Commentary for Bava Metzia 9:9
מתניתא קא רמית עליה דר' חייא ר' חייא תנא הוא ופליג
in consequence of his own admission, but you do not impose [an oath] on him in consequence of the evidence of witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a direct contradiction to the ruling of R. Hiyya, according to which the evidence of witnesses regarding part of a disputed claim causes an oath to be imposed on the defendant, as inferred by means of a Kal wa-homer from 'partial admission'. V. supra 3a-4a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Metzia
R’ Chiya is a Tanna and argues [with the Baraisa presented by the father of Rav Aftoriki]. There seems to be two versions of the text in the Gemara earlier on 3a, where R’ Chiya presents his opinion that the testimony of witnesses of partial liability generates an oath obligation.
A) It is a personal statement of R’ Chiya.
B) R’ Chiya is quoting a Baraisa.
If the second text is correct, there is no need for our Gemara to defend R’ Chiya by saying that he is a Tanna and can argue with a Baraisa. He was also quoting a Baraisa that can certainly disagree with the Baraisa of R’ Aftoriki’s father.
If our text earlier is “R’ Chiya said”, which implies that the ruling was R’ Chiya’s personal ruling and not of a Baraisa, our Gemara which defends R’ Chiya’s ruling by saying that R’ Chiya has the right to argue with the Baraisa comes out well. Initially, the Gemara did not know that R’ Chiya ranks as a Tanna and presented this Baraisa as a contradiction to R’ Chiya. The Gemara defends R’ Chiya by saying that he does rank as a Tanna and can disagree with the ruling of the Baraisa.
But if R’ Chiya was quoting a Baraisa, there should be no need to say that R’ Chiya has the right to argue with a Baraisa?
And even if our original text was “R’ Chiya taught a Baraisa” there should be no need to defend R’ Chiya by saying that he was a Tanna, since he was teaching a Baraisa? We can answer: That the Gemara means as follows: Even if this ruling of R’ Chiya would not be a Baraisa there would be no problem, because [R’ Chiya] is a Tanna and has the right to argue with any Baraisa.
A) It is a personal statement of R’ Chiya.
B) R’ Chiya is quoting a Baraisa.
If the second text is correct, there is no need for our Gemara to defend R’ Chiya by saying that he is a Tanna and can argue with a Baraisa. He was also quoting a Baraisa that can certainly disagree with the Baraisa of R’ Aftoriki’s father.
If our text earlier is “R’ Chiya said”, which implies that the ruling was R’ Chiya’s personal ruling and not of a Baraisa, our Gemara which defends R’ Chiya’s ruling by saying that R’ Chiya has the right to argue with the Baraisa comes out well. Initially, the Gemara did not know that R’ Chiya ranks as a Tanna and presented this Baraisa as a contradiction to R’ Chiya. The Gemara defends R’ Chiya by saying that he does rank as a Tanna and can disagree with the ruling of the Baraisa.
But if R’ Chiya was quoting a Baraisa, there should be no need to say that R’ Chiya has the right to argue with a Baraisa?
And even if our original text was “R’ Chiya taught a Baraisa” there should be no need to defend R’ Chiya by saying that he was a Tanna, since he was teaching a Baraisa? We can answer: That the Gemara means as follows: Even if this ruling of R’ Chiya would not be a Baraisa there would be no problem, because [R’ Chiya] is a Tanna and has the right to argue with any Baraisa.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy