POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 4
1) THE TZAD HA'SHAVAH
(a) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Rather, the Kal va'Chomer is from 1
witness, who obligates an oath of Gilgul (once a man must
swear to contradict the witness, the claimant can make
him include other matters in the oath).
(b) Question: One witness can only obligate an oath on what
he testifies - then, the law of Gilgul obligates swearing
on other matters;
1. By 2 witnesses, we have no source that they can
obligate an oath!
(c) Answer: We learn from a man's mouth, he must swear on
what there was no admission or testimony!
(d) Question: A man's mouth cannot be contradicted - we
cannot learn to witnesses!
(e) Answer: We learn from 1 witness, who can be contradicted,
yet he obligates him to swear.
(f) Question: But 1 witness makes him swear on what the
witness testifies - we cannot learn that 2 witnesses make
him swear on what they do not testify!
(g) Answer: We learn from a man's mouth, he must swear on
what there was no admission or testimony!
1. The stringencies of his mouth and 1 witness are
different. The Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) is that
through claim and denial he must swear - also, by 2
(h) Question: But by both sources, we have not established
the defendant as a liar - we cannot learn to 2 witnesses,
who established him as a liar (perhaps we do not believe
(i) Answer: Two witnesses do not establish him as a liar!
1. (Rav Idi bar Avin): One who (falsely) denies a loan
is not disqualified from testifying; one who denies
a deposit is disqualified from testifying.
(j) Question: But by both sources, there is no law of Hazamah
(to pay for false testimony) - we cannot learn to 2
witnesses, who pay if Huzmu!
(k) Answer: R. Chiya does not consider this a refutation of
the Tzad ha'Shavah (since Hazamah applies to 1 witness to
invalidate his testimony).
(l) Question: How can R. Chiya support himself from our
Mishnah - it is unlike his case!
1. In his case, only the lender is supported by
(m) Retraction: Rather, R. Chiya brought our Mishnah to
support a different law.
i. If witnesses supported the borrower, R. Chiya
would not say he must swear!
2. In the Mishnah, we are witnesses for both sides
(that each owns half)!
(a) (R. Chiya): Reuven told Shimon 'You owe me 100 (Ran -
that I deposited by you)'; Shimon said, 'I only owe 50 -
Heilach (here is what is yours)' and returned 50 - he
must swear on the other 50.
1. Question: Why is this?
(b) Support (Mishnah): Reuven and Shimon are holding a
2. Answer: Even when he says 'Heilach', he admits to
part of the claim.
1. We are witnesses that each owns half (and he must
give up the other half - this is as Heilach), and
still they swear
(c) (Rav Sheshes): One who partially admits to a claim and
says 'Heilach' is exempt from swearing.
(d) Question: But the Mishnah shows that he is liable!
(e) Answer: The Mishnah is only a Rabbinic enactment (so
people will not grab others' garments and claim them).
1. R. Chiya admits that the Mishnah is a Rabbinic
enactment - but Chachamim only enact what is similar
to Torah law;
i. If Heilach was exempt, they would not enact an
oath unlike Torah oaths.
(f) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): A loan document says
'Dinarim', without specifying an amount. The lender says
he lent 5; the borrower admits to 3. Since he admitted to
part of the claim, he swears;
3) SWEARING ON VESSELS AND LAND
1. R. Akiva says, he is as one who returns a lost
object (since he could easily have said 2), he is
(g) [Version #1 - Question (against R. Chiya): R. Shimon ben
Elazar says that he must swear when he admits to 3 - had
he admitted to only 2, he would be exempt (since clearly,
the document means at least 2, there is a lien on his
land to pay 2 - this is as Heilach, therefore he is
(h) Answer #1: No - even by 2, R. Shimon exempts him;
1. He taught 3 to teach that he argues on R. Akiva, and
does not exempt him as one who returns a lost
(i) Objection: If so, why did he say 'Since he admitted to
part of the claim, he swears' - he should say, 'even in
this case he swears'!
(j) Answer #2: Really, R. Shimon exempts him when he admits
to 2, even though Heilach is liable;
1. Explanation #1: When he admits to 2, the document
supports him, therefore he is exempt.
(k) [Version #2 - Question (against Rav Sheshes): R. Akiva
only exempts him because he is as one who returns a lost
object - had he only admitted to 2, he would be liable,
even though (there is a lien on land to pay 2,) it is as
2. Explanation #2: When he admits to 2, there is a lien
on his land to pay all he admits to;
i. Just as we do not swear on denial of debts
which have a lien on land, also we do not swear
on account of admission of debts which have a
lien on land.]
(l) Answer: Even if he admitted to 2 he would be exempt; the
Beraisa speaks of 3 to teach the argument by 3;
1. R. Shimon obligates because he partially admits; R.
Akiva exempts as one who returns a lost object.
(m) Support: This must be correct - if R. Akiva obligated an
oath by 2, why would he exempt him when he says 3 - he
will scheme to says 3 to avoid swearing!
(n) Question: Since we must say that R. Akiva exempts by 2,
this refutes R. Chiya! (By 2, he is not returning a lost
object - the exemption must be on account of Heilach!)
(o) Answer #1: When he admits to 2, the document supports
him, therefore he is exempt.
(p) Answer #2: When he admits to 2, there is a lien on his
land to pay this, we do not swear on account of such
(a) Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman - Mishnah): Reuven
claimed vessels and land from Shimon; Shimon admitted to
either 1 and denied the other - he is exempt from
1. If he partially admitted to the claim of land (and
denied all the vessels), he is exempt;
(b) Answer: No - in a corresponding case of 2 claims of
vessels, he is exempt;
2. If he partially admitted to the claim of vessels, he
3. Inference: He is only exempt (in the first 2
clauses, in particular, when he admitted to land and
denied vessels) because we do not swear on land;
i. In a corresponding case of 2 claims of vessels
(the vessels he admits to are in front of him,
like land) he would be liable.
ii. Suggestion: Even though he says Heilach, he is
1. The Mishnah spoke of vessels and land to teach that
when he partially admits to the vessels, he must
also swear on the land.
(c) Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!
1. (Mishnah): (When one must swear on) property without
Acharayos (Metaltelim, on which there can be no
lien), this forces him to also swear on property
with Acharayos (land)!
(d) Answer: The first Mishnah we cited is the primary place
the law is taught; the latter Mishnah, which gave laws of
land and Metaltelim, merely alluded to the law in
(e) Question: According to Rav Sheshes, who says that Heilach
is exempt - why do we need a verse to exempt land from
oaths - every admission of land is Heilach!
(f) Answer #1: We need the verse when he damaged the land
(and must pay - this is not Heilach).
(g) Answer #2: We need the verse when he admitted to vessels
(not in a situation of Heilach) and denied land.