7) click for question
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the minimum claim for which a 'Modeh be'Miktzas' is Chayav a Shevu'ah is two Kesef. When Rav says 'Kefiras Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef', he means - that the denial must be at least two Kesef over and above the admission of a P'rutah (in which case the initial claim must be at least two Kesef plus a P'rutah).
(b) According to Shmuel - the initial claim needs to be only two Kesef, and the defendant is Chayav a Shevu'ah whether he admits to or denies a P'rutah.
(c) Rava says that our Mishnah implies like Rav, and the Pesukim like Shmuel. He extrapolates from our Mishnah 'ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef ve'ha'Hoda'ah Shaveh P'rutah' (as well as from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, 'Chamishah P'rutos Hein, ha'Ona'ah ... ve'ha'Hoda'ah') - that the Tana clearly does not include the Kefirah (the denial) in the list of things that require a P'rutah, as it ought to have done according to Shmuel.
8) click for question
(a) The Pasuk writes in Mishpatim (in connection with the Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Kesef O Keilim Li'shmor". We learn from ...
1. ... "Keilim" - that (like Keilim, plural) the claimant must claim at least two Kesef.
2. ... ''Kesef" - that whatever the claimant demands, it must be something that is Chashuv, in order to extract a Shevu'ah from the defendant.
(b) We reject the Lashon 'Af Keilim Davar Chashuv' - because this D'rashah applies only to articles that are not Keilim (such as food, as we shall see later).
(c) We already learned that "Ki Hu Zeh" (the continuation of the current Pasuk) is the source for the Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Rava now support Shmuel from the Pasuk - which seems to be saying that as long as the defendant admits to a P'rutah out of a claim of two Kesef, he is Chayav a Shevu'ah.
(d) Rav will counter this proof - from the fact that we need "Ki Hu Zeh" to teach us Modeh be'Miktzas (and not to connect the admission to the claim of two Kesef).
9) click for question
(a) Shmuel counters Rav with the fact that the Torah writes "Hu" and "Zeh", one to teach us 'Modeh be'Miktzas, the other, that he swears on a claim of two Kesef, whereas Rav learns from the second D'rashah 'Modeh mi'Miyn ha'Ta'anah' - by which he means that the defendant only swears if he admits to part of the same species that is being claimed from him (as we learned in our Mishnah ['Ta'ano Chitin, ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin Patur]').
(b) The Pasuk will continue to support Shmuel even then however - because, when all's said and done, the claim is two Kesef and the admission a P'rutah (and no mention is made of an independent Kefirah.
(c) We therefore change Rav's source to "Kesef", which is superfluous - because we already know that there is no Shevu'ah on less than two Kesef from "Keilim".
(d) And Shmuel learns from "Kesef" - Davar Chashuv (see Tosfos).
10) click for question
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Sh'tei Kesef Yesh li be'Yadcha. Ein lach be'Yadi Ela P'rutah, Patur'. Initially - we establish the Mishnah by 'Shaveh' (objects to the value of Sh'tei Kesef and a P'rutah, and not the actual coins themselves), a Kashya on Shmuel - since the reason that the Mishnah exempts him from a Shevu'ah can only be because there was no Kefirah of two Kesef.
(b) To refute the Kashya, Shmuel will establish the Mishnah - by coins that are worth two Kesef and a P'rutah, and the reason that he is Patur is because it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin' (as we explained in the Mishnah).
(c) Based on what we just said, we then query Shmuel from the Seifa, where Reuven claims from Shimon two Kesef and a P'rutah, Shimon admits to a P'rutah, and the Tana rules Chayav. This would be no problem if the Mishnah was speaking in a case of Shaveh - because then it would be a classical case of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. Now however, that Shmuel has established our Mishnah by the actual coins, why is he Chayav? Why is it not a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, which is Patur?
(d) This Kashya is no problem however, on Shmuel of all people- - because Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel has already ruled in such a case - 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh lo be'Echad Meihen, Chayav'.
11) click for question
(a) We support this answer from the Seifa 'Litra Zahav Yesh li be'Yadcha. Ein lach be'Yadi Ela Litra Kesef, Patur' - which is fine as long as the Tana is speaking about pieces of gold and silver. But if it is referring to 'Shaveh', why will the defendant be Patur, since it is a regular case of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'.
(b) Rav (who establishes the Mishnah by Shaveh) will establish the Seifa - by gold and silver (even though the rest of the Mishnah is speaking about 'Shaveh'), because the fact that the claimant asked for a weight, makes it evident that this section is not.
12) click for question
(a) We attempt to prove Rav right from the Seifa 'Dinar Zahav li be'Yadcha; Ein l'cha be'Yadi Ela Dinar Kesef ... u'Perutah, Chayav ... ' - which will make sense if Reuven is claiming from Shimon Shaveh Dinar Zahav, and Shimon admits to Shaveh Dinar Kesef; but if they are referring to actual coins, Shimon ought to be Patur from a Shevu'ah, because it is 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo Se'orin'.
(b) Rebbi Elazar establishes the Seifa according to Shmuel - in a case where Reuven claimed a minted coin of gold and Shimon admitted to the minted coin but claimed that it had been a silver one (which is considered Miyn Hoda'ah, since they were concerned with the coin and not with the weight [see Tosfos DH 'be'To'ano']).
(c) And the Chidush is - that a P'rutah is considered a coin (even though it is made of copper, as opposed to a Dinar [and all the other coins mentioned in the Mishnah]).
13) click for question
(a) The conclusion of the Mishnah 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' seems to support Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of the Mishnah according to Shmuel. Rav - will amend the Lashon to she'ha'Kol Din Matbe'a Achas', meaning that even the admission of the smallest coin in the list (a mere Perutah) will obligate the defendant to swear (see Tosfos DH 'she'ha'Kol').
(b) We cannot assume that Rebbi Elazar will establish the entire Mishnah where the owner claimed money (and not 'be'Shaveh') like Shmuel. He only establishes the Seifa like him because the Lashon 'she'ha'Kol Miyn Matbe'a Achas' bears out his explanation. The rest of the Mishnah he may well explain like Rav.
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Shevuos