ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 40
(a) The Beraisa rules in the case 'Dinar Zahav Zahuv Yesh Li be'Yadcha; Ein
Lach be'Yadi Ela Dinar Kesef' - Chayav', because since Reuven claimed a
minted coin and Shimon admitted to a minted coin, it is considered 'mi'Miyn
ha'Ta'anah' (as we just explained).
(b) We try to extrapolate from the Lashon 'Dinar Zahav Zahuv' - that if not
for the extra word 'Zahuv', he would not be claiming a minted coin but a
regular golden Dinar (which is 'Eino mi'Miyn ha'Ta'anah'), in which case,
our Mishnah, which does not mention 'Zahuv', must be speaking by Shaveh,
like Rav (as we explained a short while back).
(c) And when the Tana rules 'Sh'tei Kesef Yesh Lecha be'Yadi; Ein Lecha
be'Yadi Ela P'rutah, Patur' it must be - because the Kefirah is less than
Sh'tei Kesef (a Kashya on Shmuel).
(d) Rav Ashi rejects this proof however - by explaining the Beraisa to
mean - that whoever says Dinar Zahav, it is as if he said 'Zahav Zahuv'
(which will then incorporate our Mishnah too [like Rebbi Elazar explained
according to Shmuel]).
(a) The Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya 'Sela Li be'Yadcha; Ein Lecha be'Yadi
Ela Sela Chaser ...
1. ... Sh'tei Kesef' - rules 'Chayav'.
(b) The reason for this distinction is - because the defendant is only
Chayav a Shevu'ah for a Kefirah of Sh'tei Kesef.
2. ... Chaser Ma'ah' - rules 'Patur'.
(c) Rebbi Chiya cited this Beraisa - in support of Rav.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Amar Shmuel qualified the Din of Ta'anas Sh'tei
Kesef regarding Shevu'ah - by restricting it to a case of 'Modeh
be'Miktzas'; it will not extend to the Shevu'ah that one witness obligates
(where even the Kefirah of one P'rutah will suffice).
(b) This is based on a Beraisa which in turn, comments on the D'rashah from
the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish le'Chol Avon u'le'Chol
Chatas", from which we learn - that one witness is invalid as regards Isurim
(to cause a sinner to receive Malkos or Misah), but that his testimony is
valid to make someone swear in money-matters.
(c) The Beraisa then comments on that D'rashah - that wherever two witnesses
obligate a litigant to pay money (incorporating where he denies even one
P'rutah), one witness will obligate him to swear.
(a) When Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel taught 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh
Lo be'Achas Meihen Chayav', Rebbi Yitzchak responded - with 'Yeyasher'
(thanking him for his Chidush).
(b) And he added - that Rebbi Yochanan had issued the same ruling, causing
Rav Nachman to ask whether, to his knowledge, Resh Lakish disagreed with
Rebbi Yochanan or not.
(c) When we say that Resh Lakish used to wait, we mean - that Resh Lakish
used to wait until Rebbi Yochanan had finished all that he had to say,
before responding, and it so happened that Rebbi Yitzchak left the
Beis-Hamedrash before that. Consequently, he could not say whether Resh
Lakish disagreed with Rebbi Yochanan or not.
(d) Alternatively - Resh Lakish was drinking water on that occasion, and by
the time he had finished drinking, Rebbi Yitzchak had left the
(a) From our Mishnah, where the Tana Kama and Raban Gamliel argue over
whether 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin' is Patur (Tana Kama) or
Chayav (Raban Gamliel), we try to prove Shmuel right - because if they also
argue by 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Echad Meihen', they why
did Rebbi not present that case, to teach us that even there, the Tana Kama
(b) We refute this proof however - by placing the shoe on the other foot,
and explaining that he refers to present the case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ... ',
to teach us that even there, Raban Gamliel rules 'Chayav'.
(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah refers to a case of 'Ta'ano Keilim ve'Karka'os;
Hodeh be'Keilim ve'Karka'os ... Patur', from which we try to extrapolate -
that in a case of 'Keilim ve'Keilim', he would be Chayav (a proof for
(d) We refute that proof too however, concluding that even if 'Keilim
ve'Keilim' would be Patur, the Tana would present the case of 'Keilim
ve'Karka' - to teach us the Chidush of 'Hodeh be'Miktzas Keilim' (that he is
Chayav to swear on the Karka, too).
(a) This Chidush is known as 'Zokekin' - which is really another term for
'Gilgul Shevu'ah', though it refers specifically to Metaltelin over which
someone has to swear, which force him to swear over Karka at the same time.
(b) As a matter of fact - the main Din of Zokekin is the one in our Mishnah
(since this Masechta is designed to teach us the Dinim of Shevu'ah [as its
name suggests]), and it is the Mishnah in Kidushin which duplicates the Din,
in order to balance the Din that one can acquire Metaltelin together with
(a) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ta'ano Chitin
u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achas Meihen, Patur'. We reconcile this with Rebbi
Yitzchak, who commented 'Yeyasher, ve'Chein Amar Rebbi Yochanan when Rav
Nachman Amar Shmuel ruled Chayav - by presenting it as a Machlokes Amora'im
as to what Rebbi Yochanan really holds.
