Shiur Supplement - Daf 4a-b

A. Ela ki itmar ve-tana tuna... ve-ktani yishava [lines 27-33] The gemara has so far ben unsuccessful in proving the din of R. Chiya from our mishna. Thus, we attempt to validate a different halakha stated by R. Chiya, based on our mishna.

            R. Chiya discusses the following scenario: Reuven claims money from Shimon who not only admits to part of the claim, but agrees to give it over immediately - Heilakh (see this week's shiur for a full discussion on the nature and scope of Heilakh).

            According to R. Chiya, even though the defendant agrees to pay immediately, nonetheless, he is not exempt from taking the oath of a modeh be-miktzat as he admitted to part of the claim. This can be proven from our mishna - even though each party agrees to hand over half of the tallit, nevertheless each one is obligated to swear concerning the half that remains in his possession. [Note - The comparison between the din of R. Chiya and the mishna is not exact as will be discussed by the gemara.]

DAF 4b

B. (Meitivei) Sla'im dinarim... heilakh patur [lines 1-8] The gemara attempts to prove that R. Chiya is incorrect by citing a beraita which apparently contradicts him: The lender presents a document (shtar) to the effect that he is owed money by the borrower. However, the exact amount is not mentioned in the shtar - it mentions only "selai'm" or "denarim" - the plural of "sela" and "dinar" which are types of coins. The lender claims that he is owed five but the borrower admits to only three. According to R. Shimon b. Elazar, this is a case of modeh be-miktzat and a shevu'a must be taken. R. Akiva, however, likens this case to one where a lost object is returned and no shevu'a need be taken. [Since the borrower could have easily denied the third sela, it is as if he is returning a lost object to the lender.]

            The gemara claims that R. Shimon b. Elazar requires an oath ONLY when the borrower admits to three. Would he admit to two, however, no shevu'a would be taken, assumedly because we are dealing with a case of Heilakh [either there is no way for the borrower to escape payment as the minimum amount on the shtar is TWO; or the money is considered to be in the possession of the lender already as he has a lien over the fixed assests of the borrower].

            The gemara presents different options so as to resolve the apparent contradiction.