of oneโ€™s mouth, it is notable in that it is not subject to contradiction; the testimony of one witness can prove that even testimony that is subject to contradiction renders one liable to take an oath.

ืžื” ืœืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉืžืขื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉื‘ืข ืคื™ื• ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

The a fortiori inference from the testimony of one witness was also rejected, as what is notable about the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that the defendant takes an oath with regard to the matter concerning that which he testifies. Would you say the same with regard to two witnesses, in which case the defendant takes an oath with regard to the claim that he denies? Admission to part of a claim by oneโ€™s mouth can prove this difference irrelevant, as a defendant can be required to take an oath even with regard to a claim that he denies.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื”ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื”ื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. At this point, the halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, admission, is not like the aspect of that case, the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common denominator is that these cases come before the court with a claim and its denial, and the defendant is obligated to take an oath. I will also include in the obligation to take an oath the case of Rabbi แธคiyya, where there is testimony of two witnesses about part of the debt, which comes before the court with a claim and its denial. And therefore the defendant is obligated to take an oath. This is the inference to which Rabbi แธคiyya was referring.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common denominator, i.e., the common denominator shared by admission to part of a claim by the defendant and the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that the defendant does not assume the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts. He has not been proven to be lying, so he is trusted to take an oath. Would you say the same with regard to the case of two witnesses who contradict the defendantโ€™s denial of the plaintiffโ€™s claim, where the defendant assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts? In this case, he is no longer deemed trustworthy and his oath may not be credible.

ื•ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ื—ื–ืง ื›ืคืจืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื•ืคืจ ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ื‘ืคื™ืงื“ื•ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื“ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But in a case where his denial is contradicted by two witnesses, does he assume the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts? But doesnโ€™t Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav แธคisda says: One who denies a claim that he received a loan and is contradicted by witnesses is fit to bear witness in a different case. He does not assume the status of a confirmed liar, as perhaps he intended to return the money afterward and denied the claim only in order to buy time until he acquired the necessary funds to repay the loan. By contrast, if one denies receiving a deposit and witnesses testify that he is lying, he is disqualified from bearing witness in other cases, as in that case he has no reason to buy time and is clearly a robber. Therefore, Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s a fortiori inference stands.

ืืœื ืคืจื™ืš ื”ื›ื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื”

Rather, refute the inference like this: What is notable about their common denominator, i.e., the common denominator shared by admission to part of a claim by the defendant and the extension of an oath resulting from the testimony of one witness? It is notable in that these cases are not subject to the halakhot of conspiring witnesses. Even if witnesses testify that the single witness lied, he is not required to pay the defendant the sum that he sought to require him to pay, which is the punishment exacted upon conspiring witnesses. Would you say the same halakhot with regard to two witnesses, who are subject to the halakhot of conspiring witnesses?

ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื–ืžื” ืœื ืคืจื™ืš

The Gemara rejects this: This is not difficult, as Rabbi แธคiyya does not refute this inference based on the punishment accompanying the halakhot of conspiring witnesses. In other words, Rabbi แธคiyya does not accept this refutation, as while this halakha does not apply at all to the admission of a defendant, it does apply to the testimony of a single witness in that if two witnesses testify that the single witness is a conspiring witness, his testimony is rendered void.

ืืœื ื“ืงืืžืจ ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืœืžืœื•ื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืœื•ื” ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื™ื” ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืœื•ื” ื“ืœื ืžืกื™ืง ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืืฉืชื‘ื•ืขื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืขื™

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which was stated (3a): And the tanna of the mishna also taught a similar halakha to that of Rabbi แธคiyya, there is a difficulty. Is the case of the mishna comparable to the halakha of Rabbi แธคiyya? There, in the case of witnesses to a loan, the creditor has witnesses to support his claim that there was a loan while the debtor does not have witnesses to support his claim that he does not owe the creditor anything. As, if the debtor had witnesses to support his claim that he does not owe the creditor anything, Rabbi แธคiyya would not require him to take an oath. By contrast, here, in the case of the mishna, just as it is clear to us that this claimant has a right to the garment, as he is holding it, so too, is it clear to us that that other claimant has a right to the garment, as he is also holding it. Yet nevertheless, in the mishna each party is required to take an oath.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืืื™ื“ืš ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืืœื ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rather, when the phrase was stated: And the tanna of the mishna also taught a similar halakha, it was stated with regard to another statement of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rabbi แธคiyya says: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says in response: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, and here you are, handing him the money, he is obligated to take an oath that he does not owe the remainder.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื™ืœืš ื ืžื™ ื›ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื“ืžื™

What is the reason? One who says: Here you are, while immediately giving the money, is also considered like one who admits to part of the claim. It cannot be reasoned that by immediately handing over the amount to which he admits, the defendant thereby reduces the claim by the fifty dinars that he denies owing, and he is consequently exempt from taking an oath like any defendant who denies the claim entirely.

ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ื—ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœื™ืช

Concerning this ruling of Rabbi แธคiyya, the Gemara comments: And the tanna of the mishna taught a similar halakha, citing the mishna beginning: If two people came to court holding a garment.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชืคื™ืก ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืžืื™ ื“ืชืคื™ืก ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ืข

The Gemara explains the comparison: And here, in the mishna, since each one grasps half the garment, it is clear to us that what one grasps is in his possession, just as if the other one had said to him: Here you are, I am giving it to you. And the mishna teaches that he takes an oath. Evidently, in a case where one denies part of a claim that is brought against him, and with regard to the rest of the claim he says to the claimant: Here you are, he is obligated to take an oath.

ื•ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืœื”ื• ืžืœื•ื” ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืื™ื ืš ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื”ื ืœื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื”ืœื›ืš ืœื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื“ืืช ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื”

And Rav Sheshet says: One who says about part of the claim: Here you are, and denies the rest of the claim, is exempt from taking an oath about the rest. What is the reason? Since he said to him: Here you are, those dinars that he admitted to owing are considered as if the creditor has them in his possession already, and with regard to the other fifty dinars, the defendant did not admit to owing them. Therefore, there is no admission to part of the claim.

ื•ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืงืฉื™ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืชืงื ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, the mishna is difficult, as it seems to be a comparable case and yet an oath is required. The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet could have said to you: The oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance, which pertains specifically to that case. In general, a debtor who immediately hands over the money that he admits to owing is exempt from taking an oath.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืชืงื ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืžื™ื”ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืชืงื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืชืงื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืœื™ืชื ื“ื›ื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื

And how would the other amora, Rabbi แธคiyya, respond to this assertion? Indeed, he would agree that it is a rabbinic ordinance. However, granted, if you say that by Torah law one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath, that explains why the Sages instituted the oath mentioned in the mishna, as it is similar to an oath administered by Torah law. But if you say that by Torah law one who says: Here you are, is exempt from taking an oath, would the Sages institute an oath that has no corresponding oath in Torah law? Clearly, there is a basis for the oath instituted by the Sages in Torah law, and that basis is the case where the defendant says: Here you are.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya from a baraita:

ืกืœืขื™ื ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ืžืœื•ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืœื•ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ

If it is written in a promissory note that one borrowed an unspecified amount of selaโ€™im, or that one borrowed an unspecified amount of dinars, and the creditor says: I lent you five sela, and the debtor says: You lent me only three, in this case Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath. Rabbi Akiva says: Since the wording of the note indicates only that he owes two dinars, the minimum plural amount, by admitting that he owes three he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is exempt from taking an oath.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื ืฉืชื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ืงืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

In any event, the baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath. This indicates that the reason that he is obligated to take an oath is specifically because he said that he owes three dinars, but had he admitted to owing only two, he would have been exempt from taking an oath. And concerning the minimal obligation recorded in this promissory note, to which he admits, which is two dinars, it is as though he said: Here you are. An obligation recorded in a promissory note is tantamount to an obligation concerning which the defendant says: Here you are. And therefore, conclude from it that one who says: Here you are, is exempt from taking an oath with regard to the part of the claim he denies.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually I will say to you that even if he admitted that he owes two dinars he is obligated to take an oath, and the reason that the baraita teaches the dispute specifically with regard to the case of three dinars is not to exclude a case where he admits that he owes only two, but rather it is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that he is the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is therefore exempt. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches us that he is considered like one who admits to part of the claim, and he is obligated to take an oath.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the baraita should have been phrased differently. If the defendant is obligated to take an oath even in a case where he admits that he owes two dinars, rather than stating that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath, the baraita should have stated: Even this one, who admits to owing three dinars, takes an oath, in addition to one who admits to owing two dinars.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืฉืชื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืงื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื

Rather, that explanation should be rejected. Actually, if he admits that he owes two dinars, he is exempt from taking an oath, but nevertheless, one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath. And the reason for this distinction is that here, the case is different, as the note supports him, i.e., it indicates that he owes two dinars. Therefore, he is exempt from taking an oath with regard to the rest.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืคื™ืจืช ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

