GITIN 51 (30 Av) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Al and Sophie Ziegler of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Al's father, Bernard B. Ziegler - Binyamin Baruch ben Avraham (and Miryam), which occurs on 30 Menachem Av.


TOSFOS DH "Oh Dilma"

תוס' ד"ה "או דלמא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue why this person would be allowed to collect from property with a lien.)

פי' בקונטרס ואית ליה דמלוה על פה גובה ממשעבדי


Explanation: Rashi explains that this would mean that Rebbi Chanina would hold that an oral loan entitles someone to collect from property with a lien.

ואין נראה דבהדיא תנן בפרק גט פשוט (ב"ב דף קעה.) דגובה מנכסים בני חורין


Question: This does not appear to be correct. The Mishnah explicitly states in Bava Basra (175a) that one can (only) collect from property without a lien.

ומפרש ר"ת דהכא לא איירי במלוה אלא בשאר מילי דקצבה כגון פסק לזון את בתה חמש שנים


Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara here is not referring to a loan, but rather to other set obligations such as obligating to support her daughter for five years.

דדוקא במלוה על פה לא גבי ממשעבדי משום דמאן דיזיף בצנעא יזיף אבל שאר מילי הוו כמכר דאמרי' (ב"ב דף מא: המוכר שדהו בעדים גובה מנכסים משועבדים דמאן דמזבן בפרהסיא מזבן.


Specifically in the case of oral loans one cannot collect from property with a loan, as people who borrow money do so in private. However, other types of financial obligations are like sales. This is as the Gemara states in Bava Basra (41b) that if someone sells his field with witnesses, it is possible for the buyer to claim properties with a lien that used to belong to the seller (if his property is seized due to the debt of the seller). This is because people who sell do so in public. (Note: People who buy more fields from this person after he has already sold fields with Achrayus are doing so with intent that their field could be seized. If they want to be safe, they will ascertain that the seller has more property that does not have a lien that could be collected instead (see Rashbam in Bava Basra 41b DH "Govah").)


TOSFOS DH "Amar Rebbi Chanina"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רבי חנינא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not lead to us to ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan.)

למאי דמסיק בפרק מציאת האשה (כתובות דף סט.) דרבי יוחנן קיבלה מרבי (חנינא) הוה מצי למיפרך השתא דבעי למידק דקצובין לחודיה מהני ארבי יוחנן דאמר לעיל לפי שאין כתובין


Implied Question: Based on the conclusion of the Gemara in Kesuvos (69b) that Rebbi Yochanan accepted this from Rebbi, the Gemara can ask from here on Rebbi Yochanan that a set amount without being written. (Note: Rebbi Yochanan stated earlier that being written is the sole criteria. Being that Rebbi Yochanan agrees to the law that money is taken away for support, and this is the source of the deduction that the main criteria is a set amount, it would seem prudent to ask this question on Rebbi Yochanan. Why isn't this question asked on Rebbi Yochanan?)

ומיהו התם דחויא בעלמא הוא


Answer#1: However, the Gemara's answer (that leads us to believe that Rebbi Yochanan accepted this from Rebbi) is just a way to push aside the question, and is not in fact Rebbi Yochanan's position.

ובמסקנא דהכא ניחא.


Answer#2: According to the Gemara's conclusion here, it is understandable. (Note: Being that the Gemara says that support is different as people find out about it, it could be that this does not have a direct correlation to whether being written or a set amount is the main criteria. If this is correct, we could even say that Rebbi Yochanan indeed accepted the law regarding support from Rebbi (Maharam).)


TOSFOS DH "b'she'Kanu"

תוס' ד"ה "בשקנו"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding why the Gemara thinks that a Kinyan should be effective for girls to collect from property with a lien.)

פי' בקונטרס דהוו ככתובין דסתם קנין לכתיבה עומד


Explanation: Rashi explains that a Kinyan makes it like it is written, as a Kinyan is generally written down.

וקשה דא"כ אמאי פריך אי הכי בנות נמי הא לא מהני כתיבה דבנות כדאמר לעיל


Question: This is difficult. If so, why does the Gemara ask, "If so, girls as well?" The writing down for the girls does not help, as explained earlier (on 50b, that the condition of Beis Din was that they could not collect with a lien). (Note: See Maharam Shif for an answer for Rashi.)

לכך נראה דקנין אלים טפי מכתיבה לכך פריך בנות נמי נהי דכתיבה לא מהני קנין ליתהני.


Answer: It therefore seems that a Kinyan is stronger than writing. This is why the Gemara asks that girls also should be able (to collect from property with a lien). Even though writing did not help, it is possible that (there is a stronger reason) a Kinyan should help.


TOSFOS DH "Aimar Tzrari"

תוס' ד"ה "אימר צררי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty understanding how our Gemara fits with other Gemaros regarding the collection of support and a Kesuvah from properties with and without a lien.)

דוקא לגבי משועבדים חיישינן אבל גבי בני חרי לא דאמרינן בפרק שני דייני גזירות (כתובות קז:) צררי לקטנה לא מתפיס


Observation: We only suspect this when collecting from property with a lien, not when collecting from property without a lien. This is as we say in Kesuvos (107b) that a minor does not seize money.

וצריך עיון דלענין משעבדי חיישינן במזונות טפי לצררי מבכתובה דכתובה נפרעת בשבועה מנכסים משועבדים ומזונות לא גבי כלל אפילו בשבועה


Question: This needs to be analyzed. Regarding property with a lien, we are generally more suspect when the case involves support than when it involves the collection of a Kesuvah, that money will be seized. This is clear from the fact that we allow a woman to collect from property with a lien for her Kesuvah. However, when it comes to collecting support we do not let her collect property with a lien at all, even if she takes an oath.

ולענין בני חרי הוי איפכא דלענין מזונות גבי בלא שבועה ולכתובה בעי שבועה כדתנן בפ' שני דייני גזירות (שם דף קד:) מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות חנן אומר תשבע בסוף ולא תשבע בתחילה.


It is just the opposite when it comes to property without a lien. When it comes to support, she can collect this type of property without taking an oath. However, when collecting a Kesuvah she requires an oath to collect this type of property. This is as the Mishnah states in Kesuvos (104b) that if someone went overseas and his wife demands her support, Chanan says that she should swear at the end (if she hears he has died) but not at the beginning (when she collects the support).



תוס' ד"ה "אלמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

פי' בקונטרס ולאו משום דקצובין וכתובין


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is not because the amounts are set and written.

וק' דא"כ כי משני תנאי היא לא הוי רבי נתן לא כמר ולא כמר


Question: This is difficult. If so, when the Gemara answers that this is an argument among the Tanaim, Rebbi Nasan is not like either opinion! (Note: One opinion is that written is the criteria (for the Mishnah's law), while the other says it is a set amount!)

ונראה דלעולא פריך דוקא ולמפשט נמי דרבי חנינא קצובין אע"פ שאין כתובין


Explanation#2: It appears that this is specifically a question on Ula. The point of the question is to say that Rebbi Chanina must hold that a set amount without being written is the main criteria.

דבזמן שקדם שבחו של ראשון היינו קצובין ואין כתובין דכתיבה לא מהניא אע"ג שכבר בא השבח כיון דבשעת הכתיבה אכתי לא הוה.


Once the improvement of the first field has already been done, it is a set amount without writing. The writing does not help even though the improvement has arrived, being that the writing was done before the writing of the document. (Note: See Tosfos 50b, DH "Lefi.")



תוס' ד"ה "וכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yosi's question.)

פי' בקונטרס ומן הדין בלא תיקון העולם אין לגבות ממשעבדי כיון דאין קצובין


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yosi means the following. According to the letter of the law without invoking "Tikun ha'Olam" one would not collect from property with a lien, being that they are not a set amount.

וקשה דהא ר' חנינא דאמר לפי שאין קצובין קאי לפרושי מפני תיקון העולם דמתני'


Question: This is difficult. Rebbi Chanina is the one who says that the reason is because there is no set amount, and he is the one who is explaining the reason of "Tikun ha'Olam" given by our Mishnah!

לכך נראה דה"פ קא תלית טעמא מפני תיקון העולם בכתיבה מה תיקון העולם יש בזה דאפילו הוו כתובין לא גבי ממשעבדי דאין תיקון העולם תלוי בכתיבה אלא בקציבה.


Explanation#2: It therefore appears that Rebbi Yosi means as follows. You have stated that the reasoning behind Tikun ha'Olam is that it must be written down. Why is this Tikun ha'Olam? Even if they were written one could not collect from property with a lien, as Tikun ha'Olam (in this context) is not dependent on being written down, but rather on a set amount.



