SHEVUOS 44 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

(a)We just suggested that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue in a case where the security is worth less than the loan, and the basis of their Machlokes is over Shmuel's Din. Alternatively, they argue even in a case where the security is equivalent to the loan, and they argue over Rebbi Yitzchak's Din. What does Rebbi Yitzchak say about a Ba'al-Chov (a creditor) and a Mashkon (a security)?

(b)How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with the Din of returning a Mashkon [daily or nightly]) "u'lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah"?

(c)How will we now explain the opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Akiva?

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer?

1)

(a)We just suggested that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue in a case where the security is worth less than the loan, and the basis of their Machlokes is over Shmuel's Din. Alternatively, they argue even in a case where the security is equivalent to the loan, and they argue over Rebbi Yitzchak's, who says - 'Ba'al-Chov Koneh Mashkon' ('A creditor acquires the security').

(b)And he extrapolates this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Din of returning a Mashkon [daily or nightly]) "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" - because if the creditor did not acquire the security, why would returning it be considered Tzedakah?

(c)And as for the Machlokes Tana'im, Rebbi ...

1. ... Akiva holds like the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rebbi ...

2. ... Eliezer does not (which explains why the creditor does not lose his right to claim when he loses the security).

2)

(a)What problem do we have with this interpretation of the Machlokes, based on the fact that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are talking about a 'Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah'?

(b)What is the S'vara behind this distinction? Why is a Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah Koneh, whilst a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah is not?

(c)In fact we conclude, everyone holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, and they argue over the status of a Shomer Aveidah. What exactly, is then be the basis of their Machlokes?

2)

(a)The problem with this, based on the fact that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are talking about a 'Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah' is - that Rebbi Yitzchak speaks about a 'Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah' exclusively.

(b)The S'vara behind this distinction is - the fact that whereas a Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah is enacted by the Beis-Din, who claim the Mashkon from the debtor when he fails to pay, a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah is a private enterprise.

(c)In fact we conclude, everyone holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, and they argue in the case of a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah the status of a Shomer Aveidah, whether he is a Shomer Chinam (Rebbi Eliezer), or a Shomer Sachar (Rebbi Akiva).

3)

(a)Similarly, Rabah and Rav Yosef argue over a Shomer Aveidah. What does each one say?

(b)What makes a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Sachar, according to Rav Yosef (See Tosfos DH 'Shomer Aveidah ... ')?

(c)We ask whether Rav Yosef's opinion is a Machlokes Tana'im. Why do we not ask likewise on Rabah?

(d)We conclude that everybody holds like Rav Yosef, and that they are arguing over whether 'Malveh al Mashkon' is a Mitzvah or not. On what grounds does Rebbi ...

1. ... Akiva hold that it is?

2. ... Eliezer hold that it is not?

(e)Why, according to Rebbi Eliezer, is a Shomer Aveidah different?

3)

(a)Similarly, Rabah and Rav Yosef argue over a Shomer Aveidah - Rabah holds that he is a Shomer Chinam, Rav Yosef, a Shomer Sachar.

(b)What makes a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Sachar, according to Rav Yosef is - the fact that he gains a P'rutah whenever a poor man comes for Tzedakah and he is looking after the Aveidah (see Tosfos).

(c)We ask whether Rav Yosef's opinion is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rabah's opinion certainly is - because if even where there is no Mitzvah involved (and he is not Patur from giving a poor man Tzedakah), Rebbi Akiva holds that he is a Shomer Sachar, how much more so where there is!

(d)We conclude that everybody holds like Rav Yosef, and that they are arguing over whether 'Malveh al Mashkon' is a Mitzvah or not. Rebbi ...

1. ... Akiva holds that it is - because it is a Mitzvah to lend a fellow-Jew money, as the Pasuk says in Mishpatim "Im Kesef Talveh es Ami".

2. ... Eliezer hold that it is not - because the Mashkon is meant for his personal benefit, to use it and to deduct what he benefits from the amount owing (and to augment the Mitzvah) ...

(e)... unlike a Shomer Aveidah - who is not permitted to use the article.

