Dear Rav according to the first version of the kal vachomer of Rabbi Hiya, hoddat piv doesn't obligate the person to pay mamon appers contradicting the mishna which it came to explain. There in mishna mode bemiktzat pays, then gemora corrects and sais that hoddat piv doesn't pay knasot.
My question is why the authors of Gemara states to us unacceptable version of kal vechomer to instantly reject and correct it. wouldn't it be more proper to state it in correct form right away?
BORUCH YUABOV, QUEENS ,NY
(1) Your question is asked by the Shitah Mekubetzes 3b DH Mai Mamon in the name of his teacher (the Radbaz of Egypt and Eretz Yisrael, who was the Rebbi of R. Bezalel Ashkenazi, the author of Shitah Mekubetzes). The Radbaz writes that there are two sorts of "Knas" (fines) (a) a Knas placed upon a person's body ,(b) a Knas on his money.
When the Gemara said at the beginning of the Kal v'Chomer, "Even though his admission does not make him liable to pay Mamon", this meant that he does not have to pay for admitting a monetary Knas, but does not mean literally Mamon. However when the Gemara then asked its question that an admission of Mamon is just as good as 100 witnesses, the Gemara at this stage did actually think that the beginning of the Kal v'Chomer was referringly literally to Mamon, not Knas of Mamon. The Gemara then answered that we were not referring originally to Mamon but rather to Knas - i.e. (b) Knas of Mamon - that an admission does not make him pay a monetary Knas. However the reason the Gemara said "Mamon" to start off with was to stress that we did not mean (a) i.e. that the Kal v'Chomer should not be that even though his admission does not make him liable to receive lashes (because a person does not receive Malkus through his own admission), but it does make him take an oath, so witnesses
who make him receive Malkus, should certainly make him take an oath.
(2) Sukas David (3b #66 DH Liche'ora, by Rabbi D. Kwiat of Mir Yeshiva, NY) answers that there are two possible ways of understanding why a person's admission makes him liable to pay money (a) because a person owns his own money and can do what he likes with it, including saying that he owes part of it to someone else, (b) because he is believed to say that he owes the money to someone.
Sukas David writes that when the Gemara said, "Even though his admission does not make him liable to pay Mamon",`this does not mean that he is not liable to pay at all, but rather that he is not liable to pay because of (b) but rather because of (a). Since his admission does require him to take an oath, there is a Kal v'Chomer that witnesses who do require him to pay because of (b) [i.e. the witnesses are believed] certainly make him take an oath. On this the Gemara answered that his admission does actually make him pay because of (b), because a person is believed like 100 witnesses.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom