BACKGROUND ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 4
1) [line 2] GILGUL SHEVU'AH D'ED ECHAD (SHEVU'AH: ED ECHAD)
Beis Din may not extract money in a court cased based upon the testimony of
a solitary witness. The Torah states "Al Pi Shenei Edim...Yakum Davar" -
"according to the testimony of two witnesses...shall a verdict be
established" (Devarim 19:15). However, Chazal learn (Shevu'os 40a) that the
testimony of one witness is effective to obligate the defendant to take an
oath that contradicts this testimony. If the defendant does not agree to
swear, Beis Din can then obligate the defendant to pay all of the
liabilities to which the one witnessed testified.
2) [line 2] GILGUL SHEVU'AH D'ED ECHAD (SHEVU'AH: GILGUL SHEVU'AH - (lit.
"rolling" an oath) the extension of an oath)
(a) If a defendant has to take an oath in Beis Din in response to one claim
of a plaintiff, he can be required to include within his oath a response to
another outstanding claim from the same plaintiff, even though the second
claim was not the type of claim which normally requires an oath. This
Halachah is learned from the Shevu'ah of the Sotah woman (see Background to
Kidushin 80:27), where she is obligated to swear that she did not have
relations with the man whom her husband suspects. Beis Din is Megalgel onto
her oath the additional details that she did to have relations with any
other man, while she was an Arusah, etc., to which she must swear, also.
(b) Examples of claims that can be included in a person's oath through
Gilgul are Shevu'os that pertain to land, Kofer ba'Kol (denying an entire
loan), and even an oath that the defendant is not the slave of the claimant
(c) The Halachah of Gilgul Shevu'ah applies whether the Shevu'ah is a
Shevu'ah d'Oraisa such as the Shevu'ah brought about by the testimony of a
solitary witness, or a Shevu'ah d'Rabanan such as Shevu'as Heses (Shevu'os
48b; see Rashi there).
3) [line 9] V'CHAZAR HA'DIN; LO RE'I ZEH KI'RE'I ZEH...HA'TZAD HA'SHAVEH
(a) The method of learning that is being used by our Gemara is called a
comparison, or "Meh Matzinu" - "What we have found [in one subject, applies
to another subject, also.]" Among the rules of this method is the rule of a
"Pirchah" (a question), where even a slight difference between the subjects
causes the comparison to collapse, and no connection may be made.
(b) If a Pirchah is asked, the Gemara will bring a "Yochi'ach" or
"Tochi'ach" (fem.) (a proof), where another subject, which fulfills the
requirements of the Pirchah, is used to rebuild the comparison. A second
Pirchah usually follows, where the Yochi'ach subject is brought into
question. Then the original subject becomes the Yochi'ach.
(c) The conclusion is v'Chazar ha'Din (the Din goes back and forth), Lo Re'i
Zeh k'Re'i Zeh (this subject is not exactly like that subject and vice
versa), but the Tzad ha'Shaveh (common denominator) may be used to connect
the Halachos of the two subjects, and we may learn a new Halachah from them
(in our case, that witnesses who testify to the fact that the dobtor owes
the first fifty Dinerin cause the debtor to take an oath on the second
fifty). The common denominator may also be brought into question, which
inhibits learning the new Halachah from the two subjects.
4) [line 11] AL YEDEI TA'ANAH U'KEFIRAH HEN BA'IN - due to a claim [of the
creditor] and a denial [of the debtor] they come [to Beis Din]
5) [line 17] HA'KOFER B'MILVEH KASHER L'EDUS; B'FIKADON PASUL L'EDUS
(a) A Gazlan (robber) is disqualified from giving testimony, as the verse
states, "Al Tashes Yadecha Im Rasha Liheyos Ed Chamas" - "do not place your
hand with the wicked to be a thieving witness" (Shemos 23:1). As such, if
testimony was given that someone is a Gazlan, he is disqualified from giving
testimony in Beis Din.
(b) A person is only classified as a "Rasha" to disqualify him from
testifying (or from making Shevu'os in Beis Din) if it is clear that he had
the intention to steal. If it is possible that he only lied because he spent
the money and intended to delay payment until he procured money
(Ishtamutei), he is still qualified to testify or to make a Shevu'ah.
Accordingly, one who denies that he owes a loan is still fit to testify,
since we assume that at the moment he does not have the money to repay the
loan, and he only intends to delay payment, but not to steal. However, a
Shomer (watchman) who denies that he holds a Pikadon (an object entrusted to
him to watch) is disqualified from testifying, since a Shomer is prohibited
from using a Pikadon for his own purposes. As such, he is stealing when he
refuses to return the Pikadon to its owner.
(c) The Gemara explains that even in a case where a Shomer denies ever
having received a Pikadon and witnesses testify against him that he indeed
did receive the Pikadon, the Shomer is still accepted as a witness. He may
have lost the Pikadon and he is trying to delay payment in order to give him
more time to find the Pikadon. He only becomes disqualified to testify by
denying having received a Pikadon if witnesses testify that at the time of
his denial the Pikadon was in his house and he knew about it, or it was on
6) [line 22] LEIS LEI SAHADEI D'LO MASIK LEI V'LO MIDI - he does not have
witnesses [who could testify] that he (the Malveh) does not hold anything
[i.e. a debt of money] against him
7) [line 30] V'HEILACH - and here it for you, i.e. it is yours; take it!
8) [line 1] SELA'IM, DINERIN - [a loan document that states that the debtor
owes the creditor an unspecified sum of] Sela'im [or an unspecified sum of]
Dinerin (See Background to Bava Metzia 3:6 for a list of the equivalents of
coins and amounts used in the Gemara)
9) [line 3] EINO ELA K'MESHIV AVEIDAH U'PATUR - it is considered as if he is
only returning a lost object, and he is exempt [from taking an oath]
10) [line 15] MISHUM D'HAVAH LEI SHTAR SHI'ABUD KARKA'OS - since a loan
document represents a lien on real estate
11) [line 16] V'EIN NISHBA'IN AL KEFIRAS SHI'ABUD KARKA'OS (SHEVU'AH: EIN
NISHBA'IN AL SHTAR SHIA'BUD KARKA'OS)
(a) Karka (land) is different from chattels with regard to Dinei Mamonos
(laws of monetary claims). One difference is that regarding land, no
Shevu'os d'Oraisa are taken, such as Shevu'as Ed Echad (see above, entry
#1), Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas ha'Ta'anah (see Background to Bava Metzia
3:8:a) and Shevu'os ha'Shomrim (see Background to Bava Metzia 5:2).
(b) Borrowing money and writing a Shtar for the creditor to use to collect
the loan creates a lien (Shi'abud Karka'os) on all the land that the
borrower owns, making it mortgaged (Meshu'abad) to his creditors. If he
sells the property afterwards, the creditors may collect the property from
the purchasers in payment of their loans. Because of this, a loan that is
recorded in a Shtar is dealt with as Karka, and one is not obligated to take
an oath for such a loan if he is Modeh b'Miktzas.
12) [line 26] HAI, I'ARUMEI KA MA'ARIM - he uses a deceptive act [to get out
of taking an oath]
13) [line 44] ZOKEKIN HA'NECHASIM SHE'EIN LAHEN ACHRAYUS ES HA'NECHASIM
SHE'YESH LAHEN ACHRAYUS LISHAVA ALEIHEM - when an oath is administered we
can include in that oath a response to a claim for real estate as well
(SHEVU'AH: GILGUL SHEVU'AH)
See above, entry #2 and entry #11.
14) [last line] AGAV GERARA NASVAH - it was brought [in that Mishnah from
Kidushin] incidentally (lit. through dragging)