44b----------------------------------------44b

4)

(a)We then try to connect Shmuel's Din ('Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Alfa Zuzi') with the Machlokes Tana'im in the Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chavero al ha'Mashkon ve'Nichn'sah Sh'mitah, af-al-Pi she'Eino Shaveh Ela Palga, Eino Meshamet, Divrei Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'. What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi say?

(b)Why, on principle, does Sh'mitah not cancel a debt on which there is a Mashkon?

(c)Why do we initially establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling on the half of the loan that is in excess of the Mashkon? Why not on the half that it does cover?

(d)What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

4)

(a)) We then try to connect Shmuel's Din ('Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Alfa Zuzi') with the Machlokes Tana'im in the Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chavero al ha'Mashkon ve'Nichn'sah Sh'mitah, af-al-Pi she'Eino Shaveh Ela Palga, Eino Meshamet, Divrei Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Omer - Im Hayah Mashkono Keneged Chovo, Eino Meshamet ... '.

(b)On principle, Sh'mitah does not cancel a debt on which there is a Mashkon - because the Din of Hashmatas Kesafim is based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Yigos" (the prohibition of claiming a debt in the Sh'mitah), and a creditor who has a Mashkon does not need to claim.

(c)Initially, we establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling on the half of the loan that is in excess of the Mashkon - because why would Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi argue on the half that it does cover? What would then be the purpose of the Mashkon?

(d)In that case - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel follows the opinion of Shmuel, and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi does not.

5)

(a)We conclude however, that they are arguing over the half that the Mashkon covers. The Tana Kama holds that at least the half that is covered by the Mashkon is not cancelled by the Sh'mitah. What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi say? What is then the purpose of the Mashkon, as we asked earlier?

(b)Which Tana will then conform with Shmuel's opinion?

5)

(a)We conclude however, that they are arguing over the half that the Mashkon covers. The Tana Kama holds that at least the half that is covered by the Mashkon is not cancelled by the Sh'mitah. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi however holds - even that half is cancelled too, because, in his opinion, a Mashkon serves as no more than a reminder (and has no other legal ramifications).

(b)Neither Tana, in fact, will then conform with Shmuel's opinion.

Hadran Alach, 'Shevu'as ha'Dayanim'

Perek Kol ha'Nishba'in

6)

(a)What do 'Sachir', 'Nigzal' and 'Nechbal' have in common?

(b)Our Mishnah adds two more cases to the list. One of them is 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah'. What is the other?

(c)What is the case of ...

1. ... 'Sachir'?

2. ... 'Nigzal'?

3. ... 'Nechbal'?

4. ... 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah'? To which three areas of Shevu'ah does this pertain?

(d)Why does the Tana say 'va'Afilu Shevu'as Shav'? Why might we have thought that Shevu'as Shav is different?

6)

(a)'Sachir', 'Nigzal' and 'Nechbal' all belong to the list of cases that swear and take (as opposed to swearing and not having to pay).

(b)Our Mishnah adds two more cases to the list. One of them is 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah' - the other, 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' (both of which will be defined shortly).

(c)The case of ...

1. ... 'Sachir' is - where Reuven claims his wages from Shimon, who argues that he has already paid.

2. ... 'Nigzal' is - where witnesses testify that Reuven entered Shimon's house to take a security without Beis-Din's permission, and he subsequently denies Shimon's claim that he actually took some objects.

3. ... 'Nechbal' is - where witnesses testify that when Shimon, followed by Reuven, entered a house, he was unblemished, but when he left, he was wounded.

4. ... 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah' concerns - a case of a Shevu'as ha'Eidus, a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon and a Shevu'as Shav.

(d)The Tana say 'va'Afilu Shevu'as Shav'- because we would have precluded it seeing as it does not involve financial fraud, in which case we would have thought he is not suspected of swearing falsely.

7)

(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the previous cases?

(b)What is his reasoning?

(c)With which of the four cases does he not argue?

7)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah restricts the above oaths (of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin') to there where there is already a Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'.

(b)The reason for this is - because, in his opinion, Chazal did not institute a new Shevu'ah (like the Tana Kama holds), but merely switched the existing one from the defendant to the claimant)

(c)He does not argue - in the first case (that of Sachir), because the reason for the Shevu'ah, which we will discuss later, does not call for a distinction between 'Modeh be'Miktzas' and 'Kofer ba'Kol'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF