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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 10, 2018 | 讻状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Shevuot 43

Study Guide Shevuot 43. What categories of items are excluded from oaths of the judges? How is this derived from the Torah? What is the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the mishna聽regarding items that are or are not considered like land (to exempt from oaths)? Another criterion for oaths is that it must be regarding an item that is measurable – the gemara聽explains the cases described in the mishna relating to this and Rava and abaye debate a particular case. If one loans money with collateral聽and the item gets lost, what type of responsibility does the creditor assume for the item? What if the creditor and debtor disagree regarding the value of the lost item? Shmuel holds that the creditor no longer owes any money even if the item is worth聽significantly less than the loan. How does his opinion work with the mishna?

讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诪专 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉

The verse introduces the halakhot with regard to an unpaid bailee with the phrase: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The phrase 鈥渋f a man delivers to his neighbor鈥 is a generalization, 鈥渟ilver or vessels鈥 is a detail, and when the verse states: 鈥淭o safeguard,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, this verse contains a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in which case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Applying this principle here, one concludes that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, an unpaid bailee takes an oath concerning anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.

讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

Land is therefore excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. Consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor.鈥 This term indicates that both the one depositing the item and the bailee must be people, and not the Temple treasury.

谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讞诪讜专 讗讜 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诇砖诪专 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讻讜壮 注讚 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches that a paid bailee does not pay for the loss or theft of one of these items. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse introduces the halakhot with regard to a paid bailee with the phrase: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard鈥 (Exodus 22:9). The phrase 鈥渋f a man delivers to his neighbor鈥 is a generalization, the phrase 鈥渁 donkey, or an ox, or a sheep鈥 is a detail, and when the verse states: 鈥淥r any animal to safeguard,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, which excludes any item that is not similar to the detail, as delineated in the previous baraita with regard to an unpaid bailee, up to and including the last clause of that baraita: Consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor.鈥

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讗讬谞讜 讻拽专拽注 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讟注讜谞讜转 诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘住专讜拽讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Meir says: There are certain items that are like land with regard to their form, but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective; and the Rabbis do not concede that this is so, as they hold that the halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself. The Gemara challenges: By inference, does Rabbi Meir hold that the halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is not like land? If so, rather than disagreeing with regard to grapevines laden with fruit, let them disagree with regard to fruitless vines, as Rabbi Meir holds that the halakhic status of the vines themselves is not like that of the land.

(讗诇讗) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讛讘爪专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that they disagree here not with regard to any item that is attached to the land, as Rabbi Meir concedes that such items usually have the halakhic status of the land itself. The dispute is specifically with regard to grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds that their halakhic status is similar to that of grapes that are already harvested, and the Rabbis hold that their halakhic status is not similar to that of grapes that are already harvested, and that they still have the status of land.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 住转诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗 讬讚讬注讗 讟注谞转讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches that one takes an oath only concerning an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number. How so? If the claimant says: I delivered to you a house full of produce, and the other person says: I do not know how much you gave me, but what you left in my possession you may take, and the amount in the house is less that that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. Abaye said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the claimant said to him: I gave you a house full of produce, without specification. But if he said to him: I gave you this specific house full of produce, his claim is known and defined, and the defendant is therefore required to take an oath concerning it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讝讬讝 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讘讬转 诪诇讗 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗 讞讬讬讘

Rava said to him: If so, rather than teaching in the last clause of the mishna: If this party says that the house was full up to the ledge, and that party says that it was full up to the window, the defendant is liable to take an oath, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, where the claim was for a house full of produce, and say: In what case is this statement, that the defendant is exempt, said? It is said in a case where the claim was for an unspecified house full of produce; but if the claim was for this particular house full of produce, the defendant is liable to take an oath. Since the mishna did not make this distinction, evidently the defendant is exempt even if the claim is referring to a specific house.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讟注谞谞讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讬讜讚讛 诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉

Rather, Rava said: The defendant is never liable to take an oath unless the claimant claims from him an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number, and the defendant admits to him with regard to a part of the claim that is an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻讟讜专 诪谞讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诪谞讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 讗讝讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗讝讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If the claimant says: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the other one says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath, as he denies the entire debt. If he says: I have a large candelabrum in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a small candelabrum in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as he admits not to part of the claim, but to possessing a different item. Similarly, if the claimant says: I have a large belt in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a small belt in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 讞讬讬讘 诪谞讜专讛 讘转 注砖专 诇讬讟专讬谉 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讞诪砖 诇讬讟专讬谉 讞讬讬讘

The baraita continues: But if the claimant said to him: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the other one says: You have only a half-kor in my possession, he is liable to take an oath. Similarly, if the claimant says: I have a candelabrum weighing ten litra in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a five-litra candelabrum in my possession, he is liable to take an oath.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讟注谞谞讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讬讜讚讛 诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉

The baraita concludes: The principle of the matter is that the defendant is never liable to take an oath unless the claimant claims from him an item that is defined by size, or by weight, or by number, and the defendant admits to him with regard to a part of the claim that is an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita add that was not already taught, by mentioning the principle of the matter? Doesn鈥檛 the baraita mention this principle to add that even if the claim is for this specific house full of produce, the defendant is exempt, as this is not considered an item defined by size? Accordingly, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谞讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪谞讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讛 砖讟注谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讜诪讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讟注谞讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转 注砖专 讘转 讞诪砖 谞诪讬 诪讛 砖讟注谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讜诪讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讟注谞讜

Having cited the baraita, the Gemara now analyzes it: What is different about a case where the claimant claimed a large candelabrum and the defendant admitted to owing a small candelabrum that renders the defendant exempt from taking an oath? It is because that which he claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, he had not claimed from him. If so, in a case where the claimant claimed a tenlitra candelabrum and the defendant admitted to owing a fivelitra candelabrum, the defendant should also be exempt, as that which he claimed from him, a heavier candelabrum, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, a lighter candelabrum, he had not claimed from him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪谞讜专讛 砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Here in the latter case we are dealing with a candelabrum composed of segments that detach; the defendant is liable to take an oath because he admits to owing him part of the candelabrum claimed by the claimant.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讝讜专讛 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 讜诇讜拽诪讬 讘讚诇讬讬驻讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讬驻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita teach the case in which the defendant is liable to take an oath involving a belt as well, and interpret the case as referring to a belt made of pieces that are connected to each other; the claimant claims a belt with a larger number of pieces, and the defendant claims that he owes him a belt with fewer pieces. Rather, clearly the baraita is not teaching cases involving items made of pieces connected to each other. Here too, in the case of the candelabrum, the baraita is not teaching a case of a candelabrum composed of segments that detach.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讜专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讛 讜诇讛注诪讬讚讛 注诇 讞诪砖 诇讬讟专讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Abba bar Memel said that the case of a candelabrum is different because one can scrape a ten-litra candelabrum and reduce it to a five-litra one. Therefore, he admitted to a part of the claim.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜住诇注 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: There is a case of one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost while in the possession of the creditor, and the creditor says to the debtor: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and that collateral was worth a shekel, i.e., a half-sela. Therefore, you owe me a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says in response to that claim: That is not the case. Rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth a sela; I owe you nothing. In this case, the debtor is exempt from payment.

住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘

There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission.

住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖转讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜住诇注 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 驻讟讜专 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖转讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘

If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela, so now you owe me a sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth a sela. Here, the creditor is exempt. If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth five dinars. Here, the creditor is liable to take an oath due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the debtor with a partial admission.

讜诪讬 谞砖讘注 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 砖诪讗 讬砖讘注 讝讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

And who takes the oath? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located, i.e., the creditor, who took collateral from the debtor. The Sages instituted this provision lest this party, i.e., the debtor, take an oath and the other party, i.e., the creditor, produce the deposit and prove the oath false.

讙诪壮 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚砖讘讜注讛 讙讘讬 诪诇讜讛

GEMARA: To which case is the final statement in the mishna, which says the creditor is the one who takes the oath, referring? If we say it is referring to the case in the latter clause of the mishna, where the debtor claims that the collateral was worth more than the loan, derive this halakha from the fact that the oath is anyway taken by the creditor, as he is the defendant in this case. The additional statement is superfluous.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗专讬砖讗

In response, Shmuel says: This statement relates to the case in the first clause of the mishna, where the debtor is the defendant. And Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav similarly says that it relates to the first clause. And Rabbi Yo岣nan similarly says that it relates to the first clause.