(b) After citing the same two sources from our Mishnah as Kashyos on Rebbi
Chiya bar Aba as we just attempted to bring as proofs for Rav Yehudah Amar
Shmuel and arriving at the same conclusions, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal queries
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba from a Beraisa. The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Ta'ano
Shor ve'Seh, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achas Meihen - Chayav'.
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Mamal rejects the answer that the author of the Beraisa
is Raban Gamliel, who holds 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin, Chayav' -
on the grounds that if that were so, then the Reisha ('Ta'ano Shor ve'Hodeh
Lo be'Seh ... , Patur') ought to have ruled Chayav, too.
(d) So Rebbi Chiya bar Aba establishes the author of the Beraisa as Admon
who rules in our Mishnah - 'ha'To'en la'Chavero be'Kadei Shemen, ve'Hodeh Lo
be'Kankanim, Chayav' (because he holds 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ... Chayav',
as we learned in Kesuvos).
(e) We know that this is a genuine answer and not a 'Dochek' (a pushed
answer) - because Rebbi Chiya bar Aba testified that Rebbi Yochanan himself
considered it authentic.
(a) Rav Anan Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules in a case where Shimon admits that he
owes Reuven ...
1. ... barley, after the latter claimed from him wheat, and before he had a
chance to add that he owed him barley too - that Beis-Din gauge the way he
said it, whether he deliberately rushed to answer, in an obvious effort to
beat Reuven to the draw (before he obligated him to swear by adding barley
to the claim), in which case he would be Chayav a Shevu'ah; or whether it
was a genuine admission, in which case he would be Patur.
(b) And he proves it from the fact that the Torah writes "Kesef O Keilim" -
when it could have written 'Kesafim' (which would have covered both 'two'
and 'Chashuv'), to teach us that one is Chayav a Shevu'ah on Keilim even if
they are not worth a P'rutah.
2. ... one needle, when Reuven claimed from him two (bearing in mind that
needles are not worth two Kesef) - that he is nevertheless Chayav to swear
(because all Keilim are considered Chashuv).
(c) Rav Papa ruled 'Ta'ano Keilim u'Perutah, ve'Hodeh be'Keilim ve'Kafar
bi'Perutah, Patur' - like Rav (against Shmuel), who requires Kefirah of two
Kesef; and 'Hodeh bi'Perutah ve'Kafar be'Keilim, Chayav' - like Shmuel
(against Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan) who holds 'Ta'ano Chitin
u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achas Meihen, Chayav'.
(a) Rav Nachman comments on our Mishnah 'Manah Li be'Yadcha; Ein Lach
be'Yadi, Patur', 'u'Mashbi'in Oso Shevu'as Heses' - which is a Shevu'ah
de'Rabbanan. 'Heses' is a Lashon of 'Hasasash' (enticement), because it is
intended to entice the litigant to admit that he owes the money (Rashi in
(b) Rav Nachman's ruling is based on the Chazakah - Ein Adam Tove'a
Ela-im-Kein Yesh Lo' (a person does not claim money from someone who doesn't
owe him anything ['There's no smoke without a fire']).
(c) We do not rather apply the Chazakah 'Ein Adam Me'iz Chovo bi'Fenei Ba'al
Chovo' (a debtor does not have the Chutzpah to deny the creditor's claim) -
because of a third Chazakah - 'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit' ('A person will deny
a claim temporarily, until he has the money to pay').
(a) Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Chisda rules 'ha'Kofer be'Milveh Kasher
le'Eidus - ha'Kofer be'Pikadon Pasul le'Eidus' (where witnesses testify that
they saw the article by him) - because whereas in the latter case, he has no
excuse to deny the claim, in the former case, he has the Chazakah of
'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit' in his defense (to conform with Rav Nachman).
Rav Chaviva learned Rav Nachman's Din of Shevu'as Heses on the Seifa of our
Mishnah 'Manah Li be'Yadcha; Amar Lo Hein. le'Machar Amar Lo Teneihu Li;
Nesativ Lach, Patur'. According to ...
(b) Neither do we apply the principle 'Chashud a'Mamona, Chashud
a'Shevu'asa' - because, due to the S'vara of 'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit', he is
not Chashud on Mamon.
1. ... the first opinion - seeing as he is Chayav a Shevu'as Heses in the
Reisha, where Shimon denies the claim completely, then 'Kal va'Chomer' in
the Seifa, where he initially admitted that he owes Reuven money.
2. ... Rav Chaviva however, he is only Chayav a Shevu'as Heses in the Seifa,
because Shimon has admitted to the claim, but not in the Reisha, where he
has completely denied it.