Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דסתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמי — גליל andיהודה For are generally considered to be in a wartime state

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that generally a מחאה שלא בפניו is a valid מחאה (and therefore a חזקה שלא בפניו הויא חזקה). However during a state of conflict between two regions a מחאה שלא בפניו is not a מחאה (and neither is the חזקה valid). יהודה and גליל are considered to be in a state of perpetual conflict. Therefore there is no מחאה (and no חזקה) between יהודה וגליל.

תוספות asks a question: תימה דבריש גיטין (דף ד,ב ושם) תנן¹ דבארץ ישראל אין צריך לומר – This is astounding! For we learnt in a משנה in the beginning of מסכת גיטין that in א״י there is no requirement to say that the גט was –

בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם² אפילו מיהודה לגליל – written in my presence and signed in my presence,**** even if the גט is brought from יהודה to גליל**; which are considered here to be on a wartime status.** We are not concerned about finding עדי קיום –

משום דאיכא עולי רגלים ובתי דינין ועדים מצויין לקיימו – Because there are those who ascend to ירושלים for the holidays and there are courts of lawthroughout א״י, so therefore there are witnesses available to be מקיים the גט. The people, who are עולה רגל, or are going to בי״ד, from יהודה, will be able to be מקיים the גט in גליל (and vice versa). It is evident from this גמרא in גיטין that sufficient people travel from יהודה to גליל to be מקיים a גט. These people who are traveling should also be able to relate the מחאה. Why is there a difference between a מחאה and קיום?!

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם האשה מחזרת אחרי עדי קיום – And one can say that there is indeed a difference between מחאה and חזקה, for there by a גט the woman is searching for עדי קיום; she needs them to authenticate the גט (in order to remarry, etc.) Therefore –

אף על פי דיהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמי תמצא עדי קיום כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים – Even though that יהודה and גליל are considered to be on a wartime basis, nevertheless she will find the עדי קיום since there are עולי רגלים who travel between יהודה and גליל. She is searching for them; therefore she will surely find them. אבל המחזיק אין רגיל לחזור אחרי עדי מחאה – However it is not usual for the new possessor of the property to search for עדי מחאה. Therefore even if there are a few people who travel between יהודה וגליל, the מחזיק will not hear anything from them, since he is not investigating if a מחאה was lodged against him.³

תוספות has an additional question: ואם תאמר התם [שם דף ז.א] דאמר שאני בני מחוזא דניידי – And if you will say; that the גמרא states there that inhabitants of מחוזא are different⁴ for they travel continually –

וצריך לומר אפילו באותה שכונה בפני נכתב [ובפני נחתם⁵] דאין עדים מצויין לקיימו – And therefore the שליח הגט is required to say בפ״נ [ובפ״נ] even if he brings a גט in the same neighborhood,**** for witnesses are not available to authenticate the גט, even if it was brought from one house to another in the same neighborhood. The people of מחוזא are always traveling on business and they may not be available to be מקיים the גט and/or they may not recognize the signatures of their associates even in the same שכונה. It would therefore seem that since even for a גט, where the woman is searching specifically for עדי קיום, nevertheless מחוזא is considered a place where there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו –

אטו במחוזא לא תועיל מחאה שלא בפניו – Does it therefore follow that in מחוזא an absentee מחאה will not be effective?! In the previous answer, תוספות concluded that it is more likely that a woman will find the עדי קיום from a war zone, than the מחזיק will hear the מחאה שלא בפניו from that same place. Therefore in a case where the woman will not find עדי קיום (such as in מחוזא), it would seem that the מחזיק will certainly not hear the מחאה שלא בפניו. It seems therefore that in מחוזא a מחאה שלא בפניו will not be effective.⁶ תוספות finds this to be highly unlikely!

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם דרך הליכתן מן העיר כששמעו מחאה – And one can say that there in מחוזא, on their way when they leave the city of מחוזא for their travels, if these travelers heard a מחאה (from someone in מחוזא) –

רגילות הוא לומר פלוני מיחה ושומעין אחרים עד שנשמע הקול למחזיק – It is customary for the traveler to remark to others, that so and so protested the occupation of his field and others hear about this מחאה and in turn relate it to others until the מחזיק hears of this protest.It is not necessary for the party that heard the initial protest to remain in the city, in order for the מחזיק to be aware of the protest. Even if the initial hearing party (or any subsequent hearing parties) leave the city, the word will still get around to others who are remaining in the city, until it will ultimately reach the מחזיק. אבל גבי גט אין רגיל שיאמרו בהליכתן אנו חתמנו על הגט – However by a גט it is not usual that the signers of the גט will say while leaving מחוזא, that we signed on a גט**,⁷and it is equally unusual for them to say** – [או⁸ מכירין אנו חתימת עדים החתומים]: [(or that) we recognize the signatures of the signing witnesses**(which is also a valid קיום)**].⁹ People usually do not say these kinds of things (as opposed to saying that פלוני מיחה [which is a standard topic of conversation]). Therefore the woman will not be able to find the עדים who would be מקיים her גט.

SUMMARY A woman is more concerned with finding עדי קיום for her גט than a person is concerned whether anyone made a מחאה on his חזקה. Therefore a woman will more easily find עדי קיום from a שעת חירום situation that the מחזיק will hear a מחאה in this same situation. Conversely people are more likely to mention about hearing a מחאה than mentioning that they signed a גט. Therefore in a city of frequent travelers (like מחוזא) it is more likely that the מחזיק will hear a מחאה שלא בפניו than she will find her עדי קיום.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות second question was that in מחוזא a מחאה שלא בפניו should not be valid.¹⁰ Did תוספות mean that the מחאה should not be valid unless it is בפניו, otherwise the חזקה is valid; or that since a מחאה שלא בפניו is not valid (in מחוזא), the חזקה should not be valid?
2. תוספות implies that if the עדים would say that אנו חתמנו על הגט, etc. and it would be reported to בי״ד it would be a valid קיום.¹¹ This seems to contradict the rule that an עד מפי עד is invalid!¹²

footnotes: ¹ דף ב,א. ² When a שליח brings a גט from חוץ לארץ to א״י, he must proclaim בפ״נ ובפ״נ. This is considered an authentication of the גט, and prevents the husband from claiming that he never sent it. It is necessary that the שליח be מקיים the גט by saying בפ״נ ובפ״נ, for since it is from חו״ל we may not be able to authenticate it otherwise. The גמרא explains that in א״י itself however there is no such requirement ³ See previous תוספות יז,ב ד״ה מחאה footnote # 3. ⁴ In other cities in the same country, even in חו״ל, no בפ״נ is required (according to רבא) since in the same country there are עדים מצויין לקיימו. However מחוזא, which was in חו״ל, is different. ⁵ See הגהות הב״ח. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁷ While people may be interested if anyone divorced, they are not particularly concerned who signed the גט. ⁸ According to the marginal note, the bracketed statement is from a manuscript (attributed to תוס׳). ⁹ It seems from תוספות that if they said אנחנו חתמנו על הגט or מכירים אנו חתימת העדים and this would be reported to בי״ד (by two עדים) it would be a proper קיום. See: ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. תוספות in גיטין ד,ב ד״ה כיון answers simply that she will not find the עדי קיום; implying that the עדים themselves must testify in בי״ד. See however ח״ב מ״ת אות ריד. ¹⁰ See footnote # 6. ¹¹ See footnote # 9. ¹² See סוכ״ד and משכנות הרועים אות צ.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אין צריך לפרעו בעדים — He is not required to pay him in the presence of עדים

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that the משנה could not have taught us the דין that if a לוה admitted to receiving a loan, however if he claims פרעתי he is נאמן; because he would be נאמן to say פרעתי not only if he admitted to the loan but even if there are עדים that he borrowed. The reason he is believed is because we follow the ruling that המלוה את חבירו בעדים א״צ לפרעו בעדים. There is however another מ״ד who maintains that המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפרעו בעדים. Our תוספות will discuss how this מ״ד will explain our משנה.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למאן דאמר צריך לפרעו בעדים¹ – And if you will ask; according to the one who maintains that he is required to pay him in the presence of עדים –

תקשי ליה מתניתין דהכא דליתני מנה לך בידי² – Our משנה here contradicts his view; for according to him, the משנה should have stated the case of ‘I owed you a מנה’; that he is believed to claim פרעתי. However if there were עדים that he borrowed a מנה he is not believed to claim פרעתי. According to this מ״ד this is indeed the ruling; as opposed to the מ״ד of א״צ לפרעו בעדים, where he will be believed to claim פרעתי even if there were עדים for the loan. The fact that the משנה did not state this דין would seem to prove that א״צ לפרעו בעדים.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דפלוגתא דתנאי היא בפרק שבועות הדיינין³ (שבועות דף מא,ב) – And one can answer that it is not only a dispute among אמוראים, but rather it is (also) a dispute even among the תנאים in פרק שבועות הדיינים. Therefore we cannot ask a question on the אמורא who claims צריך לפרעו בעדים, from our משנה, because he can answer that even though our משנה implies that א״צ לפרעו בעדים, nevertheless there are other תנאים who maintain that צריך לפרעו בעדים. This אמורא will follow those תנאים.

תוספות offers a different answer: אי נמי דלא חשיב לה פירכא – Or you may also say that the מ״ד who maintains צריך לפרעו בעדים does not consider this a refutation; the fact that the משנה did not state the case of מנה לך בידי does not prove that א״צ לפרעו בעדים. It is possible that צריך לפרעו בעדים, and therefore the משנה could have indeed stated the case of מנה לך בידי. However the משנה chose not to state the case of מנה לך בידי, but rather the case of שדה זו של אביך היה –

משום דניחא ליה לאשמועינן דאין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן – Because the משנה would rather let us know the ruling that one cannot make a חזקה in the properties of a minor. The תנא of the משנה felt (according to the מ״ד צריך לפרעו בעדים) that it was more important to teach us the דין of אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן, than to teach us the דין that המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפרעו בעדים. Therefore the משנה states שדה זו של אביך כו׳ which teaches us the דין of אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן.⁴ However indeed it could have taught us the דין of מנה לך בידי.

תוספות has an additional question (even) on the מ״ד א״צ לפרעו בעדים. The גמרא stated that the משנה could not state the case of מנה לך בידי, because we could not conclude the סיפא that if יש עדים he is not נאמן. However תוספות will ask that it is possible to conclude ואם יש עדים אינו נאמן. ואם תאמר מאי משני – And if you will ask; what did the גמרא answer, that it is not possible to state ואם יש עדים אינו נאמן, since המלוה את חבירו בעדים א״צ לפרעו בעדים, nevertheless –

אכתי ליתני ואם יש עדים ואמר לו אל תפרעני אלא בפני פלוני ופלוני**** אינו נאמן – The משנה can still teach us the case of מנה לך בידי and conclude; ‘and if there are עדים for the loan who will testify that the לוה borrowed and (that⁵) the מלוה said to the לוה do not pay me in private, but pay me only in the presence of those twopeople who will be the witnesses to the payment; the לוה will not be believed to claim פרעתי. The question is that the משנה could have (and should have) stated the case of מנה לך בידי נאמן with a הפה שאסר;⁶however if the מלוה stated אל תפרעני אלא בפני פלוני ופלוני, then the לוה is not believed to claim פרעתי without (those) עדים.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלא היה רוצה להאריך בלשונו – And one can answer that the תנא of the משנה did not want to be excessive in his language. The תנא likes to limit the verbiage in the משנה, when he has the choice. Therefore he chose a case where he could be brief rather than choosing a case where it would require a rather lengthy statement.

תוספות offers an alternate answer to this last question: או⁷ שמא מילתא דפשיטא הוא: Or perhaps (the reason the תנא did not use this case is because) the תנא of the משנה felt that this is too obvious. There is no point in teaching us that if the מלוה told him to pay in the presence of עדים, the לוה would not be believed to claim פרעתי. That is so obvious that the משנה need not teach it to us.

SUMMARY We can maintain that our משנה is of the opinion that המלוה את חבירו בעדים א״צ לפרעו בעדים, and the מ״ד who maintains צריך לפרעו בעדים will follow the opinion of other תנאים who also maintain that צריך לפרעו בעדים. Another option is that our משנה can also maintain צריך לפרעו but did not state the case of מנה לך בידי because it would rather teach us אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן. The משנה did not want to teach the דין of מנה לך בידי in a case where there the מלוה required that אל תפרעני אלא בפני עדים, for either it would require a lengthy statement or that this ruling is too obvious.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is there any connection (or contradiction!) between the first קשיא ותירוצים of תוספות with the second קשיא (and תירוצים)?⁸
2. תוספות concludes that שמא מילתא דפשיטא הוא.⁹ Why is it a שמא; it is certainly a מילתא דפשיטא! We should have no need for the first תירוץ of תוספות (on the second וא״ת)! Or at least this should have been the first תירוץ!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ There is a dispute among the אמוראים whether המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפרעו בעדים or not. ² The שטמ״ק omits the words ׳דליתני מנה לך בידי׳. ³ תוספות seems to be referring to the מחלוקת there between ריב״ב and the רבנן. ⁴ See previous גמרא יז,ב (and תוד״ה ורב הונא). ⁵ See footnote # 10 (whether there were עדים that the מלוה said אל תפרענו אלא בפני עדים). ⁶ See מהרש״א וכו׳. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ See משכנות הרועים אות צ״ה. ⁹ See footnote # 7. ¹⁰ See (also) ח״ב מ״ת אות רי״ח.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי משיב אבידה הוי¹ — Ifit isaccordingto the view ofthe רבנן, they claim that it is comparable toreturning a lost article

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked that רבי יהושע should teach us the דין of הפה שאסר וכו׳ in a case where a לוה said to the son of the (deceased) מלוה, I owed your father a מנה, but I paid him back half; that the לוה is believed without taking the oath of a מודה במקצת.² The גמרא counters that this cannot be; for if ר״י follows the opinion of the רבנן then the לוה would be considered a משיב אבידה,³ etc. It is not clear why this presents a difficulty.⁴ Seemingly this is what ר״י is teaching that if he has a פה שאסר he is believed.⁵

תוספות explains why it is considered as a משיב אבידה⁶ , and what is therefore the difficulty: כדמסיק⁷ דבבנו מעיז ומעיז – As the גמרא concludes that concerning the son of the מלוה, the לוה can indeed be brazen and deny any loans that he actually owed the father.⁸ ואם כן לא מצי למיתני ואם יש עדים אינו נאמן – And since that is true;that בבנו he is מעיז ומעיז, then the משנה could not have stated that if there were witnesses to the (entire) loan, then the לוה is not believed to claim that he paid half –

דלעולם נאמן במגו דאי בעי אמר פרעתי הכל דבבנו מעיז ומעיז – For in fact the לוה will always be believed to claim I paid your father half since he has a מגו, for if the לוה wanted he could have said I paid your father everything, since a לוה is indeed מעיז against the son of the מלוה; therefore it is a proper מגו. ר״י could not have taught his דין of הפה שאסר in the case of והאכלתיו פרס for the לוה would be believed without a שבועה even if there were עדים that he owed him the entire sum.

SUMMARY If ר״י would agree to the חכמים, there would be a difficulty with the סיפא where he is אינו נאמן (but not with the נאמןof the רישא).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains that the question ׳משיב אבידה הוי׳, is on the סיפא of ואם יש עדים אינו נאמן. Seemingly the סיפא is not understood in any event. What effect can עדי הלואה have on a מלוה ע״פ; as the גמרא previously stated, since המלוה את חבירו בעדים א״צ לפרעו בעדים?!

footnotes: ¹ When one returns a lost article; a wallet for instance, where the loser claims that there was money in the wallet, and the finder denies it, the law is that the finder is exempt from the usual oath of a מודה במקצת (the finder is a מודה במקצת he admits to finding the wallet but denies that there was any money there). The reason he is exempt from שבועת מודה במקצת is because of a תקנת חכמים; otherwise people would be hesitant to return אבידות out of concern that this may obligate them to take a שבועה דאורייתא. ² A לוה who admits partially to a claim of a מלוה is obligated to swear a שבועת מודה במקצת that he does not owe the rest of the debt which the מלוה claims. ³ See following תוספות ד״ה ורבי אליעזר, where it seems that this term משיב אבידה (in the case of והאכלתיו פרס) refers to a מגו; that he could have been a כופר הכל and claimed that he paid everything. See following footnote # 5. ⁴ According to רש״י (ד״ה אליבא) who maintains that the ruling of ר״י is in a case of אין הלה תובעו, the question is directed to the רישא (that he would be believed even in a case of הלה תובעו), however according to תוספות that ר״י is also discussing a case of הלה תובעו, the sגמרא׳ question is not readily understood. ⁵ The terms הפה שאסר and משיב אבידה are identical in this instance of והאכלתיו פרס. See previous footnote # 3. ⁶ Every מודה במקצת (seemingly) has a מגו of כופר הכל and nevertheless is required to swear (as רבה will shortly explain in the גמרא). Why is this מודה במקצת of והאכלתי פרס any different?! ⁷ יח,ב. ⁸ This is why by והאכלתיו פרס the לוה is considered a משיב אבידה and is פטור from a שבועה since he has the מגו of being a כופר הכל. The rule of אין אדם מעיז פניו כו׳ does not apply here. However this itself is no contradiction to ר״י; on the contrary this conforms to the ruling of ר״י. The difficulty stems from the purported ׳סיפא׳, as תוספות concludes.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור — And does not ראב״י maintain that one who returns a lost object is exempt from taking an oath

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a dispute between the ראב״י and the חכמים in a case of a מודה במקצת בטענת עצמו. Currently¹ the גמרא understood this to mean literally that the לוה approached the son of the (deceased) מלוה and admitted to borrowing a מנה from the מלוה; however the לוה claims he repaid the father half. ראב״י maintains that it is a case of מודה במקצת² and the לוה must swear to the son that he indeed paid half. The חכמים argue that here, since the לוה initially approached the son of the מלוה, the לוה is considered a משיב אבידה (for he could have chosen not to come forward at all), and is therefore exempt from the שבועת מודה במקצת. The גמרא challenges the view of ראב״י and asks ‘can it possibly be that ראב״י does not agree that a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה’?! The issue at hand is why the גמרא is so certain that ראב״י maintains that a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה. There is a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות in explaining the sגמרא׳ assumption.

פירש בקונטרס³ התנן⁴ המוצא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תיקון העולם⁵ –

רש״י explained that the גמרא assumed that ראב״י definitely agrees that a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה, for we learnt in a משנה that one who finds a lost article is not obligated to take the oath of a מודה במקצת, on account of ‘the betterment of society’. This ׳תיקון העולם׳ should apply to every type of ׳משיב אבידה׳, including our case, where the לוה claims ׳והאכילתיו פרס׳; where he did not have to declare initially that he owed the father money.⁶ –

ואית ספרים דגרסי הכי בהדיא – And there are texts which state this explicitly; in some texts it is written that ראב״י cannot disagree with the ruling that a משיב אבידה is פטור משבועה, since ‘there is a משנה that states המוצא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תקון העולם’.

It is the opinion of רש״י (and the ׳אית ספרים׳) that a משיב אבידה in general, as well as our case of ראב״י, is פטור from a שבועה on account of the תקנת חכמים; but not מדאורייתא. According to תורה law a משיב אבידה would be מחויב שבועה. תוספות, however, disagrees: ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק דמשיב אבידה פטור מדאורייתא מטעם מגו – And the ר״י disagrees**; it cannot be that a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה only מפני תקון העולם; but rather** a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה according to תורה law,**** for he has a מגו.The משיב אבדה (in general, and the לוה in the case of ראב״י) did not have to come forward at all and he could have kept everything –

ולא מכח ההיא משנה פריך אלא פריך וכי לית ליה מגו – And the גמרא is not challenging that ראב״י must maintain משיב אבידה פטור on account of that משנה which states ׳המוצא מציאה וכו׳,⁷ but rather, the גמרא is questioning, does not ראב״י maintain the rule of מגו?! It seemed obvious to the גמרא that everyone agrees that מגו is effective מדאורייתא⁸ (especially the מגו of a משיב אבידה, as in our case of טענת עצמו)!

תוספות offers a proof that the question of the גמרא that ׳וכי לית ליה לראב״י׳, is not dependent on the משנה of המוצא מציאה (which is a דרבנן [תקון העולם]), but rather on account of מגו (which is a דין דאורייתא):⁹ וכן משמע בהניזקין (גיטין דף נא,א ושם) דפריך ולית ליה לרבי יצחק המוצא מציאה¹⁰ כולי – And this is also indicated in פרק הניזקין where the גמרא challenges ‘does not ר״י agree with the משנה which states that a מוצא מציאה, etc. is not obligated to take an oath’. How can ר״י who is an אמורא rule that the finder is required to take the oath of a מודה במקצת?! This contradicts a משנה! ומשני הוא דאמר כרבי אלעזר בן יעקב דאמר פעמים שאדם נשבע כולי – And the גמרא answers that ר״י follows the opinion of ראב״י who maintains, that sometimes a person swears, etc. on his own claim.¹¹ This answer (seemingly) indicates that ראב״י who is a תנא disagrees with the משנה of המוצא מציאה וכו׳. ראב״י maintains that a משיב אבידה is obligated to swear. ר״י follows the ruling of ראב״י –

ופריך ורבי אלעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור – And the גמרא there challenges (similar to the challenge in our גמרא); ‘does not ראב״י maintain that a משיב אבידה is פטור from a שבועה’. This concludes the citation from that גמרא.

תוספות continues with his proof: והשתא אי מכח מתניתין פריך – And now let us see, if (as רש״י maintains, that) the challenge to ראב״י is from the ‘strength’ of the משנה which states המוצא מציאה כו׳, then the גמרא –

הוה ליה למימר ולית ליה לבי אלעזר בן יעקב המוצא מציאה כדקאמר ארבי יצחק – Should have said and presented its challenge in the following manner: does not ראב״י agree with the משנה of המוצא מציאה,**** as the גמרא stated when it posed the challenge to ר״י. The גמרא clearly asked ולית ליה לר״י המוצא מציאה, the same should have been asked on ראב״י. The fact the question on ראב״י was phrased differently (לית ליה משיב אבידה) than the question on ר״י (which was ולית ליה המוצא מציאה), proves that they are different questions. The question on ראב״י is not on account of the משנה¹² (where it is only a פטור מפני תקון העולם), but rather on account of מגו (which is a פטור מדאורייתא).

תוספות offers an additional proof that the question on ראב״י in not based on the משנה of המוצא מציאה: ועוד כיון דמשני הוא דאמר כרבי אלעזר בן יעקב – And furthermore since the גמרא answered on its original question (does not ר״י agree to the משנה of המוצא מציאה; to which the גמרא answered) that ר״י follows the opinion of ראב״י –

אם כן רוצה לומר דרבי אלעזר בן יעקב פליג אמתניתין – This implies**** that the גמרא intends to state that ראב״י argues on our משנה of המוצא מציאה. This is the thrust of the question and answer. The question is how can ר״י (who is an אמורא) argue on the משנה of המוצא מציאה; to which the reply is that he can disagree with this משנה since he has the support of ראב״י (who is a תנא), who seemingly also argues on that משנה –

אם כן מאי פריך ורבי אלעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבדה פטור – If that is so, then why does the גמרא ask, ‘does not ראב״י agree that משיב אבדה is פטור’ (which according to רש״י means does he disagree with the משנה of משיב אבדה), how is this a question?! –

אין הכי נמי דלית ליה – Indeed this is how it is! ראב״י does not agree with the משנה!¹³ This is exactly what the answer on the first question (on ר״י) was! אלא מכח מגו פריך כדפרישית: But rather, the question on ראב״י is on account of מגו**;** how can it be that ראב״י does not subscribe to the rule of מגו, which is a דאורייתא;**** as I have previously explained.

SUMMARY The assumption that ראב״י agrees that a משיב אבדה is פטור from a שבועה is based, according to רש״י, on the משנה of המוצא וכו׳ לא ישבע מפני תקון העולם, and according to תוספות it is based on the rule of מגו. תוספות proves his contention, from the manner in which the גמרא (in גיטין) challenges ראב״י.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What are the relative advantages of each of the two proofs that תוספות cites from גיטין?
2. What is the essential difficulty that תוספות has with פירש״י?
3. How can תוספות claim that a משיב אבידה is פטור משבועה מדאורייתא, when the משנה in גיטין clearly states ‘המוצא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תקון העולם׳?!¹⁴
4. What would the דין be if an עד אחד supports the claim of the owner against the finder?

footnotes: ¹ According to the מסקנא of the גמרא, however, the dispute between ראב״י and the חכמים is not in a case of אין הלה תובעו. In a case of אין הלה תובעו all agree that he is a משיב אבידה and a משיב אבידה is פטור משבועה. ² A מודה במקצת is one who admits to owing partially what the plaintiff claims that he owes. A מודה במקצת is חייב a שבועה דאורייתא. The גמרא shortly explains the ‘reason’ for this. ³ בד״ה ורבי. ⁴ גיטין מח,ב. ⁵ If a מוצא מציאה would be required to take the oath of a מודה במקצת (in a situation where the owner claims that the אבידה was greater than what the מוצא is returning), then people would refrain from returning אבידות, out of concern that they be obligated for a שבועה דאורייתא. Therefore the חכמים instituted that a משיב אבידה is פטור משבועה. ⁶ The current understanding of the ברייתא is that we are discussing a case of טענת עצמו literally, which seemingly means אין הלה תובעו. ⁷ The fact that the משנה states המוצא וכו׳ לא ישבע מפני תקון העולם, does not compel ראב״י to agree. ראב״י is a תנא, and he may disagree with this משנה. Alternately, the משנה states that a משיב אבידה is פטור משבועה, on account of תקון העולם; otherwise people will not return אבידות. In the case of ראב״י, however (which is an unusual situation), there may be no need for a ruling that he is פטור משבועה because of a תקון העולם; since even if he is required to swear, there will be no major disruption, as there would be by משיב אבידה. ⁸ See the גמרא further on דף כב,א (after the משנה). ⁹ It would seem that a (regular) משיב אבידה who is a מודה במקצת באין הלה תובעו (the owner confronts him only after he returns the אבידה) is פטור משבועה even without תקון העולם, for he has a מגו. He did not have to come forward at all. The תקון העולם may be required in a case where the owner initially approaches the מוצא and claims that he saw him pick up two [attached] lost objects, which belong to the owner. The finder claims that he picked up only one object. This is a case where the finder has no מגו of claiming I found nothing, since אין אדם מעיז וכו׳ to be a כופר הכל. It is in this case (or similar cases) that the חכמים exempted him from a שבועה מפני תקון העולם. See following footnote # 10. ¹⁰ ר״י stated that if the owner claims I lost two purses which were tied together, and the finder claims that he found only one; the finder must take the oath of a מודה במקצת. See the מהרש״ל there who explains under which circumstances did ר״י rule that he has to swear. See previous footnote # 9. ¹¹ The גמרא there cites the same ברייתא as here, concerning ראב״י. ¹² ראב״י may indeed argue with the משנה, etc. See footnote # 7. ¹³ This is only in the הוה אמינא, when we assumed טענת עצמו to be literal. However in the מסקנא even ראב״י agrees that a משיב אבדה is פטור משבועה, (even when there is no מגו). ¹⁴ See footnote # 9.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אלא הכא בדרבה קא מיפלגי — But rather, here they are in a dispute concerning sרבה׳ reasoning.

OVERVIEW The גמרא is discussing the ruling of ראב״י that פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו. It is not clear what is meant by טענת עצמו. It cannot mean actually טענת עצמו without a תובע, for then he would be פטור from a שבועה since he is a משיב אבידה. Originally רב answered that טענת עצמו refers to טוענו קטן. The גמרא argued that by טוענו קטן there is no חיוב שבועה. The גמרא answered that when רב said טוענו קטן he meant a גדול who במילי דאביו is considered a קטן. The גמרא challenged this interpretation as well; if it is טוענו גדול then why is it considered a טענת עצמו; there is a תובע. At this point the גמרא answered אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי. It is not yet clear, however, what is meant by טענת עצמו. Is it a טענת גדול; or is it a טענת קטן? This is the מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות, as our תוספות will explain. The משנה in מסכת שבועות¹ states אין נשבעין על טענת ח״ש וקטן וכו׳ אבל נשבעין לקטן. רב resolves² the apparent contradiction in the משנה; that נשבעין לקטן refers to a קטן who is בא בטענת אביו. Here too there is the same מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות, what is the meaning of בא בטענת אביו.

פירש בקונטרס³ לעולם בטוענו קטן ודקא קשיא לך הא אין נשבעין על טענת קטן –

רש״י explained: indeed the claimant was a minor; and that which you had difficulty with, namely that if the claimant is a minor how can there be an oath; for there is no requirement to take an oath against a minor’s claim;⁴ the answer to that difficulty is –

הני מילי בבא בטענת עצמו אבל בבא בטענת אביו טענה חשובה היא – This rule that אין נשבעין על טענת קטן applies (only) when the קטן is coming with his own claim; however when the קטן is coming with his father’s claim, then it is considered a respectable claim and a שבועה is required⁵ in order to rebut it. It is nevertheless considered טענת עצמו, since the תובע is (merely) a קטן.

תוספות anticipates a possible difficulty with this interpretation. Once we assume that we are discussing a קטן הבא בטענת אביו, why does the גמרא continue? It seems we understand ראב״י. תוספות explains (according to רש״י) that it is necessary for the גמרא to continue; otherwise a question remains: וכי תימא מאי טעמייהו דרבנן – And if you will ask; what is the reason of the רבנן who maintain that he is not required to swear –

דאין סברא לומר דסברי דאף בבא בטענת אביו לית ביה ממשא – For it is not logical to assume that the רבנן maintain that (even) when the קטן comes with his father’s claim, his claim is worthless. It is assumed that the רבנן also agree that קטן הבא בטענת אביו is considered a טענה חשובה, and should require a שבועה if necessary.⁶ Why do the חכמים argue and maintain that a שבועה is not required? Therefore the גמרא concludes (according to רש״י) –

אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי – But rather the רבנן and ראב״י disagree in the ramification of sרבה׳ explanation.⁷ This concludes תוספות citation and interpretation of sרש״י׳ explanation.

The apparent difficulty with sרש״י׳ explanation is that the גמרא originally refuted the idea that טענת עצמו is referring to טענת קטן and maintained that טענת עצמו is בטוענו גדול (which was subsequently challenged). If the גמרא intends to restore the original interpretation of טענת עצמו, the גמרא should have said ׳אלא לעולם דטענו קטן׳; and go on to explain that since he is בא בטענת אביו, therefore it is a טענה חשובה. However the גמרא makes no mention of it. תוספות will now explain why רש״י, nevertheless, interpreted the גמרא in this manner, despite the apparent difficulty with this explanation. ונראה דמשום דקרי ליה טענת עצמו דחקו להעמיד בטוענו קטן – And it appears that רש״י was forced to interpret the מחלוקת between ראב״י and the רבנן by a טוענו קטן since the ברייתא refers to it as a טענת עצמו. A טענת עצמו cannot mean an actual טענת עצמו for then he is a משיב אבידה. It cannot refer to a טוענו גדול, since that is not טענת עצמו. The only option left open is טוענו קטן in a case where he is בא בטענת אביו.

תוספות, however, rejects sרש״י׳ interpretation: אבל קשה דעיקר התירוץ חסר מן הספר – However it is difficult to accept this interpretation; for the essence of the answer (that it is a case of טוענו קטן, and since he is בא בטענת אביו it is a טענה חשובה) is lacking in the text. The גמרא makes no mention of these ideas which רש״י is inserting into the תירוץ.

תוספות asks an additional question (which challenges sרש״י׳ assertion that a קטן who is בא בטענת אביו can be מחייב a שבועה): ועוד דבהגוזל קמא (בבא קמא דף קו,ב ושם) ממעטינן נתנו כשהוא קטן ותבעו כשהוא גדול – And furthermore in פרק הגוזל קמא there is a ברייתא which excludes the requirement for שבועה השומרים in a case where the object was given to the שומר when the owner was a minor, and the owner demanded it back when the owner was an adult.⁸ In this situation the שומר is not liable to take the oath of the שומרים (if he claims נאנסה, etc.) –

עד שתהא תביעה ונתינה שוין בגדלות – Unless the claim and the giving are equal that it was done by adults. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in ב״ק. תוספות continues –

והוא הדין דמהאי קרא ממעט נתנו כשהוא גדול ותבעו כשהוא קטן – And the same ruling applies; that from this same פסוק we exclude the שומר from a שבועה in a case where the owner gave it to the שומר when the owner was a גדול and claimed it when the owner was a קטן.⁹ תוספות will now explain what is meant by נתנו כשהוא גדול ותבעו כשהוא קטן –

דהיינו כגון שנתן לו אביו ותבעו בקטנות – This is for instance in a case where the father gave the object to the שומר (נתנו כשהוא גדול) and the claim was made by the son who is a קטן (ותבעו כשהוא קטן). In this case the same מיעוט should apply; there is no חיוב שבועה since there is no גדול, both by the נתינה and the תביעה. This repudiates sרש״י׳ position that if he is a קטן הבא בטענת אביו a שבועה is required. From the גמרא in ב״ק it seems that even in this case, a שבועה is not required.¹⁰

תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה דהכי פירושא לעולם בגדול מיירי – And it appears to תוספות that this is the explanation of the גמרא. Indeed we are discussing a case where the תובע is a גדול; as we were discussing until now –

אלא לא תימא דקרי ליה טענת עצמו משום דהודאת עצמו היא – However, you should not assume that it is called ‘his own claim’, because it is based on his own admission; that is not so, as the גמרא previously stated. Every חיוב שבועה of מודה במקצת is based on הודאת עצמו. אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי ולרבנן דבבנו מעיז טענת עצמו היא – But rather the reason it is considered טענת עצמו even though there is a claim (from an adult) against him, is because ראב״י ורבנן are arguing about רבה. Therefore according to the רבנן who maintain that when the son is making the claim, then the defendant is brazen enough to entirely deny the claim; that is why it is considered a טענת עצמו. The claim of the son is very weak since the לוה can (easily) deny it and would be פטור. The fact that the לוה admits (partially) to the claim of the son, renders it a טענת עצמו. The טענה of the son has no strength without the admission of the לוה.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty. The reason it is considered a טענת עצמו (לרבנן) is because the רבנן maintain that בבנו מעיז. However according to ראב״י that (even) בבנו אינו מעיז, it is not considered a טענת עצמו. Why then does ראב״י state in the ברייתא that פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו, when according to ראב״י it is not a טענת עצמו?! תוספות responds: והכי קאמר רבי אלעזר בן יעקב פעמים שאדם נשבע – And this is what ראב״י stated; that occasionally a person will swear –

על מה שאתם מחשיבים טענת עצמו – on a case which you (the רבנן) consider a טענת עצמו (since you maintain that בבנו מעיז) –

אבל לדידי דאינו מעיז טענת אחרים היא – However according to me that a person is not מעיז (even) by a son, this type of claim is considered a claim made by others and not a טענת עצמו; therefore I maintain that in such a case he is obligated to swear.¹¹

תוספות anticipates a difficulty and forewarns it. ובסוף שבועת הדיינין (שבועות מב,א ושם) דתנן אבל נשבעין לקטן – And in the end of פרק שבועת הדיינין where the משנה stated, ‘however there is a requirement to swear against a claim of a קטן’ –

ומפרש בבא בטענת אביו ורבי אלעזר בן יעקב היא – And רב explains the משנה that it is a case where the קטן is בא בטענת אביו and that משנה follows the view of ראב״י. This concludes the citation from מסכת שבועות. It would seem from that גמרא that ראב״י is discussing a case of a קטן (as רש״י interprets it) and he is מחייב a שבועה if he is בא בטענת אביו. This contradicts what תוספות maintains that ראב״י is discussing the case of a גדול; however by a קטן even if he is בא בטענת אביו, he is not מחייב a שבועה (as the גמרא in ב״ק indicates).

תוספות explains: ההוא קטן נמי לאו דווקא אלא גדול וקרי ליה קטן משום דלגבי מילי דאבוה קטן הוא – The קטן of that משנה is also not specifically a regular קטן, but rather a גדול. The משנה refers to him as a קטן because concerning the affairs of his father he is considered a קטן –

כדמפרש הכא – As the גמרא explained here previously when we stated that טענת עצמו is not בטוענו קטן but rather בטוענו גדול.

תוספות points to a difficulty with his interpretation: וקשה קצת דהוה ליה לאקשוייה ולשנויי אמתניתין דהתם כמו שמקשה על רב – And there is a slight difficulty, for the גמרא should have asked on that משנה and answered in the same manner as it asked on רב ([t]here). The משנה there stated אבל נשבעין לקטן. The גמרא asks that the משנה stated previously אין נשבעין על טענת ח״ש וקטן. רב answered that בבא בטענת אביו וראב״י היא. The simple explanation of רב is that בבא בטענת אביו we are נשבע on a טענת קטן (according to ראב״י) [as רש״י maintains]. However according to תוספות who argues and maintains that we are never נשבע על טענת קטן, we are forced to interpret what רב said בבא בטענת אביו means a גדול. The question arises, that the משנה stated נשבעין לקטן, not לגדול הבא בטענת אביו. The גמרא there should have asked this question on the משנה; and answered that the משנה really meant a גדול, however, ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא.¹² When רב interpreted ראב״י to mean a קטן the גמרא challenged his statement until we answered that when רב said קטן he meant גדול for גדול במילי דאביו קטן הוא. Why was not the same discussion centered on the משנה?! One cannot answer that the גמרא there does ask the question and gives the answer –

דבההיא שמעתא גופה לא מקשה על המשנה אלא על רב: For in that גמרא itself it does not ask the question on the משנה (how can the משנה state נשבעין לקטן); but rather the question was addressed (only) to רב. The גמרא there only challenged sרב׳ interpretation of ראב״י; but not the interpretation of the משנה.¹³ The question remains why did not the גמרא ask directly on the משנה?!

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that a קטן הבא בטענת אביו is מחייב a שבועה. תוספות disagrees. רש״י therefore maintains that טענת עצמו is a קטן הבא בטענת אביו and it is considered טענת עצמו since he is a קטן, while תוספות maintains that טענת עצמו is a גדול הבא בטענת אביו and it is considered a טענת עצמו (לרבנן) since בבנו מעיז.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות says that אין סברא לומר דסברי דאף בבא בטענת אביו לית ביה ממשא;¹⁴ seemingly תוספות could have said that if the רבנן maintain that טענת קטן לית ביה מששא, then why do they say that he is not required to swear for he is a משיב אבידה, they could have simply said אין נשבעין על טענת קטן?!
2. What are the relative advantages (and disadvantages) of sרש״י׳ and תוספות interpretations?

