ואמר לו פרעתיך בזמני אמאי לא כולי—And he said to him; ‘I paid you on time’, why is he not believed**, etc.**

OVERVIEW The גמרא attempted to prove from our משנה that מיגו במקום חזקה לא אמרינן. For if he claimed פרעתי בזמני there is no reason why it is בחזקת שלא נתן. The משנה must be teaching us that if he claimed פרעתי תו"ז he is not believed even though he has a מיגו of פרעתיך בזמני, since it is a מיגו במקום חזקה. The גמרא deflected this proof; the משנה is not discussing the issue of תו"ז at all. He is not believed on account of 'מי יימר וכו. When refuting a resolution of an איבעיא it is preferable that the refutation maintain the exact opposite opinion¹ from that which we were trying to prove originally.² Then there remain two equal and opposite positions; maintaining the original status quo of the איבעיא. If however we merely deflect the proof, by maintaining that we can avoid the issue entirely,³ then there is no equal balance. There is the original proof which maintains one side of the issue; however there is no counterbalance. Indicating perhaps that the refutation is merely a deflection; but in essence we are biased towards the original proof since we cannot offer an interpretation that maintains the opposite view. תוספות will contend that the גמרא could have refuted the proof by maintaining the opposite opinion; instead of the actual deflection which merely avoids the issue.

תוספות offers an alternate refutation of the proof: הוה מצי לשנויי הא דקתני בחזקת שלא נתן – The גמרא could have answered that which the משנה states that it is presumed that he did not give his share in the wall – היינו בתוך זמנו⁴ או בזמנו ואמר פרעתיך בתוך הזמן דליכא מיגו כדפרישית לעיל⁵ – That is in a case where the claim and the response was made within the time; before the monies were due, or (even) that this exchange took place on the date it was due; in either of these two cases if the defendant said I paid you before the due date he is not believed**.** In both these cases it is understood why the defendant is not believed for there is no מיגו of פרעתיך בזמני**.** If the exchange too place before the due date, there is certainly no מיגו of פרעתיך בזמני, since it is before the due date. Even if the exchange took place on the due date there is still no מיגו of פרעתיך היום as I previously explained; a person does not have the חוצפה to lie and claim that I paid you today. אבל לאחר זמנו הוי בחזקת שנתן דבמקום חזקה אמרינן מה לי לשקר⁶ – However if the claim was made after the due date, then it would be presumed that he paid for his share in the wall even if he claims פרעתיך תו"ז for we do say ‘why would I lie’ even in a place where the claim contradicts a חזקה of א"א פורע תוך זמנו. We do say מיגו במקום חזקה. תוספות maintains that the גמרא could have explained that the reason he is not believed is because there is no מיגו (since it took place 'וכו זמנו תוך), however if there would be a מיגו (if it were לאחר זמנו) he would be believed. Why indeed did the גמרא not give this answer? תוספות continues:

However the גמרא prefers to answer differently;**** that there in our משנה the defendant does surely say, ‘who says that the רבנן will hold me liable’. The reason the גמרא prefers this answer⁷ as opposed to the answer תוספות proposed is so that you should not also have a question on אביי ורבא; who maintain that אדם פורע תוך זמנו. According to them seemingly the defendant should always be believed even if he claims that he paid זמנו תוך. If we were to give תוספות interpretation of the משנה, there would be a question on אביי ורבא, why is he not believed!⁸ Therefore the גמרא answered that the ruling of our משנה disregards the whole issue of פורע תו"ז. Rather, the reason it is בחזקת שלא נתן, for the defendant himself is not sure that he is liable. A person does not pay money, if he is not sure that he owes it.

SUMMARY The גמרא could have refuted this proof by maintaining that the משנה is discussing a case where the claim and response took place תו"ז However it would pose a difficulty for אביי ורבא who maintain אדם פורע תו"ז.

THINKING IT OVER What is the meaning that the claim was made תו"ז?⁹ Why does תוספות add 'אבל לאחר זמנו וכו'; how is this relevant?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ In our case: מיגו במקום חזקה אמרינן. ² In our case: מיגו במקום חזקה לא אמרינן. ³ In our case: saying 'מי יימר וכו'. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ See תוס' (ה,א) ד"ה ובא, בסופו. ⁶ We are now establishing that the משנה is discussing a case where the תביעה was זמנו תוך (or בזמנו). It is only then that he is not believed. We can therefore infer from this משנה that if the תביעה was זמנו לאחר he will always be believed even if he claims תו"ז פרעיך; for חזקה במקום מיגו אמרינן. See ‘Overview’. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ Even though that according to this interpretation we cannot infer from the משנה that מיגו במקום חזקה אמרינן. Seemingly this is a weakness in the refutation of the original proof (see ‘Overview’). ⁸ The גמרא in fact asked this very same question on ה,ב. ⁹ See footnote # 4. See מהר"ם. ¹⁰ See ‘Overview’, footnote # 6.

כל האומר לא לויתי כאומר כולי—Whoever says I did not borrow, it is if he said, etc.

OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that if a לוה originally admits (in the presence of witnesses) that he owes money and then subsequently denies that he ever borrowed; the ruling is that he liable to pay the debt. The גמרא cites the dictum of 'כל האומר וכו as the reason for this ruling. Seemingly this dictum is not at all necessary to obligate the לוה. He is liable because he cannot contradict his previous admission of owing the monies. תוספות will be addressing this issue.

תוספות asks: הקשה הרב רבינו יצחק מה צריך כאן לטעם כל האומר כולי – The ר"י asks: why is it necessary here to utilize the explanation of whoever says, etc. I did not borrow is as if he said I did not repay. This idea is superfluous in the case under discussion. For in our case – הא ודאי כיון שכבר הודה תו לא מהימן לומר שלא לוה – Since he already admitted that he owes money, then certainly he will not be believed to restate and claim that he did not borrow. Once an admission is made, one cannot retract the admission. תוספות will now explain where this dictum is necessary: דבשלמא בשבועות (דף מא,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל כל) צריך להאי טעמא – It is understood that in מסכת שבועות this reasoning of**** 'כל האומר וכו is necessary; for there the גמרא is discussing a case – שאומר לו מנה לי בידך והלה אומר לא היו דברים מעולם – Where the מלוה says to the לוה ‘you owe me a מנה (a hundred זוז)’ [literally I have a מנה in your hand] and this לוה responds: ‘It never happened; you never lent me money’ – ואתו עדים ואמרי ראינו שלוה ופרע – And witnesses came and testified that ‘we saw that he borrowed money and subsequently repaid it’ – השתא הא דקאמרי סהדי שלוה מהימני והא דקאמרי פרע¹ לא מהימני – Now we view this case as follows; that which the witnesses testify that the לוה borrowed, they are believed. We have therefore substantiated that the לוה owed money to the מלוה. However that which they testify [that] he repaid the loan – they are not believed. We assume that he still owes the money. The reason the witnesses are not believed that he repaid the loan, is – דהא איהו קמכחיש להו דאמר לא לויתי והאומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי – for the לוה himself contradicts them, since the לוה said I did not borrow any money from this מלוה and one who says I did not borrow it is as if he said I did not repay the loan. The לוה by claiming לא לויתי it is as if he is admitting that he did not repay. Therefore even though that the עדים testify that he did pay, his inferred admission that he did not pay is stronger than the testimony of the witnesses. A person is believed for his detriment, even against the testimony of witnesses. In מסכת שבועות it is understood why it is necessary to use the rationale of 'כל האומר וכו; otherwise he would be exempt from payment since the עדים are testifying that he repaid the loan (and he did not explicitly say that he did not pay) – אבל הכא לא צריך כלל – however here in our case where he originally admitted to owing the money it is entirely not necessary to depend on the rationale of 'כל האומר וכו; for even without that reasoning he would still be obligated to pay, since originally he admitted that he owed the money, he cannot later retract and claim there was never such a loan. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דאיצטריך לאשמועינן דלא מצי למימר האומר² לא לויתי – And the ר"י says it is necessary to cite the rationale of 'כל האומר וכו, in order to let us know that the לוה cannot argue and say [that which I subsequently stated] that I did not borrow from you anything, לא שלא לוה³ כלל אלא כאילו לא לויתי לפי שפרעתי – I did not mean that [I] did not borrow at all from you but rather I meant that it is as if I never borrowed from you because I repaid the loan. When I claimed לא לויתי, I meant to say that as of now it is as if I never borrowed money from you since I already repaid it. Therefore were it not for the rule that ''כל האומר וכו', he might be believed, since according to his interpretation of his subsequent claim of לא לויתי he is not contradicting his original admission of owing money. That is why –