תוס' ד"ה "כיסין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos that our Gemara is even according to Rebbi Meir.)

ואפילו רבי (מאיר) בפ"ק דביצה (דף י:) דאמר גבי כיסין זימנין דמיתעכל קיטרייהו היינו משום דאיכא הוכחא שהניח מאתים ולא מצא אלא מנה אבל הכא מי יימר דלא מצא אלא אחד.


Explanation: Even Rebbi in Beitzah (10b), who says regarding wallets that sometimes their knots get eaten away (and they separate), only says this because there is a proof there that he put down two hundred and only found one hundred. However, here, who will say (for certain) that he only found one?



תוס' ד"ה "תניא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue about the correct text in our Gemara.)

פי' בקונטרס דל"ג תנ"ה והך סיפא נמי ר' יצחק אמרה וגרס בסיפא דהך שני שוורים קשורים מצאת לי והלה אומר מצאתי והחזרתי לך אחד מהם הרי זה נשבע


Opinion: Rashi explainss that we do not the text "Tanya Nami Hachi" -- "we learned a Beraisa to this effect." Rebbi Yitzchak said this last part as well. The text of the last part is that someone claims that his friend found two tied oxen of his, while the other person claims that he found them, and already returned one. He must swear.

וקשה דליהמניה במגו דאי בעי אמר לא מצאתי אלא אחד


Question#1: This is difficult. Why don't we believe him with a Migu that he could have said he only found one?

ועוד לפי המסקנא ר' יצחק דאמר כמאן


Question#2: Additionally, according to the end of the Gemara, whose opinion does Rebbi Yitzchak follow?

אלא הכי גרסינן תניא נמי הכי שני שוורים מצאת לי והלה אומר לא מצאתי אלא אחד אינו נשבע שני כיסין קשורין מצאת לי והלה אומר מצאתי לך והחזרתי לך אחד מהן הרי זה נשבע


Opinion#2: Rather, we have the following text. The Beraisa also supports this. If someone claims that his friend found two of his oxen, and his friend claims that he only found one, he does not swear. If he claims that his friend found two tied wallets, and his friend claims that he found them and already returned one, he must swear.

וה"ה דאם אמר לא מצאתי אלא אחד דנשבע מדלא מיפטר כי אמר החזרתי לך אחד מהן במיגו והיינו כר' יצחק


Similarly, if he says that he only found one, he also swears. This is evident from the fact that was not exempt when he said that he returned one using a Migu. This is like the opinion of Rebbi Yitzchak.

והא דנקט החזרתי לך אחד מהן בברייתא ולא נקט ולא מצאתי אלא אחד


Implied Question: The Beraisa says a case where he claims to have returned one of them, and not where he claims to have only found one. (Note: Why?)

לרבותא נקט דלא מפטר במיגו דאי בעי הוה טעין טענה מעלייתא לא מצאתי אלא אחד קמ"ל דאערומי קא מערים דסבר אי אמינא לא מצאתי אלא אחד בעינן אישתבועי אימא החזרתי ולא בעינא אישתבועי דכי האי גוונא אמרינן בפ"ק דבבא מציעא (דף ד:)


Answer: It did so to show that he is not exempt using a Migu that he could have made a great claim that he only found one. This teaches that he is being crafty. He thinks that if he will say that he only found one, he will have to swear. He will therefore say that he returned one and not have to swear. We see a similar idea in Bava Metzia (4b).

ואע"ג דמסייעא ליה ברייתא פריך ליה ממתני' דהיכי שביק מתני' מקמי ברייתא


Even though there is a Beraisa supporting Rebbi Yitzchak, the Gemara asks a question on him from a Mishnah, as how could he leave a Mishnah in favor of the position of a Beraisa? (Note: The correct text in the first word of this line is "v'Af Al Gav," not "d'Af Al Gav" (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh and Rashash).)

ומשני הוא דאמר כר"א בן יעקב שהוא קב ונקי


The Gemara there answers that he says like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov whose teachings are thoroughly clean (i.e. sifted).

ולבסוף דלא קאי יאמר על כרחו אנא דאמרי כברייתא לפיכך לא קאמר תיובתא.


In the end, when it is apparent that he does not say like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, he can say that he holds like the Beraisa. This is why the Gemara does say that the question is a Tiyuvta (strong question, as he always had an answer to fall back on).



TOSFOS DH "v'Rebbi Eliezer"

תוס' ד"ה "ורבי אליעזר"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara's question.)

פירש בקונטרס דמכח מתני' פריך


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is asking its question due to our Mishnah (that said someone who finds a lost article does not have to swear about what he found due to Tikun ha'Olam).

וקשה דלא נקט לישנא דלעיל ולית ליה המוצא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תיקון העולם


Question#1: This is difficult. The Gemara didn't say the same phrase it used earlier to ask this question, "Does he not hold that someone who finds a lost object does not swear due to Tikun ha'Olam?"

ועוד דאין הכי נמי דלית ליה מתני' דהא הכי שני ליה הוא דאמר כר' אליעזר בן יעקב דפליג אמתני'


Question#2: Additionally, he indeed does not seem to hold like the Mishnah. Didn't the Gemara just answer that Rebbi Yitzchak holds like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (who argues on our Mishnah)?

לכך נראה דפריך אמאי לא מהימן במיגו דאי בעי שתיק דמיגו הוי מן התורה.


Explanation#2: It therefore seems that the Gemara's question is, why isn't he believed with a Migu that he could have remained quiet? The concept of Migu is a Torah law!



תוס' ד"ה "מאי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not use the term "Rather" as it usually does when giving what seems to be a totally new answer.)

הא דלא אמר אלא גדול


Implied Question: The Gemara did not say, "Rather it is referring to an adult." (Note: Why not?)

משום דבעי לשנויי דלא תקשי לרב וכי לא ידע מתני'


Answer#1: This is because the Gemara wanted to answer in a way that you should not ask a question on Rav. Is it possible that Rav didn't know a Mishnah? (Note: In other words, Rav clearly did not make a mistake that this Mishnah meant an actual minor. It is therefore inappropriate to say, "Rather" as if we were discounting Rav's explanation.)

ועוד משום מתני' דשבועת הדיינין (שבועות דף לח:) דקתני אבל נשבעין לקטן.


Answer#2: An additional reason is because of the Mishnah in Shevuos (38b), where the Mishnah says, "but they swear to a minor." (Note: Rav explained that the Mishnah there meant a minor. We therefore do not reject this possibility as out of hand by saying, "Rather etc.")


TOSFOS DH "Ela b'd'Rabah"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא בדרבה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding how the Gemara is answering its question.)

פי' בקונטרס לעולם בטוענו קטן ודקא קשיא לך דאין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן היינו כשבא מכח עצמו דכתיב כי יתן איש ואין נתינת קטן כלום אבל בא בטענת אביו טענה חשובה היא וטעמא דרבנן כדרבה משום דבבנו מעיז


Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara's answer is that the case is where a minor is making the claim.

ודקא קשיא לך דאין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן היינו כשבא מכח עצמו דכתיב כי יתן איש ואין נתינת קטן כלום אבל בא בטענת אביו טענה חשובה היא וטעמא דרבנן כדרבה משום דבבנו מעיז


The difficulty from the Mishnah that states that one does not swear based on the claim of a deaf, dumb, or a minor is only when he is making his own claim. This is as the Pasuk states, "When a man will give," implying that the giving of a minor is invalid. However, if his claim is due to his father's claim it is indeed an important claim. The Rabbanan's reason is like Rabah that a person will be brazen and deny ever borrowing money from the lender's son (though he would not be so brazen as to deny this to the lender himself).

וקשה דעיקר התירוץ חסר מן הספר


Question#1: This is difficult, as most of the content of this answer is not mentioned in the words of our Gemara.

ועוד דבהגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קו:) ממעט נתנו כשהוא קטן וטענו כשהוא גדול משום דבעינן תביעה ונתינה כאחת שוין וא"כ מהאי טעמא נמי נמעט נתנו כשהוא גדול ותבעו כשהוא קטן דהיינו בבא בטענת אביו


Question#2: Additionally, in Bava Kama (106b) the Gemara excludes a case where a minor gave a guardian something to watch, and then claimed it from him when he became an adult. This is because we require the claim and giving to be as one (both when he was an adult). If so, for this reason we should also exclude if he gave it when he was an adult and claimed it when he was a "minor." (Note: How could this be?) This is the case of coming because of one's father's claim (as he is considered like a minor for the claim).