诪讗讬 专讬砖讗 住讬驻讗 讚专讬砖讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘 讚砖讘讜注讛 讙讘讬 诇讜讛 讛讬讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 专讘谞谉 诪诇讜讛 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗诪诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: What did the amora鈥檌m mean by: The first clause? The Gemara answers: They were not referring to the very first halakha in the mishna, but rather to the latter part of the first clause: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, he is liable to take an oath. As in this case, the oath should in principle be taken by the debtor, since he is the one who admitted to a part of the creditor鈥檚 claim, but the Sages removed the obligation to take an oath from the debtor and imposed it on the creditor, deeming him liable to take an oath that the collateral was not worth more than a shekel.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讝讛 谞砖讘注 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讝讛 谞砖讘注 讻诪讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 谞砖讘注 转讞诇讛 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 砖诪讗 讬砖讘注 讝讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

The Gemara notes: And now that Rav Ashi says that we maintain that two oaths are taken in this case, as this party, the creditor, takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, and that party, the debtor, takes an oath concerning how much the collateral was worth, this is what the mishna is saying: Who takes an oath first? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located, i.e., the creditor, first takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, lest this party, the debtor, take an oath and then the other party, the creditor, produce the deposit and prove the oath false.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜诪砖讻谉 诇讬讛 拽转讗 讚诪讙诇讗 讗讘讚 拽转讗 讚诪讙诇讗 讗讘讚 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讘诇 转专转讬 拽转讗转讬 诇讗

Shmuel says: With regard to one who lent one thousand dinars to another and took from him the handle of a sickle as collateral, if the handle of the sickle is lost, the creditor has lost the entire sum of one thousand dinars, even though the lost collateral was worth less. But if he took two handles as collateral and only one of them was lost, the creditor does not lose the entire debt; he loses only the value of the handle that he lost.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专转讬 拽转讗转讬 讗讘讚 讞讚讗 讗讘讚 讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讗讘讚 讗讬讚讱 讗讘讚 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 拽转讗 讜谞住讻讗 诇讗 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽转讗 讜谞住讻讗 讗讘讚 谞住讻讗 讗讘讚 驻诇讙讗 讗讘讚 拽转讗 讗讘讚 讻讜诇讬讛

And Rav Na岣an says: Even if he took two handles and only one of them was lost, he has lost five hundred dinars, i.e., half the debt. If the other one was then also lost, he has lost the entire debt. But if he took a handle and a piece of silver as collateral and then lost the handle, he has not lost half the debt, as he presumably relied on the silver, not the handle, for payment. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if he took a handle and a piece of silver, and the piece of silver was lost, he has lost half the debt. If the handle was then lost, he has lost the entire debt.

转谞谉 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讬讛

The Gemara challenges Shmuel鈥檚 opinion based on the mishna. We learned in the mishna: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that if the collateral is lost, the debt is canceled, let the debtor say to him: You have already received repayment of the debt by means of the collateral.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚驻专讬砖 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚诇讗 驻专讬砖

The Gemara answers: The halakha in the mishna is with regard to a case where the creditor stated explicitly that he is taking the collateral only to assure payment of the value of the item, and not as full repayment. Therefore, since there is a dispute with regard to the collateral鈥檚 monetary value, the two parties must litigate this matter. Shmuel, by contrast, was referring to a case where the creditor did not state explicitly whether he was taking the collateral to cover only its monetary value or the entire debt. In that case, it is presumed that he took it to cover the entire debt.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讬砖讘注 讜讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Shmuel鈥檚 ruling is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: With regard to one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost, he must take an oath that it was in fact lost and may then take his money; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says that the debtor can say to the creditor: Didn鈥檛 you lend me the money only on the basis of the collateral? Since the collateral was lost, your money is lost as well.

讗讘诇 讛诪诇讜讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讘砖讟专 讜讛谞讬讞 诪砖讻讜谉 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讜

But with regard to one who lends another person one thousand dinars with a promissory note, and in addition to the note, the debtor left collateral in the creditor鈥檚 possession, all agree that since the collateral was lost, his money is lost as well. Since he had a promissory note as proof of the loan, the collateral was clearly taken as potential repayment.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讜讬 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree? If it is a case where the collateral was worth the amount of money that he lent to him,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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!

Shevuot 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 43

讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇砖诪专 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉

The verse introduces the halakhot with regard to an unpaid bailee with the phrase: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The phrase 鈥渋f a man delivers to his neighbor鈥 is a generalization, 鈥渟ilver or vessels鈥 is a detail, and when the verse states: 鈥淭o safeguard,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, this verse contains a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in which case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Applying this principle here, one concludes that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, an unpaid bailee takes an oath concerning anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.

讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

Land is therefore excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. Consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor.鈥 This term indicates that both the one depositing the item and the bailee must be people, and not the Temple treasury.

谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻诇诇 讞诪讜专 讗讜 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 驻专讟 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诇砖诪专 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讻讜壮 注讚 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches that a paid bailee does not pay for the loss or theft of one of these items. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse introduces the halakhot with regard to a paid bailee with the phrase: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard鈥 (Exodus 22:9). The phrase 鈥渋f a man delivers to his neighbor鈥 is a generalization, the phrase 鈥渁 donkey, or an ox, or a sheep鈥 is a detail, and when the verse states: 鈥淥r any animal to safeguard,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, which excludes any item that is not similar to the detail, as delineated in the previous baraita with regard to an unpaid bailee, up to and including the last clause of that baraita: Consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor.鈥

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讗讬谞讜 讻拽专拽注 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讟注讜谞讜转 诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘住专讜拽讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Meir says: There are certain items that are like land with regard to their form, but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective; and the Rabbis do not concede that this is so, as they hold that the halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself. The Gemara challenges: By inference, does Rabbi Meir hold that the halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is not like land? If so, rather than disagreeing with regard to grapevines laden with fruit, let them disagree with regard to fruitless vines, as Rabbi Meir holds that the halakhic status of the vines themselves is not like that of the land.

(讗诇讗) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讜诪讚讜转 诇讛讘爪专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that they disagree here not with regard to any item that is attached to the land, as Rabbi Meir concedes that such items usually have the halakhic status of the land itself. The dispute is specifically with regard to grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds that their halakhic status is similar to that of grapes that are already harvested, and the Rabbis hold that their halakhic status is not similar to that of grapes that are already harvested, and that they still have the status of land.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 住转诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗 讬讚讬注讗 讟注谞转讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches that one takes an oath only concerning an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number. How so? If the claimant says: I delivered to you a house full of produce, and the other person says: I do not know how much you gave me, but what you left in my possession you may take, and the amount in the house is less that that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. Abaye said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the claimant said to him: I gave you a house full of produce, without specification. But if he said to him: I gave you this specific house full of produce, his claim is known and defined, and the defendant is therefore required to take an oath concerning it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讝讬讝 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讘讬转 诪诇讗 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗 讞讬讬讘

Rava said to him: If so, rather than teaching in the last clause of the mishna: If this party says that the house was full up to the ledge, and that party says that it was full up to the window, the defendant is liable to take an oath, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, where the claim was for a house full of produce, and say: In what case is this statement, that the defendant is exempt, said? It is said in a case where the claim was for an unspecified house full of produce; but if the claim was for this particular house full of produce, the defendant is liable to take an oath. Since the mishna did not make this distinction, evidently the defendant is exempt even if the claim is referring to a specific house.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讟注谞谞讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讬讜讚讛 诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉

Rather, Rava said: The defendant is never liable to take an oath unless the claimant claims from him an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number, and the defendant admits to him with regard to a part of the claim that is an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻讟讜专 诪谞讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诪谞讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 讗讝讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗讝讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If the claimant says: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the other one says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath, as he denies the entire debt. If he says: I have a large candelabrum in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a small candelabrum in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as he admits not to part of the claim, but to possessing a different item. Similarly, if the claimant says: I have a large belt in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a small belt in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 讞讬讬讘 诪谞讜专讛 讘转 注砖专 诇讬讟专讬谉 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讞诪砖 诇讬讟专讬谉 讞讬讬讘

The baraita continues: But if the claimant said to him: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the other one says: You have only a half-kor in my possession, he is liable to take an oath. Similarly, if the claimant says: I have a candelabrum weighing ten litra in your possession, and the defendant responds: You have only a five-litra candelabrum in my possession, he is liable to take an oath.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讟注谞谞讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讬讜讚讛 诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉

The baraita concludes: The principle of the matter is that the defendant is never liable to take an oath unless the claimant claims from him an item that is defined by size, or by weight, or by number, and the defendant admits to him with regard to a part of the claim that is an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讬转 讝讛 诪诇讗

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita add that was not already taught, by mentioning the principle of the matter? Doesn鈥檛 the baraita mention this principle to add that even if the claim is for this specific house full of produce, the defendant is exempt, as this is not considered an item defined by size? Accordingly, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谞讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪谞讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讛 砖讟注谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讜诪讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讟注谞讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转 注砖专 讘转 讞诪砖 谞诪讬 诪讛 砖讟注谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讜诪讛 砖讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讟注谞讜

Having cited the baraita, the Gemara now analyzes it: What is different about a case where the claimant claimed a large candelabrum and the defendant admitted to owing a small candelabrum that renders the defendant exempt from taking an oath? It is because that which he claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, he had not claimed from him. If so, in a case where the claimant claimed a tenlitra candelabrum and the defendant admitted to owing a fivelitra candelabrum, the defendant should also be exempt, as that which he claimed from him, a heavier candelabrum, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, a lighter candelabrum, he had not claimed from him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪谞讜专讛 砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Here in the latter case we are dealing with a candelabrum composed of segments that detach; the defendant is liable to take an oath because he admits to owing him part of the candelabrum claimed by the claimant.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讝讜专讛 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 讜诇讜拽诪讬 讘讚诇讬讬驻讬 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讬驻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita teach the case in which the defendant is liable to take an oath involving a belt as well, and interpret the case as referring to a belt made of pieces that are connected to each other; the claimant claims a belt with a larger number of pieces, and the defendant claims that he owes him a belt with fewer pieces. Rather, clearly the baraita is not teaching cases involving items made of pieces connected to each other. Here too, in the case of the candelabrum, the baraita is not teaching a case of a candelabrum composed of segments that detach.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讜专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讛 讜诇讛注诪讬讚讛 注诇 讞诪砖 诇讬讟专讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Abba bar Memel said that the case of a candelabrum is different because one can scrape a ten-litra candelabrum and reduce it to a five-litra one. Therefore, he admitted to a part of the claim.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗诪专 诇讜 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜住诇注 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: There is a case of one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost while in the possession of the creditor, and the creditor says to the debtor: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and that collateral was worth a shekel, i.e., a half-sela. Therefore, you owe me a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says in response to that claim: That is not the case. Rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth a sela; I owe you nothing. In this case, the debtor is exempt from payment.

住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘

There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission.

住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖转讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜住诇注 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 驻讟讜专 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖转讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专讬诐 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘

If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela, so now you owe me a sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth a sela. Here, the creditor is exempt. If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth five dinars. Here, the creditor is liable to take an oath due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the debtor with a partial admission.

讜诪讬 谞砖讘注 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 砖诪讗 讬砖讘注 讝讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

And who takes the oath? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located, i.e., the creditor, who took collateral from the debtor. The Sages instituted this provision lest this party, i.e., the debtor, take an oath and the other party, i.e., the creditor, produce the deposit and prove the oath false.

讙诪壮 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚砖讘讜注讛 讙讘讬 诪诇讜讛

GEMARA: To which case is the final statement in the mishna, which says the creditor is the one who takes the oath, referring? If we say it is referring to the case in the latter clause of the mishna, where the debtor claims that the collateral was worth more than the loan, derive this halakha from the fact that the oath is anyway taken by the creditor, as he is the defendant in this case. The additional statement is superfluous.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗专讬砖讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗专讬砖讗

In response, Shmuel says: This statement relates to the case in the first clause of the mishna, where the debtor is the defendant. And Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav similarly says that it relates to the first clause. And Rabbi Yo岣nan similarly says that it relates to the first clause.

诪讗讬 专讬砖讗 住讬驻讗 讚专讬砖讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘 讚砖讘讜注讛 讙讘讬 诇讜讛 讛讬讗 讜砖拽诇讜讛 专讘谞谉 诪诇讜讛 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗诪诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: What did the amora鈥檌m mean by: The first clause? The Gemara answers: They were not referring to the very first halakha in the mishna, but rather to the latter part of the first clause: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, he is liable to take an oath. As in this case, the oath should in principle be taken by the debtor, since he is the one who admitted to a part of the creditor鈥檚 claim, but the Sages removed the obligation to take an oath from the debtor and imposed it on the creditor, deeming him liable to take an oath that the collateral was not worth more than a shekel.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讝讛 谞砖讘注 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讝讛 谞砖讘注 讻诪讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 谞砖讘注 转讞诇讛 诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜 砖诪讗 讬砖讘注 讝讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

The Gemara notes: And now that Rav Ashi says that we maintain that two oaths are taken in this case, as this party, the creditor, takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, and that party, the debtor, takes an oath concerning how much the collateral was worth, this is what the mishna is saying: Who takes an oath first? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located, i.e., the creditor, first takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, lest this party, the debtor, take an oath and then the other party, the creditor, produce the deposit and prove the oath false.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜诪砖讻谉 诇讬讛 拽转讗 讚诪讙诇讗 讗讘讚 拽转讗 讚诪讙诇讗 讗讘讚 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讘诇 转专转讬 拽转讗转讬 诇讗

Shmuel says: With regard to one who lent one thousand dinars to another and took from him the handle of a sickle as collateral, if the handle of the sickle is lost, the creditor has lost the entire sum of one thousand dinars, even though the lost collateral was worth less. But if he took two handles as collateral and only one of them was lost, the creditor does not lose the entire debt; he loses only the value of the handle that he lost.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专转讬 拽转讗转讬 讗讘讚 讞讚讗 讗讘讚 讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讗讘讚 讗讬讚讱 讗讘讚 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 拽转讗 讜谞住讻讗 诇讗 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽转讗 讜谞住讻讗 讗讘讚 谞住讻讗 讗讘讚 驻诇讙讗 讗讘讚 拽转讗 讗讘讚 讻讜诇讬讛

And Rav Na岣an says: Even if he took two handles and only one of them was lost, he has lost five hundred dinars, i.e., half the debt. If the other one was then also lost, he has lost the entire debt. But if he took a handle and a piece of silver as collateral and then lost the handle, he has not lost half the debt, as he presumably relied on the silver, not the handle, for payment. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if he took a handle and a piece of silver, and the piece of silver was lost, he has lost half the debt. If the handle was then lost, he has lost the entire debt.

转谞谉 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜砖拽诇 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 住诇注 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 注诇讬讜 讜砖诇砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讬讛 砖讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讬讛

The Gemara challenges Shmuel鈥檚 opinion based on the mishna. We learned in the mishna: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that if the collateral is lost, the debt is canceled, let the debtor say to him: You have already received repayment of the debt by means of the collateral.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚驻专讬砖 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚诇讗 驻专讬砖

The Gemara answers: The halakha in the mishna is with regard to a case where the creditor stated explicitly that he is taking the collateral only to assure payment of the value of the item, and not as full repayment. Therefore, since there is a dispute with regard to the collateral鈥檚 monetary value, the two parties must litigate this matter. Shmuel, by contrast, was referring to a case where the creditor did not state explicitly whether he was taking the collateral to cover only its monetary value or the entire debt. In that case, it is presumed that he took it to cover the entire debt.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讬砖讘注 讜讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讛诇讜讬转谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Shmuel鈥檚 ruling is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: With regard to one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost, he must take an oath that it was in fact lost and may then take his money; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says that the debtor can say to the creditor: Didn鈥檛 you lend me the money only on the basis of the collateral? Since the collateral was lost, your money is lost as well.

讗讘诇 讛诪诇讜讛 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讘砖讟专 讜讛谞讬讞 诪砖讻讜谉 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讘讚 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讗讘讚讜 诪注讜转讬讜

But with regard to one who lends another person one thousand dinars with a promissory note, and in addition to the note, the debtor left collateral in the creditor鈥檚 possession, all agree that since the collateral was lost, his money is lost as well. Since he had a promissory note as proof of the loan, the collateral was clearly taken as potential repayment.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讜讬 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree? If it is a case where the collateral was worth the amount of money that he lent to him,

Scroll To Top