Hello kollel!
This may be basic, but the subject of knas and modeh bknas patur, and also the case about whether a person can run to beis din and admit before the witnesses arrive. The idea came up in my kesubos daf 40/41 shiur, though I know the idea is dealt with in bava kama. Here?s the question: it seems like we go according to rav and not shmuel in this case. Is this an exception to the general rule that we follow shmuel in mamonos, or is knas not considered mamonos even though it?s a monetary payment?
Thanks!
Josh
Hi Josh,
I'm assuming your question regards the Machlokes if someone was Modeh be'Knas and after that Aidim came and testified. Shmuel says he is then Chayav, and Rav says he is Potur, and we hold like Rav as we see in the Rambam (gnaiva 3:8).
The principle that Halacha is like Shmuel in Dinei Mamonos, has a lot of 'ifs' and 'buts'. Maybe some of them can spread light on your question.
a. The reason we prefer Shmuel's opinion in Dinei Mamonos, is because this was is expertise. Since at his time it could be the Beis Din did not practice Dinei Knasot, Knas can be different than Mamon, as you hinted.
b. The Chida (Birkei Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 350) answers that since the Sugya in Bava Kama brings a Stam Mishna that is like Rav's opinion, in this case Halacha is like Rav.
c. Some say, that in cases that there are other Amoraim who agree with Rav, we do not say that Halacha is like Shmuel against a group. We can offer that since no one stood up to help Shmuel and explain the Mishna in a way that would fit his opinion, we can prove that the Amoraim agreed with Rav. We also find in several places that other Amoraim seem to agree with Rav's opinion.
I hope this helps,
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
p.s. I'd like to add a Chassidish 'Vort'.
It is brought down in the name of the Ari ha'Kadosh that the reason a person should say the Viduy - confession before he goes to sleep, when saying Krias Shma Aal ha'Mita, is because the Din of Modeh be'Knas Potur, even though in heaven there are Aidim who testify against him, since we know that Halacha like Rav, that he is still Potur. Chassidim say, that this answers your question, since if the Viduy works, it is a question of Pikuach Nefesh, and this is already Issur and not Mamon. ?
Hello! I did a little digging and it seems to be a different category, so my question falls away.
A follow up though: are there any opinions that knas or mamonos in general would be cancelled by shmitta I?d assume not for knas, but for mamonos, even though we don?t hold that way I could see a hava amina that it?s like the one party owes money to the other which is like a bit like a loan.
Thank you!
Hi again Josh,
I'm not sure there is a connection between the first and second question. Knas is not exactly like a regular debt, but of course, it is still a money payment and will have different aspects, depending on the topic we are relating too.
As far as Shmita, the Mishna (Shviis 10:2) says specifically that Ones and Mefate, which are Knasos, are not nullified on Shmita. There are several Shitos in the Mefarshim and lots of details, but let me try to make a long story a bit shorter, by jumping to the Halacha line, and giving a few explanations brought down in the Rishonim, why Knas is not Nishmat.
a. The Ramabam (Peirush ha'Mishna) says that the Knas is a punishment and a Kapara, and he needs to pay the Knas in any case.
b. The Rash mi'Shantz and many others say according to The Yerushalmi on the Mishna, that this Mishna is according to Rebi Mair who holds that only a loan is nullified on Shmita.
c. The Rosh (on Gittin 18a) says, that a debt that can be cancelled if the debtor confesses, is not considered a normal debt, and not included in Shmita.
d. The Meiri (Gittin 18a) says, that since you need a Beis Din to set the charge of the Knas, it is excluded from Shmita.
BTW, the Mishna and Gemara talk about the Knas of Ones and Mefate. Other Knasot aren't discussed in the Gemara and Rishonim, but are probably the same idea.
Kol tuv,
Aharon Steiner