Alternatively, if he admits to owing two dinars he is exempt for a different reason: Because a promissory note creates a lien on the debtorโ€™s land, and there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a debtorโ€™s denial of a debt that is secured with a lien on land. Oaths are administered only when one denies owing money or movable property.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื”ื™ืœืš ื“ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

There are those who raise an objection to Rav Sheshetโ€™s opinion from the latter clause of this baraita, which teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: He is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item and is exempt from taking an oath. The Gemara infers: The reason he is exempt is that he said that he owes three dinars. But had he admitted to owing only two, he would have been obligated to take an oath. And concerning the minimal obligation recorded in this promissory note, to which he admits, which is two dinars, it is as though he said: Here you are. Learn from it that one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ื”ื˜ืขื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually I will say to you that if he admits that he owes two dinars he is also exempt from taking an oath, and the reason that the baraita teaches the dispute specifically with regard to the case of three dinars is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that he is considered one who admits to part of the claim and he is obligated to take an oath. Rabbi Akiva, therefore, teaches us that in his opinion, the defendant is the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and he is exempt from taking an oath.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืฉืชื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืคื˜ืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืืขืจื•ืžื™ ืงื ืžืขืจื™ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืืฉืชื‘ื•ืขื™ ืื™ืžื ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืื”ื•ื™ ื›ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืคื˜ืจ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืชื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita as just explained, as, if it enters your mind that one who admits that he owes two dinars is obligated to take an oath, how does Rabbi Akiva deem him exempt in a case where he admits that he owes three dinars? Perhaps this debtor is employing artifice, thinking: If I say that I owe two, I will be required to take an oath. Therefore, I will say that I owe three so that I will be considered equivalent to one returning a lost item and will be exempt from taking an oath. Rather, learn from it that even if he admits that he owes only two dinars, he is also exempt from taking an oath.

ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืงื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจ ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืคื™ืจืช ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But this explanation poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi แธคiyya, that a defendant is obligated to take an oath in a case where he says: Here you are. In other words, Rabbi แธคiyyaโ€™s opinion is negated by the case of one who admits that he owes only two dinars, where he is exempt from taking an oath. The Gemara answers: The case there is different, as the note supports him. Therefore, he is not required to take an oath. Alternatively, he is exempt because a promissory note creates a lien on the debtorโ€™s land, and there is a principle that one does not take an oath with regard to a debtorโ€™s denial of a debt that is secured with a lien on land.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืคืจ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ื›ืคืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืงืฆืช ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืœื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naแธฅman, raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Sheshet from a mishna (Shevuot 38b): If one claimed that another owed him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied that he owes him land, or conversely, if he admitted to owing him land but denied that he owes him vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath with regard to what he denies. If he admitted that he owes him part of the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to owing some of the vessels, he is obligated to take an oath with regard to the remainder.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื“ืงืจืงืข ืœืื• ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื™ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The Gemara infers: The reason he is exempt in the first cases is because the claim is for vessels and land, as a claim with regard to land is not subject to an oath. But if the claim is for vessels and vessels, i.e., two sets of vessels, in a manner similar to the case of a claim for vessels and land, he is obligated to take an oath. What are the circumstances of such a case? Is it not a case where he said to him: Here you are? And learn from the mishna that one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืœื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช

The Gemara answers: No, actually I will say to you that if the claim is for vessels and vessels he is also exempt. And the fact that the mishna teaches the case of vessels and land teaches us this different halakha: If he admitted that he owes some of the vessels, and is therefore obligated to take an oath, he is also obligated to take an oath with regard to the land that he denied owing his creditor, although in and of itself one does not take an oath with regard to land.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœื™ื”ื

The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? Is this teaching the halakha of binding? According to this halakha, one who is obligated to take an oath in response to a claim can be required to take an oath with regard to an additional claim of land. This cannot be, as we already learned this halakha in a mishna in tractate Kiddushin (26a): When there is a claim brought against a person for movable property and land, and he is obligated to take an oath with regard to the property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., the movable property, it binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that he is forced to take an oath with regard to it too. Why is this halakha repeated in tractate Shevuot?

ื”ื›ื ืขื™ืงืจ ื”ืชื ืื’ื‘ ื’ืจืจื ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara answers: The mishna here, in Shevuot, is the main reference to this halakha, as it discusses the halakhot of oaths, whereas the mishna there, in tractate Kiddushin, cites it incidentally, in the context of a broader survey of the difference between these two types of property.

Scroll To Top