Skip to main content

Shiur Supplement - Daf 3a continued

Text file

DAF 3a

A. Tani R. Chiya... me-ha'adat eidim me-kal ve-chomer [lines 39-43] BACKGROUND: In the classic case of modeh be-miktzat, the defendant admits partially to the claim of the plaintiff (e.g. The plaintiff claims to be owed 100 zuz, but the defendant admits to only 50 zuz.) Under theses circumstances, the defendant is required to take a shevu'a to affirm his claim.

 

            According to R. Chiya, should the defendant deny the ENTIRE claim, but two witnesses testify that he does in fact owe PART of it, the defendant is required to take the shevu'a of a modeh be-miktzat. The explanation for this law is: One's own admission should not be stronger than the testimony of witnesses. Consequently, if one can obligate himself to take an oath based on his own admission, surely witnesses should be able to create the same obligation. [Note: At this point, the gemara does not elucidate why testimony of witnesses is stronger than one's own admission. This will be dealt with on daf 3b.]

 

B. Mai she-lo tehei hoda'at piv... ke-mashma lan [line 44- daf 3b line 6] The gemara explains why we would have thought that the shevu'a of modeh be-miktzat applies only when the defendant admits to part of the claim, and not in the case of R. Chiya (i.e. When witnesses testify): According to Raba, the defendant is required to take a shevu'a based on his own admission as we suspect that he owes the ENTIRE amount but does not have the resources to honor his obligation. Since, however, he would not be so brazen as to deny the entire debt, he admits to part of it, planning to pay the rest when he is able. Therefore, we obligate him to take a shevu'a in the hope that this will cause him to admit the truth (based on the assumption that although one may lie in court, nonetheless, he will not swear falsely). This rationale does NOT apply in the case of R. Chiya as there is no admission on the part of the defendant and thus, we would have thought that the shevu'a of modeh be-miktzat is not relevant. Hence, we require the kal ve-chomer to teach us that indeed a shevu'a is taken.

 

C. u-Mai kal vechomer ... ke-mei'a eidim dami [lines 6- 10]

NOTE: In order to understand the flow of the gemara it is essential to keep in mind that R. Chiya's din is based on the premise that testimony of witnesses is stronger than one's own admission. If this premise cannot be proven, then R. Chiya has no support for his claim.

 

            The gemara compares hoda'at piv (one's own admission) with ha'adat eidim (testimony of witnesses): If one's own admission obligates him to take a shevu'a, even though it does not obligate him to pay, kal va-chomer, testimony of witnesses which does obligate him to pay should obligate him to take a shevu'a as well. The gemara then objects to this kal va-chomer citing the principle that "hoda'at ba'al din ke-mei'a eidim dami" (i.e. one can obligate oneself to pay).

 

D. Ela ma le-piv she-ken eino be-hakchasha ve-hazama... uv'hazama [lines 25-27] At this point the gemara is unable to support R. Chiya's din by means of a kal ve-chomer as, in certain aspects, one's own admission is STRONGER than the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for one to obligate himself to take a shevu'a of modeh be-miktzat even though witnesses do not have the same power.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!