A MASHKON (SECURITY) THAT WAS LOST (cont.)
Rejection: When the security was worth as much as the loan, both Tana'im disagree with Shmuel. They discuss a security worth as much as the loan;
The Tana'im argue about R. Yitzchak's law.
(R. Yitzchak): A lender acquires a security - "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah";
If he did not acquire it, returning it (when the borrower needs it) would not be called Tzedakah (since it belongs to the borrower).
Suggestion: R. Akiva holds like R. Yitzchak (therefore, he is liable for losing the security), and R. Eliezer does not.
Rejection: R. Yitzchak said his law only regarding a security taken after the loan (which the verse discusses), but not a security taken at the time of the loan!
Rather, if the security was taken after the loan, all agree to R. Yitzchak's law. The Tana'im argue about a security taken at the time of the loan. The law of guarding such a security is the same as that of an Aveidah;
(Rabah): A Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer Chinam;
(Rav Yosef): He is considered to be a Shomer Sachar (Rashi - because he is rewarded for doing a Mitzvah; Tosfos - because he is exempt from giving Tzedakah while taking care of the object).
Suggestion: Rav Yosef must admit that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about his law of an Aveidah (R. Akiva agrees to it, and R. Eliezer disagrees)!
Rejection: No, both can agree to his law. They argue about a lender who needs (to use) the security;
R. Eliezer says, he acts for his own benefit, so this is not considered a Mitzvah;
R. Akiva says, since he pays for his usage, this is still considered a Mitzvah.
Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law.
(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Reuven lent Shimon, and took a security at the time of the loan, and Shemitah came; even if the security is only worth half the loan, the loan is not cancelled;
Rebbi says, if the security is worth the entire loan, the loan is not cancelled. If not, it is cancelled.
Question: R. Shimon ben Gamliel said 'it is not cancelled.' What does this mean?
Suggestion: The value of the security is not cancelled.
Rejection: That would imply that Rebbi holds that even that is cancelled. If so, why did he take a security?!
Answer: Rather, R. Shimon says that the entire loan is not cancelled. Rebbi says that the value of the loan above the security is cancelled.
R. Shimon holds that a security acquires fully. Rebbi holds that it acquires only according to its value.
Rejection: No. Really, R. Shimon means that the value of the security is not cancelled.
Question: If so, Rebbi holds that even that is cancelled. Why did he take a security?!
Answer: It is a remembrance of the loan.
OATHS TAKEN TO RECEIVE PAYMENT
(Mishnah): When one must swear mid'Oraisa, it is to avoid paying. The following people take a Rabbinic oath and collect: a worker, a Nigzal (victim of theft), a Nechbal (one who was wounded), one who claims from a defendant who is disqualified from swearing, and a grocer swearing about his ledger.
The case of a worker is that Reuven claims (on the day he worked) that he was not paid, and Shimon (the employer) says 'I paid you';
Reuven swears that he was not paid, and collects.
R. Yehudah says, Reuven swears and collects only if Shimon partially admits, e.g. Reuven claims wages of 50 Dinarim and Shimon admits to 25.
The case of a Nigzal is that witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house without permission to take a security. Yehudah says 'you took my Kelim', and Levi denies this;
Yehudah swears how much was taken, and collects.
R. Yehudah says, he swears and collects only if Levi partially admits, e.g. Yehudah claims that two Kelim were taken and Levi admits to one.
The case of a Nechbal is that witnesses testify that Levi was unbruised when he entered Yehudah's house, and he left bruised. Levi says, 'you wounded me', and Yehudah denies this.
Levi swears that Yehudah wounded him, and collects the damages.
R. Yehudah says, he swears and collects only if Yehudah partially admits, e.g. Levi claims that he wounded him twice and Yehudah admits to once.