The גמרא comes to let us know by citing the ruling of ''כל האומר וכו', that when a person claims לא לויתי he cannot later reinterpret his statement to mean that I repaid you and it is as if I never borrowed. This is not so, but rather the statement of לא לויתי is **as if he explicitly stated I did not (**borrow and certainly did not) repay the loan. ⁴ Therefore he cannot reinterpret his claim of לא לויתי; but rather we take it to mean לא לויתי ולא פרעתי.

SUMMARY The dictum 'כל האומר וכו is effective in extracting a (tacit) admission from the לוה that he did not pay (even against conflicting testimony), and also preventing the לוה from reinterpreting לא לויתי to mean לויתי ופרעתי.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות maintains that without 'כל האומר וכו, the לוה could reinterpret לא לויתי to mean לא לויתי ופרעתי. However our גמרא states that the subsequent claim of the לוה was להד"ם. It would seem a bit far to reinterpret להד"ם to mean לויתי ופרעתי (even without כל האומר).⁵ Can we differentiate between what the כל האומר accomplishes in שבועות to what it accomplishes here in our גמרא?⁶

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שפרע. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read הא דאמרי. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read לויתי. ⁴ If we were able to reinterpret לא לויתי to mean לויתי ופרעתי, then how come in שבועות 'מס he is not believed; especially since there are עדים who testify that he paid, let us reinterpret his לא לויתי as לויתי ופרעתי which would make him in full accord with the עדים. Once I see that we do not reinterpret לא לויתי even when it is in accordance with עדים then we will certainly not reinterpret it to mean ופרעתי לוית when it is not corroborated by עדים. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2 ⁵ See סוכ"ד אות ד. ⁶ See footnote # 4.

סמך לפלגא סמך לכולה—Joining for half, is joining for the whole

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited the view of רב הונא, that if the new wall that was placed adjacent to the original wall was only half the size of the original wall, nevertheless he is required to pay for half of the entire original wall. The reason is because we assume that eventually he will enlarge the new wall to the same dimensions as the original wall, and utilize the entire original wall.

האי לפלגא איירי בין לאורך בין לגובה:¹ This statement, that the new wall was half the size of the old wall, is discussing both cases; whether it was half the length of the original wall, or whether it was half the height of the original wall. In both cases the same rule applies; that it is סמך לכולה, and he must pay for the cost of half the original wall.

SUMMARY It makes no difference whether the new (adjoining) wall was smaller than the original wall in height or length; in both cases he must pay for half of the entire original wall.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the דין if the new wall was smaller than the original wall in both length andheight?

footnotes: ¹ One may have thought that the rule of סמך לפלגא סמך לכולא is only when it was as long as the original wall but not as high; for it is customary to build a wall upwards, row by row, therefore it is likely that he will eventually build it up to the height of the dividing wall. However if the wall did not extend the full length of the dividing wall I may have thought that it is unusual to extend it sideways in the length. See following תוספות ד"ה ומודה, for a possible proof/explanation why תוספות maintains that סמך לפלגא is in both dimensions.

ומודה רב הונא בקרנא ולופתא—Andרב הונאadmits by a ‘corner’ and an ‘angle’

OVERVIEW After the גמרא cited the dispute between ר"ה and ר"נ whether we say סמך לפלגא סמך לכולא or למאי דסמך סמך, the גמרא concludes that ר"ה admits to ר"נ by קרנא ולופתא and ר"נ admits to ר"ה by אפריזא ובאקבעתא דכשורי. In the previous תוספות (ד"ה סמך) we learnt that the מחלוקת between ר"ה ור"נ is in a case where the new wall is shorter than the party wall either in height or in length. It is therefore preferable to assume that the 'ומודה' of both ר"ה ור"נ refer to both types of cases where the new wall was shorter than the party wall either in height or length.¹ תוספות will explain that this is indeed so. Each one was מודה to the other in these two types of סמך לפלגא.