footnotes: ¹ לח,ב (בסוף המשנה). ² שם מב,א. ³ בד״ה אלא. ⁴ See (end of) משנה שבועות לח,ב. ⁵ רש״י understands sרב׳ explanation (see ‘Overview’) that if the קטן is בא בטענת אביו then the קטן is מחייב a שבועה. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ The רבנן maintain that even though נשבעין על טענת קטן בבא בטענת אביו, generally (by שבועת השומרים); however here (by a מודה במקצת) the לוה is a משיב אבידה; for he has a מיגו of כופר הכל, since בבנו מעיז. ⁸ The ברייתא there derives it from the two פסוקים of כי יתן איש (in שמות [משפטים] כב,ו), which excludes a קטן, and יבא דבר שניהם (there פסוק ח) which indicates (as רש״י explains there) that the giving and claiming are compared that in both instances the owner must be a גדול, עיי״ש. ⁹ The same היקש (mentioned in the previous footnote # 8) which requires that the נתינה (and תביעה) be as a גדול (seemingly) requires that both the נתינה and the תביעה be as a גדול. (See מהר״ם שי״ף.) ¹⁰ תוספות will explain shortly his interpretation of sרב׳ answer (in שבועות) that בבא בטענת אביו he is מחייב a שבועה. ¹¹ According to רש״י both ראב״י and the רבנן agree that טוענו קטן is considered טענת עצמו. The גמרא cites כדרבה in order to explain that the חכמים disagree with ראב״י, since the לוה has a מגו. However according to תוספות the argument between ראב״י ורבנן is whether this case (of בנו גדול) is considered a טענת עצמו; depending if בבנו מעיז or not. The purpose of citing כדרבה is to explain why it is a טענת עצמו (according to the חכמים). All would seemingly agree, however, that בטענת עצמו there is no חיוב שבועה. ¹² See אליהו רבה (see, however, מהרש״ל). ¹³ It may be possible that it is only a קצת קשה, since it is רב who interprets the משנה בבא בטענת אביו. It is also רב who interprets ראב״י. The גמרא may have regarded it as a duplicity to repeat the questions twice; once on sרב׳ interpretation of the משנה and again on his interpretation of ראב״י. Once we asked and explained sרב׳ interpretation of ראב״י it is self understood that it applies to the משנה as well. ¹⁴ See footnote # 6.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע — Why does the תורה rule that one who partially admits to a claim is obligated to swear?

OVERVIEW רבה asks why the תורה obligates a מודה במקצת to take an oath. Seemingly this is an unusual question. Ordinarily we do not question the rulings of the תורה. Why is this different than many other rulings, where no one asks ‘Why’?! ----------------–

אפילו לרבנן דרבי שמעון דלא דרשי טעמא דקרא קא בעי רבה שפיר –

רבה has a valid question even according to the רבנן who disagree with ר״ש, and do not analyze the reasons of the פסוקים. ר״ש maintains that it is proper to analyze the reasons of various מצות. This analysis may subsequently limit the scope of the מצוה. The רבנן, however, maintain that the מצוה is applicable in all instances even when the seeming rational of the מצוה does not apply.¹ It would initially seem that the question of רבה would apply only according to ר״ש. If we were to understand the reason behind the חיוב שבועה of a מודה במקצת, we would know when to apply it; and when not to apply it. However, according to the רבנן who are not דרשי טעמא דקרא, there is seemingly no relevance to the question מפני מה אמרה תורה. Whatever the reason may (or may not be) the rule will always be that a מודה במקצת is מחוייב a שבועה. תוספות is stating that it is not so. Rather the question applies to the רבנן as well. The question of רבה is –

מפני מה אמרה תורה כולי דאמאי לא מהימן בלא שבועה במגו דאי בעי כפר הכל – How² can the תורה rule, etc. that an oath is required by a מודה במקצת; why is the לוה not believed (even) without an oath, since he has a מגו that he could have denied everything. If the לוה would be a כופר הכל he would be פטור from payment (and a שבועה); why is he not believed that he owes only a partial payment, with the מגו of כופר הכל? He should not be obligated to swear. תוספות anticipates an obvious question; perhaps this is a גזירת הכתוב that a מגו is not effective (by a מודה במקצת) –

או נילף מהכא דלא אמרינן מגו³ – Or on the other hand if the ruling by מוב״מ is that a מגו is ineffective, then instead of saying that it is a גזירת הכתוב (which applies only to מוב״מ), let usrather derive from this ruling (that a מב״מ is חייב a שבועה), that there is no law of מגו. It seems that the תורה is teaching us that a מגו is not effective. ומשני דאין זה מגו דאין אדם מעיז לכפור – And רבה answers that there is no מגו by a מב״מ, for a person is not sufficiently brazen to deny the claim entirely. This resolves the apparent conflict. Generally a מגו is effective; however by a מב״מ there is no מגו. A person who owes money to another does not have the העזה to deny it entirely; as רבה goes on to explain.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דבפרק שבועת הדיינין (שם דף מ,ב) אמרינן בכופר הכל – And even though that in פרק שבועת הדיינין the גמרא rules concerning one who denies the entire claim, that the כופר הכל–

משביעין אותו שבועת היסת⁴ משום דחזקה אין אדם תובע אלא אם כן יש לו – is required to swear a היסת oath, because there is a presumption that a person does not make a claim unless it is due to him. It is therefore assumable that the לוה who is a כופר הכל does indeed owe money to the מלוה. Otherwise the מלוה would have never made such a claim –

ופריך אדרבה חזקה דאין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו – And the גמרא challenges this assumption (that the לוה owes money); on the contrary; there is a presumption that a person is not brazen in the presence of his creditor. If monies are owed to the מלוה, then the לוה will not have the העזה to deny it. The fact that the לוה denies this claim indicates that indeed the לוה owes no money. ומשני דאשתמוטי קא משתמיט⁵ אלמא בכופר בכל נמי אדם מעיז לכפור – And the גמרא answers this challenge; that indeed a person is not מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו, however here, the לוה intends to ultimately repay the מלוה, it is just that for the immediate present he is evading making the payment, for he has no money. This concludes the citing of that גמרא. It is evident from that גמרא that even by a כופר בכל a person is sufficiently brazen to deny everything –

דאשתמוטי קא משתמיט כמו במודה מקצת – for he is evasive, just as we say here concerning a partial admittance. The question is, if a כופר הכל can be מעיז on account of אשתמוטי just as a מודה במקצת is משתמיט, then why does the מודה במקצת not have the מגו that he could have been כופר בכל?! It seems that the גמרא in שבועות contradicts the explanation of רבה!

תוספות answers: מכל מקום קאמר הכא שפיר חזקה דאין אדם מעיז לכפור הכל כל כך ולא הוי מגו – Nevertheless the גמרא here correctly states that there is the presumption that a person is notwont to be מעיז so much, to deny everything; and therefore there is no מגו –

דיותר ברצון הוא מודה במקצת הטענה דאינו מעיז כל כך⁶ – For he is more willing to be a מודה במקצת than a כופר הכל, for he cannot be so brazen. It is easier (if one owes money) to be a מודה במקצת than a כופר הכל. Therefore the מודה במקצת has no מגו. [On the other hand there are those people who are sufficiently brazen to even be a כופר הכל (when they owe money) on account of אשתמוטי; therefore the שבועת היסת was instituted.]

תוספות anticipates an alternate interpretation of sרבה׳ query, and rejects it: אבל אין לפרש דרבה אתא לפרושי מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת ולא כופר הכל – However, we cannot interpret that רבה is coming to explain why the תורה requires only a מודה במקצת to swear and not a כופר הכל. The original explanation of תוספות is that רבה asks why the מודה במקצת is not believed with a מגו of כופר הכל. According to this proposed interpretation רבה is asking; why should not a כופר הכל also be required to take an oath –

וקאמר חזקה דאין אדם מעיז לכך נאמן כשכופר הכל – And רבה continues (according to this proposed interpretation) and states that since a person is not מעיז, therefore he is believed without a שבועה, when he is כופר הכל. For if he had indeed owed money he could not have denied it completely. This is the proposed interpretation.

