שבת, פרשת כי תשא
Bava Metzia 3
(Click 'Read More' to display or hide text)
- Summary of the Daf
- 1. Sumchus holds that when there is a Safek regarding money it is split between them
- 2. If two people are holding a Talis and each one claims that the entire Talis belongs to him the Chachamim decreed that each one shall take a Shevu'ah in order to deter a person from grabbing his friend's Talis and claiming it is his.
- 3. If two people deposit money with a Shomer, one deposits 100 and the other deposits 200 and each one claims that he deposited 200 the Rabanan hold that each one receives 100 and the rest is put away until the arrival of Eliyahu ha'Navi.
- 4. R. Yosi says that all of the money is put away until the arrival of Eliyahu ha'Navi because otherwise the one who is lying has nothing to lose.
- 5. If a Ba'al ha'Bayis instructs a storekeeper to provide goods to his workers on credit and the workers claim they didn't receive it and the storekeeper claims that he provided it both the workers and the storekeeper swear and collect from the Ba'al ha'Bayis.
R. Chiya says that if someone claims that his friend owes him 100 and the friend denies it and witnesses testify that he owes 50 he must swear a Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas.
- 6. Rabah says that the reason why the Torah obligates a person who is Modeh b'Miktzas to swear is because a person doesn't have the Chutzpa to deny a loan entirely and therefore he denies it only partially.
- 7. If a person admits that he owes money it is tantamount to the testimony of 100 witnesses, however if a person admits a Knas he is Patur.
- 8. If a person admits that he owes money he is Chayav to pay even if two witness testify that he is not Chayav
- 9. A person is Chayav a Korban if he admits that he did an Aveirah which is Mechayev him a Korban.
- 10. If two witnesses testify that someone ate Chelev and he denies it R. Meir holds he is a Chayav a Korban while the Chachamim disagree.
- 11. If two witnesses testify that someone is Chayav a Chomesh and he denies it R. Meir holds he is a Chayav a Chomesh while the Chachamim disagree.
- 12. One witness is not Mechayev a person money but he is Mechayev him a Shevu'ah.
- Brief Insight
A person's is Chayav money upon his own admission, but he is not Chayav Knas upon own admission. The Shach says that nowadays if a person admits that he is Chayav a Knas he is not Patur and if the other person grabs the value of the Knas from him he may keep it because a person is only Patur from a Knas if he admits in front of a Beis Din with Semichah, but nowadays we no longer have a Beis Din with Semichah. The Ketzos ha'Choshen however argues with the Shach and he proves it from our Gemara which states that a person's own admission is more lenient than witnesses because a person is not Chayav a Knas upon his own admission while he is Chayav upon the testimony of witnesses. If a person is only Patur when he admits the Knas in front of a Beis Din with Semichah why is a person's admission more lenient than witnesses? Since he is admitted it in front of Beis Din even if witnesses testify that he is Chayav after his admission he is Patur! Therefore the Ketzos ha'Choshen concludes that a person is never Chayav Knas on the basis of his own admission even nowadays.
- Quick Halachah
SHEVU'AS MODEH B'MIKTZAS
If someone claims that his friend owes him money and the friend could have denied it completely, or claimed that he returned it, or that he bought it if he admits partially he is Chayav a Shevu'ah Min ha'Torah. If he denies it completely and one witness contradicts him he is Chayav a Shevu'ah Min ha'Torah. (Shulchan Aruch CM 87:1)
Even though the person denies part of the loan he is not suspected to swear falsely because he would have liked to admit the loan completely, but he admitted it only partially in order to buy some time therefore the Torah obligates him to swear so that he will admit it entirely. However I may have thought think that if he denied the loan entirely and witness testify that he owes half that he doesn't swear because he is suspected to swear falsely. Why does R. Chiya conclude that is not suspected to swear falsely even in a case that he denied the loan completely?
- Author's Suggestion
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~