מפרש רבינו תם קרנא להיכר שלא יאריך החומה יותר – The ת"ר explains that the ‘corner’ that was made in the new wall, is for a sign that he will not lengthen the wall further. תוספות goes on to explain, how in the case of 'קרנא', we can assume that the wall will not be extended any longer – שבסוף אותו כותל שסמך² כייפיה לקרנא כלפי כותלו של חבירו – For at the end of the wall which he juxtaposed to the party wall he turned the corner of the wall towards his friend’s party wall.. He discontinued extending the wall; but rather began building at a right angle to his wall, which caused his wall to extend in the direction towards his friend’s party wall. In this case רב הונא will admit that we do not say סמך לפלגא סמך לכולא, since it is obvious that he will not extend his wall lengthwise anymore; but rather we maintain that למאי דסמך סמך. This explains the case of shorter in length. תוספות will now explain the case where it was shorter in height: ולופתא הוי היכר שלא יגביה הכותל יותר – And 'לופתא', a (pitched) angle is a sign that he will not raise the wall higher. תוספות goes on to explain – כגון שעשה היכר בראש החומה³ לפי שרגילין לעשות החומה צרה למעלה – for instance; that he made an indication at the top of the wall, that he is not building higher (for) [as] it is customary to make the wall narrow on top; it is pitched at an angle – שיפלו הגשמים מחוץ לחומה ולא ישהו שם – So that the rain water will fall down away from the wall and will not remain there, on top of the wall; which may cause water damage. A wall pitched on top is not extended any higher. When he built the לופתא on the wall, we are assured that he will not raise the wall any higher. Again, רב הונא will admit in this case, that 'למאי דסמך סמך וכו. תוספות has concluded citing both cases according to ר"ה. תוספות continues to explain both cases according to ר"נ. ומודה רב נחמן באפריזא היא היכר שיאריך עדיין הכותל – And ר"נ admits to ר"ה in the case of a broken staggered wall. תוספות explains that אפריזא is an indication that he yet intends to lengthen the wall. תוספות explains that אפריזא means – שבסוף אורך החומה אינו שוה אלא אבן אחת בולטת ואחת שוקעת דודאי עדיין יאריכנו – That at the end of the length of the wall it is not straight and finished properly but rather the stones are staggered, one stone protrudes lengthwise and one stone is indented lengthwise, for in this case he will yet certainly lengthen the wall. נחמן רב will agree that in this instance we maintain סמך לפלגא סמך לכולא. תוספות will now discuss the case of a lower wall according to ר"נ. ואקבעתא דכשורי היינו שעשה מקום הנחת ראשי קורות⁴ – And the placement of the crossbeams that means that he made on top of the new wall place to put the ends of the crossbeams.

For then it is evident that ultimately he will raise the wall up to the height of an attic; he intends to build a second story, which will eventually raise the height of his wall to the same height as the party wall.

SUMMARY Both ר"ה and ר"נ agree that if there is a clear indication that the new wall will be definitely not extended in length or height; or that it will be definitely extended either in length or height, that we follow this indication, concerning סמך לכולא or למאי דסמך סמך.

THINKING IT OVER When a person begins to build a wall adjacent to a party wall, at what point is he obligated to pay for the party wall? Can he eventually exempt himself from full payment?⁵

footnotes: ¹ In support of this assumption is that the גמרא (seemingly) mentions two cases by each 'ומודה'. This also indicates that the 'ומודה' is in the two types of סמך לפלגא. See the מפרשים why רש"י disagrees with 'תוס. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שסמך עושה כיפיה לקרנא. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read החומה כמו שרגילים. ⁴ The crossbeams generally serve as a floor for the attic above. ⁵ See סוכ"ד אות ט.