6) click for question
(a) Shmuel concludes that when the Tana states 'Mi Nishba, Mi she'ha'Piladon Etzlo', he must be referring to the Reisha, where the creditor claims that the debt exceeded the value of the Pikadon (and Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi and Rebbi Yochanan concur with him) - because if he was referring to the Seifa, the Kashya 'Mi Nishba' (as well as the answer 'Mi she'ha'Pikadon Etzlo') would be meaningless, seeing as the onus of swearing lies on him anyway.
(b) In fact - it refers to the Seifa de'Reisha (the second of the two cases), because the Reisha de'Reisha is a case of 'Kofer ba'Kol', where no Shevu'ah is required.
(c) According to Rav Ashi, we do not switch the Shevu'ah at all, and it is the debtor who swears how much the Pikadon is worth. According to him, when the Tana ...
1. ... asks 'Mi Nishba', he means - who swears first, the debtor as to how much the Pikadon was worth, or the creditor, that he does not have the Pikadon in his possession.
2. ... answers Mi she'ha'Pikadon Etzlo' - he means that the creditor must swear first to preempt the scenario where the debtor swears how much the Pikadon is worth, and the creditor then produces it to prove him wrong.
7) click for question
(a) Shmuel rules that if Reuven lends Shimon a thousand Zuz against a security of the handle of a scythe - and the handle gets lost, Shimon is Patur from paying ...
(b) ... because he accepted the handle as a security, which in effect, is in lieu of payment of the loan (says 'Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Kol Ma'osav').
(c) The debtor cannot however, turn round to the creditor and tell him to keep the handle as payment of the loan - because, having accepted it as a security only, Reuven retains the right to redeem his money with it (after the specified time, or after thirty days in the case of a S'tam Milveh) as long as it is available.
8) click for question
(a) Shmuel would not issue the same ruling in a case where Reuven received a security of two handles, and one of them got lost - because since they did not stipulate that each handle covers half the loan, Reuven only needs to pay for the lost handle, and he is still entitled to claim the full thousand Zuz.
(b) Rav Nachman disagrees. In his opinion - since Reuven received two scythe-handles against the loan of a thousand Zuz, it is obvious that each handle covers five hundred Zuz.
(c) He would however, agree with Shmuel - in a case where Shimon gave Reuven a scythe handle and a piece of silver, because the piece of silver is eligible to serve as payment, in which case it simply covers its own value (see Tosfos DH 'Aval').
(d) According to the Neherda'i - even if Shimon gave Reuven the handle of a scythe plus a piece of silver, each one would cover half the loan. Consequently, if Reuven were to lose either of them, he would only be entitled to claim five hundred Zuz.
9) click for question
(a) In a case where Reuven loses the security that he received against a loan of a Sela, which he claims is worth a Shekel, if Shimon claims that it is worth three Dinrim - our Mishnah rules that Shimon is Chayav a Shevu'ah.
(b) To reconcile this with Shmuel, who says 'Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Kol Ma'osav' - we establish the Mishnah where Reuven specifically stipulateed that he accepted the security only at its market value, whereas Shmuel speaks where he accepted it S'tam.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer rules in a Beraisa that if Reuven loses the security, he swears that he lost it, and claims his loan - Rebbi Akiva accepts Shimon's claim that seeing as Reuven insisted on a security, having lost it, he loses his right to claim.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer will agree however - that if the loan is documented (in which case Reuven has the automatic security of 'Shibud Karka'os'), the additional security is intended as payment, and in the event that Reuven loses it, he loses his right to claim.
10) click for question
(a) Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva cannot be arguing over a security that is equal in value to the amount of the loan - because if they were, Rebbi Eliezer's ruling would be meaningless.
(b) In that case, they must be arguing when it is worth less (like the case of Shmuel) - and we suggest that Rebbi Akiva follows the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rebbi Eliezer holds that no person in his right mind would accept a security for more than it is worth.
(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the creditor is no more than a Shomer - Chinam over the security (which explains why he swears and is Patur).
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Shevuos