תוספות, however rejects it –

דאם כן במקום שיכול להעיז אפילו כופר הכל חייב – For if this were so (that a כופר הכל is פטור משבועה, since אא״מ), then it would follow, that in a situation where the לוה can be מעיז, even if he is a כופר הכל**, the לוה should be** obligated to swear. The reason (according to this interpretation) that a כופר הכל is פטור משבועה is on account of the חזקה אא״מ; where this חזקה does not apply (in a case where it is possible for the לוה to be מעיז), the ruling should be that a כופר הכל is obligated to swear. This conclusion, however, is contradicted –

ובסמוך אמרינן איפכא לרבנן דבבנו מעיז ופטור אף⁷ מודה מקצת הטענה – For shortly the גמרא will states the opposite; according to the רבנן who maintain that the לוה is מעיז against the son of the מלוה and therefore the רבנן maintain that even a מודה בקצת הטענה against the son of the מלוה is exempt from the שבועת מודה במקצת. The reason for this is –

משום דמשיב אבידה הוא מגו דאי בעי כפר הכל⁸ – Because the לוה is considered a משיב אבידה since he has the מגו that he could have been כופר הכל. This proves that a כופר הכל is פטור from a שבועה even if he can be מעיז. If the ruling would be that a כופר הכל is מחוייב שבועה where he could be מעיז; how can the רבנן maintain that a מודה במקצת against בנו is פטור משבועה for he could have been a כופר הכל?! This כופר הכל is able to be מעיז according to the רבנן (that בבנו מעיז ומעיז); he should therefore be obligated to swear even when he is a כופר הכל (according to this interpretation). There would obviously be no מגו to exempt the מודה במקצת by בנו. Therefore we must conclude that a כופר הכל is always פטור from a שבועה, regardless whether he can be מעיז or not.

Following this conclusion, תוספות deals with the obvious question: **** ואם תאמר ומנלן דכופר הכל פטור – And if you will ask; howindeed do we derive that a כופר הכל is פטור from a שבועה. We have rejected the previous proposition that a כופר הכל is פטור since אא״מ; what then is the reason that every כופר הכל is פטור משבועה?!⁹

תוספות anticipates a possible solution, but rejects it: וליכא למימר מדאיצטרך קרא לחייב שבועה בעד אחד¹⁰ מכלל דכופר הכל פטור – And one cannot say that since a פסוק is required to teach that a single witness obligates the opposing litigant to swear, this implies that this litigant who is a כופר הכל is exempt from taking an oath. If a כופר הכל is חייב a שבועה, then why is there a necessity for the תורה to teach that a ע״א is מחייב a שבועה, the כופר הכל is required to swear (even) without the ע״א. This seemingly answers תוספות question. We derive that a כופר הכל is פטור משבועה from the חיוב שבועה of an ע״א.

However תוספות rejects this solution. It is possible that a כופר הכל is מחוייב a שבועה, and nevertheless a פסוק is required to teach us that an ע״א is also מחייב a שבועה in special circumstances: דהא איצטרך להיכא שמעידים¹¹ שגנב לו והוא אינו יודע – For it is necessary to teach that an ע״א is מחייב a שבועה in cases where they**(the various ע״א)** testify that an individual stole from him; however the victim is not aware who stole it.¹² A כופר הכל can be obligated to swear (according to this הוה אמינא), when there is a definite claim against him (as in a loan, etc.) however in a case where the victim is not personally aware who the thief is, and cannot claim with certainty that he is the thief, then the alleged thief would not be required to swear. However if there is an ע״א who testifies the he is the thief, that alleged thief would be required to swear, even if the victim cannot indentify him as the thief. This is what the פסוק of ע״א may be coming to teach us. In conclusion there is no proof from חיוב שבועה דע״א that a כופר הכל is פטור משובעה. The original question remains; from where do we derive that a כופר הכל is always פטור משבועה?!

תוספות answers: אלא יש לומר דגזירת הכתוב היא דכי הוא זה משמע דבעינן כפירה והודאה – But rather we can say that it is a decree of the תורה for the words כי הוא זה (from where we derive the obligation of שבועת מודה במקצת)¹³ indicates that a denial and an admission are required to obligate an oath. A כופר הכל is therefore exempt from a חיוב שבועה.

תוספות offers an alternate explanation (that we cannot derive חיוב שבועה by a כופר הכל from the חיוב שבועה by a מודה במקצת): ועוד מודה במקצת יש להשביעו שחייב לו ממון שהודה – And furthermore by a מודה במקצת it is proper to have him swear; for since he owes him the monies which he admitted –

ועל ידי כך מגלגל עליו שבועה כעין גלגול¹⁴ – And through this (monetary admission and obligation) we ‘roll’ upon him an oath as well, similar to the ruling of גלגול שבועה –

אבל כופר הכל נסתלק לגמרי ממנו: However, one who is כופר הכל, has removed himself completely from the plaintiff; and there is nothing by which he can retain him and make him swear.

SUMMARY The question of רבה מפני מה וכו׳ is, why is a מוב״מ not פטור from a שבועה, since he has a מגו of כופר הכל. The question cannot be why is a כופר הכל פטור from a שבועה; for then the answer would be since א״א מעיז פניו וכו׳. However this is contradicted by the רבנן who maintain that a כופר הכל is פטור even when he is מעיז. A כופר הכל is פטור from a שבועה either because כי הוא זה is a גזירת הכתוב limiting a חיוב שבועה to a מוב״מ; or there is no גלגול by a כופר הכל as there is by a מוב״מ.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks from where we know that a כופר הכל is פטור משבועה.¹⁵ Seemingly it is פטור משבועה, since the תורה never states that he is מחוייב שבועה. [It seemingly cannot be derived from מוב״מ, because by מוב״מ there is ample reason to suspect the מודה and believe the תובע.]
2. Can we infer¹⁶ from our תוספות whether a (prospective) liar would prefer to pay nothing and swear falsely, or whether he would prefer to pay partially and be exempt from a שבועה?

footnotes: ¹ The ‘classic’ case is (in ב״מ קטו,א) concerning the rule of לא תחבול בגד אלמנה (דברים [תצא] כד, יז); that one is not permitted to take a garment from a widow as collateral for a loan. ר״ש maintains that this applies only to a poor widow; not to a rich widow. He is דריש טעמא דקרא. The reason one should not be תחבול בגד אלמנה is because since there is a requirement to return a משכון to a poor owner if he requires it (for bedding or clothing), therefore if the מלוה would be continually visiting the home of the widow (to return the משכון [at night]) it would create unsavory rumors about the widow. However from a rich widow, who does not require that her משכון be returned, one may take a משכון from her. However ר״י (the רבנן) disagrees and maintains that in all cases (whether a rich or poor widow) one may not take a משכון from an אלמנה; as the תורה states. We do not read any reasons into the law; we accept it as is. ² It seems that תוספות is interpreting the words מפני מה to mean ‘how’ (to include the רבנן) instead of ‘why’ (which would limit it to ר״ש). רבה is not looking (so much) for an explanation of the law, but rather is searching to resolve a contradiction. ³ See מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁴ The שבועת היסת was instituted during the period of the אמוראים (after the משנה). שבועת היסת may be translated as ‘an inducement oath’ (the חכמים are inducing the לוה to admit); or ‘an equitable oath’ (it is equitable for the מלוה to collect since א״א תובע אא״כ יש לו). ⁵ It would seem that in a case where there can be no אשתמוטי then there would be no חיוב שבועת היסת; for א״א מעיז פניו בפני בע״ח. (In a case where the מפקיד is claiming the פקדון which is present and the שומר claims that he bought it from the מפקיד. There is no אשתמוטי here, for the פקדון is בעין. The שומר should be believed on account of א״א מעיז פניו בפני בע״ח [see following תוספות ד״ה חזקה]). ⁶ The fact is this מוב״מ owes money, he was not כופר הכל. Obviously (if we suspect him of lying) he did not have the העזה to be כופר הכל and therefore no מגו. One who is כופר הכל, however, may be of a stronger temperament and can be ׳מעיז׳ even to the extent of כוה״כ (since he is משתמט). ⁷ The word ׳אף׳ here means that not only is the פטור of שבועה by a כה״כ applicable (even) when he can be מעיז; it is applicable even to the extent that it can be used as a מיגו to exempt a מודה במקצת from swearing. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁹ It would seem that תוספות is asking that we should derive a חיוב שבועה by כופר הכל from מוב״מ. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁰ The תורה states (דברים [שופטים] יט,טו) that לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת; we interpret it to mean that לכל עון ולכל חטאת לא קם אבל לשבועה קם. ¹¹ The רש״ש amends this to שמעיד (instead of שמעידים).. ¹² See תוספות יב,ב ד״ה רב הונא where תוספות there also maintains that an ע״א can be מחייב a שבועה בטענת שמא (however, there the תובע and the נתבע were both שמא). ¹³ The פסוק in שמות (משפטים) כב,ח is referring to a שבועה. The translation of ׳כי הוא זה׳ would be ‘It is only this’ that I owe. This implies that he is both partially admitting and partially denying the claim. ¹⁴ We derive (from פרשת סוטה, from the words אמן אמן) that if one is obligated to swear against his plaintiff, then the plaintiff has the right to coerce the defendant to swear (his denial) on additional disputes between them, where (on their own) no שבועה could have been administrated. This is known as גלגול שבועה. Similarly here once there is a חיוב ממון from the נתבע to the תובע, the תובע can be מגלגל a שבועה on the נתבע. ¹⁵ See footnote # 9. See ח״ב מ״ת אות רכג. ¹⁶ See footnote # 8.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו — There is a presumption that a person is not brazen faced

OVERVIEW רבה states that there is a חזקה that אין אדם מעיז פניו (בפני בעל חובו). It is not clear what this חזקה is based on. Why do we indeed assume that אא״מ? Our תוספות first cites sרש״י׳ explanation, refutes it, and then offers his explanation(s). ---------------–

לא כמו שפירש הקונטרס בהגוזל¹ (בבא קמא דף קז,א) דאין אדם מעיז – It is not as רש״י explained it in פרק הגוזל that a person is not מעיז –

לפי שעשה לו טובה שהלוהו אבל בפקדון מעיז – since the מלוה did him a favor, that he lent him money; however by a deposit the watchman is מעיז. The depositor did no favor to the watchman; on the contrary the watchman is doing the depositor a favor, therefore the watchman can be מעיז without reservations.

תוספות disagrees with רש״י: דאם כן בפקדון מודה מקצת נמי יהא פטור במגו דאי בעי כופר הכל – For if this is true (that by a פקדון the שומר is מעיז) then it should follow that a מודה במקצת by a פקדון should be פטור from a שבועה, for he has a מגו that he could have been a כופר הכל. If the שומר would be כופר הכל he would be פטור from a שבועה (according to תוספות, even if he is מעיז);² he should therefore also be פטור משבועה when he is a מוב״מ by a פקדון. In the case of a מלוה, the לוה has no מגו of כוה״כ, since אא״מ (he could not have [as easily] been a כוה״כ); however by a מוב״מ בפקדון, where the שומר can be מעיז (according to רש״י), he should be פטור משבועה with the מגו of כוה״כ.

תוספות will now prove that a מוב״מ by a פקדון is מחוייב שבועה: ובכל דוכתא משמע דמודה מקצת חייב בפקדון – And in all places it seems that a מוב״מ in a פקדון is חייב a שבועה. תוספות offers some examples –

גבי עשר גפנות טעונות מסרתי לך כולי³ (שבועות דף מב,ב) דמשמע דאיירי בפקדון – Concerning the case where the plaintiff claimed ‘I have delivered to you ten laden grapevines, etc. It seems⁴ there that the משנה is discussing a פקדון situation and there is a חיוב שבועה –

תוספות offers an additional example –

וגבי סלע הלויתני עליו ושתים היה שוה (שם מג,א) – And concerning the case where the לוה claims to the מלוה ‘you lent me a סלע for the collateral that I deposited by you which you subsequently lost, and the collateral was worth two סלעים, and therefore you owe me a סלע’, etc.⁵ The מלוה is required to swear a שבועת מוב״מ to the לוה; even though the לוה did him no favor.

תוספות gives one final example: וגבי מציאה נמי אמרינן בהניזקין⁶ (גיטין נא,א ושם) דמודה מקצת חייב ולא מהימן במגו – And concerning the finding of a lost article, the גמרא also states in פרק הניזקין that a מוב״מ is obligated to swear and he is not believed with a מגו of כוה״כ, even though that by a מציאה the owner did no favor to the finder.

תוספות cited three examples of מוב״מ where there is a חיוב שבועה even though no favor was done to the נשבע. According to רש״י, they should have been פטור משבועה; since they have a מגו of כופר הכל. The reason a מוב״מ is not believed with the מגו of כוה״כ is because אא״מ to be כוה״כ, However in a case where no favor is done there is no חזקה of אין אדם מעיז; the מוב״מ should be believed with the מגו of כוה״כ. This indicates that the חזקה of אא״מ is not dependent whether a favor was granted, and in all cases a person is אינו מעיז to be כוה״כ. Therefore, a מוב״מ does not have the מגו that he could have been כוה״כ.

תוספות will now give his explanation why אא״מ: אלא אומר רבינו תם דהיינו כגון החזקה שאין האשה מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה⁷ – Rather, the ר״ת says thatthe חזקה of אא״מ is similar to the חזקה that a woman can not brazenly lie in the presence of her husband. It is not because the husband bestowed favors on her; but rather this is the nature of things –

שאין לאדם פנים לכפור הכל – That a person cannot put up ‘a face’ to deny everything. The חזקה of אא״מ, therefore, applies in all situations (even) including פקדון and מציאה.

תוספות offers a (slightly) different explanation: ורבינו יצחק בן אשר⁸ פירש אין אדם מעיז היכא שחבירו מכיר בשקרו ואין להאריך: And the ריב״א explained that a person is not מעיז when his litigant is aware of his lie. And it is not necessary to elaborate.⁹

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that אא״מ since he received a favor. תוספות rejects this; for it would follow that a מוב״מ בפקדון should be פטור משבועה. The גמרא states that a מוב״מ בפקדון is מחוייב לישבע. תוספות explains that אא״מ either because he does not have the פנים to be כופר הכל; or he is not מעיז when the other realizes that he is lying.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the difference between the explanations¹⁰ of the ר״ת and the ריב״א?¹¹
2. It would seem that according to the ר״ת the idea of חברו מכיר בשקרו is not relevant to the סברא of אא״מ;¹² why therefore do the רבנן maintain that בבנו מעיז, since אין לאדם פנים לכפור הכל?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ בד״ה כדרבה וד״ה אבל. ² See previous תוספות ד״ה מפני that a כופר הכל is always פטור משבועה even when he is מעיז. [However רש״י maintains in ב״ק that by a פקדון where he is not מעיז, a שבועה is required (even) for a כופר הכל. See סוכ״ד אות כח ואילך בשיטות רש״י ותוספות] ³ The נפקד claimed that he received only five. There is a מחלוקת whether the נפקד is required to swear; depending whether the grapes are considered מחובר לקרקע (which is פטור משבועה). However if it would not be considered מחובר לקרקע then the נפקד would be מחוייב שבועה even though it is a פקדון; not a הלואה. ⁴ תוספות is dismissing the possibility that the משנה is discussing a loan situation where the מלוה lent the לוה ten [five] גפנים טעונות to harvest, which the לוה will be obligated to repay at a later date. ⁵ The מלוה claimed that the משכון was worth a סלע and a half; thereby admitting that he owes the לוה (only) half a סלע which makes the מלוה a מוב״מ. ⁶ תוספות is referring to the (גמרא) [ברייתא] which states that if the owner claims that I saw you pick up the two wallets which were tied together, and the finder claims that he picked up only one, the finder is obligated to swear a שבועת מוב״מ. See previous תוספות ד״ה וראב״י (footnotes # 9 10). The previous is based on the מראי מקום given. However it may be that תוספות is referring to the משנה that המוציא מציאה לא ישבע מפני תקון העולם. According to רש״י, there should be no שבועה at all since there is a מגו of כוה״כ, for by מציאה the finder is definitely מעיז; the owner did no favor to the finder. ⁷ This חזקה is utilized in a case where the woman claims in the presence of her husband that he divorced her. The woman is believed, for if she were still married she would not have the העזה to claim that she is divorced, since אין האשה מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה. ⁸ See תוספות יד,א ד״ה אלמנת footnote # 6. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁰ See footnote # 9. ¹¹ See סוכ״ד אות לב וח״ב אות רטז. ¹² That is the סברא of the ריב״א. ¹³ See (also) משכנות הרועים אות קכח.