לכך נראה לפרש דקאי אמאי דקאמר טענת עצמו טענת אחרים הוא הא דקרי לה טענת עצמו משום דבבנו מעיז ומעיז וכדרבנן


Answer: It therefore appears that the Gemara is referring to what was asked earlier, that this is not his claim, but rather it is the claim of others! The Gemara answers that the reason why this is called his claim is because the borrower will indeed be brazen and lie to the son of the lender that his father never lent him any money, as is the opinion of the Rabbanan.

אע"ג דראב"י סבר דבבנו נמי אינו מעיז


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that the borrower would not dare lie to the son (that he never borrowed money from his father). (Note: How can we answer this question according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?)

הכי קאמר להו לרבנן פעמים שאדם נשבע על מה שאתם מחשיבין טענת עצמו.


Answer: This is what Rebbi Eliezer is saying to the Rabbanan. Sometimes a person swears on what you consider to be his own claim. (Note: The answer is indeed only according to the Rabbanan, meaning that the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yitzchak does not hold like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (Tosfos Ha'Rosh).)


TOSFOS DH "Mipnei Mah"

תוס' ד"ה "מפני מה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

פי' למה לא יהא נאמן במיגו דאי בעי כופר הכל או נילף מהכא דלא אמרינן מיגו ומשני דאין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו וליכא מיגו דאין לו פנים לכפור הכל


Explanation: The Gemara's question is, why isn't he believed with a Migu that he could have denied owing the money? Alternatively, we could derive from here that we do not say Migu! The Gemara answers that a person will not brazenly lie to his lender. Therefore, there is no Migu, as he never would say he didn't own him anything.

אע"ג דבכופר הכל אמרינן נמי בפ' הדיינין (שבועות דף מ:) דאשתמוטי קא משתמיט דלכך נתקנה שבועת היסת בכופר הכל


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we say in Shevuos (40b) regarding someone who denies owing anything that he is just getting out of paying for now. This is indeed the reason that a Rabbinic oath known as a Shevuas Heses was instituted for someone who denies owing anything. (Note: How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two Gemaros?)

מ"מ יותר יש לו פנים לכפור מקצת מלכפור הכל וליכא מיגו


Answer: Even so, it is more likely that he will deny owing part of the money than deny owing all of the money. This is why there is no Migu.

אבל אין לפרש שבא ליתן טעם אמאי כופר הכל פטור וקאמר לפי שאין אדם מעיז


Implied Question: However, one cannot explain that the Gemara is trying to give a reason why someone who denies owing anything is exempt from swearing (according to Torah law), and does so by saying that a person is not brazen etc. (Note: Why isn't this a possible explanation?)

דהא כופר הכל פטור אפילו במקום שיכול להעיז דהרי בבנו דמעיז פטרוהו רבנן אפילו מודה מקצת במיגו דאי בעי כופר הכל


Answer: This is because someone who denies owing anything is exempt from taking an oath even when he can be brazen. This is evident from the fact that he will be brazen to the son of the person who lent him money. Due to this fact, he is therefore exempt according to the Rabbanan even in a case of partial admittance to the son, because he has a Migu that he could have denied owing anything.

וכן בפ"ק דב"מ (דף ד:) גבי סילעין דינרין פטר (Note: ר"ע) בלוה אומר ג' משום דמשיב אבידה דאי בעי אמר ב' והוי כופר הכל דהא דכתיב בשטר כהילך דמי


Additionally, in Bava Metzia (4b) the Gemara discusses a case where a document states that Reuven owes Shimon "Sela'im" or "Dinarim," but it does not say how many. Rebbi Akiva therefore states that the borrower is exempt from an oath if he says he owes three Sela, and he is like a person returning a lost object who does not swear. This is because he could have said he only owed two, and would have been believed. He would be considered as if he is denying everything (regarding the rest of the loan other than two) if he claimed he did not owe more than two, as whatever is stated in a document is as if the borrower says, "Take this." (Note: Anything more than two is not considered as being in the document, and is considered a separate loan.)

ופריך נמי מינה התם למאן דאמר הילך חייב אלמא כופר הכל פטור ואע"ג דיכול להעיז משום דמסייע ליה שטרא דהא פטור במודה במקצת במיגו דאי בעי כפר הכל וכופר הכל דפטור גזירת הכתוב דכתיב כי הוא זה משמע דוקא במודה במקצת ולא כופר הכל כדאמרינן בפ"ק דב"מ (דף ה.) דתרי קראי כתיבי כתיב הוא וכתיב זה


The Gemara asks from there as well. The Gemara asks a question according to the opinion that when someone says, "Take this (fifty that I owe you, but I never owed you one hundred)," he is still considered a Modeh b'Miktzas who must take an oath. According to Rebbi Akiva quoted above, it is clear that if someone denies owing anything he is exempt from swearing even when he can be brazen. This is because the document supports him, and allows him to be exempt from swearing upon partial admittance (in this case only) because he has a Migu that he could have denied owing anything. Denying owing anything makes one exempt from swearing, as is derived from the Pasuk, "For it is this," which implies that one only swears upon partial admittance and not when he denies owing anything. This is as stated in Bava Metzia (5a) that there are two Pesukim, "it" and "this."

אבל מדחייביה רחמנא שבועה בעד אחד אין להוכיח דכופר הכל פטור דאי חייב מאי נפקא מינה מעד אחד כיון דבלאו הכי חייב שבועה


Implied Question: However, one cannot prove from the law that one witness can force someone to swear that if he denies everything (and there are no witnesses against him) he is exempt from swearing. The proof would be that if he is liable, how is this different than a case of one witness testifying against him? A person would be obligated to take an oath without the witness! (Note: It must be that he is not liable to swear. Why isn't this a proof?)

דאיצטריך להיכא שאין הבעלים יודעין והעד מעיד שגנב לו או שהיה חייב לאביו.


Answer: We still need our proof for a case where the owner of the money does not know for a fact that this person owes him money, but the witness testifies that the defendant stole from him or he owed his father money.


TOSFOS DH "Ain Adam Mei'iz"

תוס' ד"ה "אין אדם מעיז"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding why a person is not so brazen to deny owing anything.)

אין לפרש לפי שעשה לו טובה כדפי' בקונטרס בהגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קז.)


Opinion#1: One should not explain, as does Rashi in Bava Kama (107a), that the reason is because he did him a favor

דאם כן בפקדון שלא עשה לו טובה יפטר במודה במקצת במיגו דאי בעי כפר הכל ובכמה דוכתי מחייבינן מודה במקצת בפקדון


Question: If so, in the case of a deposit where the guardian did not have a favor done for him, he should be exempt if he partially admits with a Migu that he could have denied everything. However, in many places we find that even a guardian is liable to swear if he partially admits.

אלא אין אדם מעיז כל מקום שאותו שכנגדו יודע שהוא משקר כדפי' ריב"א ואין להאריך כאן.


Opinion#2: Rather, the explanation of our Gemara's statement that a person is not brazen etc. is that whenever the other party will know for certain that he is lying, he is not brazen to lie to their face, as explained by the Riva. There is no need to give a lengthy explanation here (about this).


TOSFOS DH "uvi'Kulei"

תוס' ד"ה "ובכולי"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue about the explanation of this part of the Gemara.)

פי' בקונטרס וכי תימא דלא נשבעיניה אשארא דמיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא אממונא לא חשיד מדלא כפריה כוליה וכי היכי דמודה בפלגא בכוליה נמי בעי דלודי ליה


Explanation#1: Rashi explains the Gemara is saying the following. If you will say that he should not swear on the rest of the money because someone who is suspected of stealing is also suspected of swearing falsely, you should know that he is not suspected of stealing because he did not deny owing everything. Just as he admits half, he really wants to admit owing the entire loan.

וקשה דבפ"ק דב"מ (דף ו.) מסקינן דלא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא


Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (6a) the Gemara concludes that we do not say that because someone is suspected of stealing he is also suspected of swearing falsely.

וליכא למימר דהתם מדרבנן הוא דלא חשיד לפי שראו דפריש משבועתא טפי מממונא


One cannot say that the Gemara meant that the Rabbanan do not suspect him because they saw he wanted to stay away from an oath more than having to pay.

דהא משמע בחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף לג:) גבי נסכא דרבי אבא דאי הוה אמר לא חטפי הוה נשבע להכחיש את העד אלמא לא אמרינן מיגו דחשוד אממונא חשוד נמי אשבועתא


The Gemara in Bava Basra (33b) implies when discussing the case of "the metal bar of Rebbi Aba" that if the person holding the bar would say that he had not grabbed it from the other person in the case, he would swear in order to contradict the witness. This implies that we do not say that because someone is suspected to steal that he is also suspected of swearing falsely.

וההיא שבועה דאורייתא דשבועה דרבנן לא אמרינן מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם דתקנתא לתקנתא לא עבדינן כדאמרינן גבי ההוא רעיא בבבא מציעא בפ"ק (דף ה.)


The Gemara there is referring to a Torah oath. Regarding a Rabbinic oath, we never say that because he cannot swear he must pay, as we do not institute one Rabbinic institution on top of another one, as is stated regarding the case of the shepherd in Bava Metzia (5a).

לכן נראה דאתא לפרש דלא תימא כיון דאין אדם מעיז פניו אם כן קושטא קאמר ויפטר משבועה מאותו מקצת שכופר מטעם חזקה דאין אדם מעיז ולהכי קאמר ובכולי הוא דבעי דלודי ליה דאינו ברצון מעיז אלא אישתמוטי קא מישתמיט


Explanation#2: It therefore appears that the explanation of Rabah's statement is as follows. You should not say that because a person is not so brazen as to deny everything he is obviously telling the truth, and he should therefore be exempt from an oath for the part that he denied owing. The reason for this would be because a person is not so brazen as to deny owing the money. Rabah therefore continues that he wants to admit to owing all of the money. He is not being brazen because he wants to be, but rather is trying to stall.

ואם תאמר גזלן אמאי פסול לשבועה כיון דלא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא


Question: Why is a thief unable to take an oath if we do not rule that because someone is suspected to steal he is suspected to swear falsely?

וי"ל דמדרבנן פסול משום דפסלתו תורה לעדות דכתיב להיות עד חמס ולא גזרו רבנן אלא היכא דנודע פסולו דגנאי הוא להשביעו


Answer: It is possible to answer that he is unfit to take an oath according to Rabbinic law, because the Torah ruled he is unfit to give testimony. This is as the Pasuk states, "to be a witness of "Chamas" -- "stealing (an object against the owner's will, even if he gives him money)." The Rabbanan only decreed he is invalid where it is known that he stole, as it is denigrating to allow him to take an oath.

ואם תאמר מדאורייתא מאי שנא לאו דעדות מלאו דשבועה


Question: According to Torah law, what is the difference between the negative prohibition of allowing him to testify (which the Torah forbade) and the prohibition against allowing him to take an oath (which the Torah chose not to forbid)?

וי"ל דחמירא ליה שבועה לפי שכל העולם נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לא תשא כדאמרינן בריש פרק הדיינין (שבועות דף לט.)


Answer#1: It is possible to say that an oath is more stringent to him (to people in general), as the entire world shook when Hash-m stated that one should not swear falsely, as stated in Shevuos (39a). (Note: Accordingly, the Torah did not prohibit someone suspected of stealing from taking an oath, as he will probably take it seriously and not swear falsely.)

ועוד יש לחלק דעל אותו ממון דחשדינן ליה לא חשיד אשבועתא דעל ידי שבועה יפרוש אבל גזלן אממון אחר חשוד כמו שמממון אחר לא פירש כמו כן לא יפרוש משבועה


Answer#2: It is also possible to differentiate between the two by saying that he is not suspected to swear falsely regarding the money that we currently suspect he owes (in this case). Being that he will have to swear, he will not do so if he indeed owes the money. However, someone who knowingly stole someone's money (outside the current case being judged in Beis Din) is indeed suspected of swearing falsely. Just as he did not stay away from the other person's money, he also will not refrain from swearing falsely.

ולא קשה מההוא רעיא דאסהידו ביה דאכל תרי מנייהו אמאי פסול דהנך תרי צריך לשלם ומן השאר יפרוש על ידי שבועה


Implied Question: There is no question from the incident with the shepherd who witnesses testified that he ate two of his animals (that he was watching for others). One cannot ask that according to the above he should not be unfit, as he will merely pay for these two animals and will not swear falsely about owing more animals due to his fear of swearing falsely. (Note: Why not?)

דהא מה שמשלם ע"י עדים אין זה השבה מעליא דעל כורחו הוא משלם.


Answer: The fact that he is paying due to the testimony of witness is not considered a "good returning," as he was forced to pay for those two animals (because witnesses saw him).