SHEVUOS 49 - Two weeks of study material, including the Siyum of Maseches Shevuos, 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.



תוספות ד"ה לכל מגלגלין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether one can apply Gilgul Shevuah to the other cases listed after the case of a worker in the Mishnah.)

פריצב"א דקמא נקט וה"ה כל הנהו דתני בהדיה כיון שהשבועה לטובתם אין לגלגל עליהם


Opinion#1: The Ritzva explains that the first example was cited, but this applies to all of the cases cited along with a worker in the Mishnah. Being that the oath was instituted for their good, one cannot use it as a springboard to make them take other oaths.

ואין נראה דשבועת שכיר אינה לטובתו דמן הדין היה נוטל בלא שבועה ואין נשבע אלא להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית


Question: This does not seem correct. The oath of a worker is not for his good. According to the letter of the law, he should be able to take his wages without taking an oath. He only swears in order to appease the mindset of his employer.

אלא אמר ר"י דדוקא נקט שכיר משום דשבועתו אינה אלא להפיס לא חייבוהו כל כך שיכול לגלגל עליו


Opinion#2: Rather, the Ri explains, Rav Huna specifically said a worker because his oath is only to appease his employer. This is not such an obligation that enables the employer to use it as a springboard to make him take other oaths.

ואע"ג דעד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה אמר בהכותב (כתובות דף פז:) דאינה אלא להפיס דעתו של בעל


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in a case where one witness testifies that the husband already paid a Kesuvah, the Gemara in Kesuvos (87b) tells us that the oath (the woman must take before she can collect her Kesuvah) is still just to appease the husband. (Why, then, do we say that one can make the woman take other oaths in that case if this cannot be done to a worker because he only swears to appease his employer?)

מ"מ שייך גלגול שבועה דאינה פטורה אלא מגזירת הכתוב דאין נשבעין על הקרקעות וגם שכל הנשבעין נשבעין ולא משלמין


Answer: Even so, a Gilgul Shevuah is relative to that case, as she is only deemed exempt from taking a Shevuah (according to the letter of the law) due to the teaching from a Pasuk that one does not swear regarding land. She is also exempt because all of those who swear are supposed to swear and not pay. (In other words, being that she really should swear and is exempt due to Halachic technicalities (i.e. not swearing on land), the Rabbinic oath can be used as a springboard for other oaths. This is as opposed to a worker, who is really exempt based on logic, and only takes an oath to appease his employer.)



תוספות ד"ה ארבעה שומרין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the logic of the order of the Shomrim listed in the Mishnah.)

אע"ג דשומר שכר כתיב בתר שומר חנם


Implied Question: This (order of the Mishnah, listing Shoel after Shomer Chinam) is despite the fact that a Shomer Sachar is stated in the Pasuk immediately after a Shomer Chinam.

הכא חשיב החמור יותר אחר הקל יותר


Answer: In our Mishah, the order is based on the most stringent Shomer being listed after the most lenient Shomer.



תוספות ד"ה והעדים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves the correct text in our Mishnah from the Gemara in Bava Kama.)

ל"ג שגנבו ול"ג נמי טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ד' וה'


Text: We do not have the text "that they stole" or "if he slaughtered and (i.e. or) sold he pays four or five (times the amount of the sheep or ox respectively)."

דבהגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קו:) פריך מינה לרב דאמר הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון משלם תשלומי כפל טבח ומכר משלם ד' וה' והכא קתני שאכלו משלם תשלומי כפל אבל תשלומי ד' וה' לא אע"ג דא"א לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה משמע שאכלו גרסי'


Text(cont.): In Bava Kama (106b), the Gemara asks a question on Rav who says that if a guardian claims that the object was stolen (and it turns out he in fact had stolen the item), he pays Keifel. If he slaughtered and stole the animal, he pays four or five times. Our Mishnah says that if he ate it, he pays Keifel. It does not say that he pays four or five times the amount, even though one cannot eat a Kzayis of meat without first slaughtering the animal. This implies that our text should be that he ate the meat (as the text of the Mishnah appears in Bava Kama).

וליכא למימר דהתם ברייתא הוא דפריך מינה


Implied Question: One cannot say that the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) is asking a question from a Beraisa.

מדדחיק התם לאוקומיה כר' מאיר והיינו משום דסתם מתני' ר' מאיר היא


Answer: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara there tries to say this is according to Rebbi Meir, because a general Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir (a sure sign that it is asking from our Mishnah, not a Beraisa).

ואר"י הא דלא תנא טבח ומכר משלם ד' וה' אף על גב דאמת הוא משום דבקרא לא כתיב ד' וה' אלא בגנב עצמו


Explanation: The Ri explains that the reason why our Mishnah does not state, "If he slaughtered and sold he must pay four or five times" even though it is true, is because the Pasuk does not discuss paying four or five times besides for a case where the person paying is the actual thief.



תוספות ד"ה אמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the text of our Mishnah.)

בקונטרס ל"ג הכא משביעך אני ואמר אמן דבלא שבועה נמי איכא כפל בגנב עצמו


Text#1: Tosfos does not have the text here, "I make you swear, and he says amen." This is because a thief would have to pay even if he did not take an oath to this effect.

ולפ"ז ל"ג הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם דחומש ואשם ליכא אלא בשבועה


Text#1(cont.): Based on this, we do not have the text, "If he admitted on his own, he pays the principle, a fifth, and an Asham." One only must pay a fifth and bring an Asham if he swore.

ובהגוזל קמא (ב"ק דף קו.) משמע בהדיא דגר' ליה דדייק הודה מפי עצמו אין אחר עדים לא ומוכח מינה דממון המחייבו כפל פוטרו מן החומש ונקט משביעך משום סיפא


Text#2: The Gemara in Bava Kama (106a) implies clearly that the text, "If he admitted etc." is the correct text, as the Gemara there deduces that this is only if he admits on his own, not after witnesses testified. The Gemara proves from there that if he is liable for Keifel, he is exempt from paying an extra fifth. The Mishnah here says, "I make you swear" (although it is not necessary, as stated above in (a)) in order to match the second part of the Mishnah.



תוספות ד"ה ראה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how to understand our Mishnah according to Shmuel.)

לשמואל דאמר במרובה (שם דף עה. ושם) מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב


Implied Question: Shmuel says in Bava Kama (75a) that if someone admits to a fine, and afterwards witnesses come and testify that he did this, he is liable. (This seems to be contradicted by our Mishnah!)

צריך לאוקומי מתני' כגון שחזרו לאחוריהם וכה"ג משני התם


Answer: One must say that the Mishnah is discussing a case where the witnesses left (and never testified). A similar answer is given in the Gemara there.




תוספות ד"ה מאן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that this seems to be the law.)

משמע דהכי הלכתא


Observation: The Gemara implies that this is indeed the Halachah.



תוספות ד"ה וחייבין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Shevuas Shomrim is still part of Shevuas Bituy, while Shevuas ha'Eidus is not.)

תימה דנימא דיצא לידון בדבר החדש ואין לך בו אלא חידושו כדאמרינן בפרק שלישי גבי שבועת העדות (לעיל דף כה:)


Question: This is difficult. We should say that being that the category Shevuas Shomrim was taken out of the general rule of Shevuas Bituy, we should say that Shevuas Shomrim is a completely separate category, and is no longer relative to Shevuas Bituy. Rava states this concept earlier (25b) regarding Shevuas ha'Eidus (as a reason why one is not liable for both Shevuas ha'Eidus and Shevuas Bituy).

ונראה לי דלא דמי דהתם יצא להקל הילכך הוי חידוש אבל הכא דיצא להחמיר לפי שכופר ממון אין זה חידוש


Answer: These Gemaros are incomparable. Shevuas ha'Eidus leaves the rule of Shevuas Bituy in a lenient fashion. This is why it is novel. However, here Shevuas Shomrim is more stringent than Shevuas Bituy as the person taking the oath is denying owing money. This is not the type of novel law that completely leaves the rule.