Commentary for Bava Metzia 9:13
ואידך מודה ממין הטענה לית ליה וסבר ליה כר"ג דתנן טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין פטור ור"ג מחייב:
— He applies one term to him who admits part of the claim, and the other [he utilises for the purpose of proving] that the admission [of part of the claim involves an oath only if the admission] refers to the same kind of object as is claimed [by the plaintiff]. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father of R. Apotoriki. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Metzia
[If the plaintiff claimed wheat] and [the defendant] admitted [owing] barley, he is exempt. The Gemara can easily be understood as exempting the defendant from swearing. We might believe that he is liable to return the barley that he admits owing. Tosfos tells us that this is not so.
When we say that if the plaintiff claimed the defendant owes him wheat and he admits that he owes barley, he is exempt -this means that he is exempt not only from the wheat but also from the barley that he admitted owing, because we construe the plaintiff’s claim of wheat as an admission that the defendant does not owe him any barley, as is evident from the end of HaManee’ach (Bava Kama 35b, and Tosfos ד'ה לימא there.)1The Gemara there clearly says that the defendant is exempt from barley as well.
If [the plaintiff] claimed that the subject owes him wheat and [the defendant] admitted that he owes [the plaintiff] barley, he is exempt. What is Rabah bar Nassan teaching us? We have learned this in a Baraisa: If [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and [the defendant] admitted that he owes barley - [the defendant] is exempt. The Gemara explains: If our source was only the Baraisa I would say - what is meant by that Baraisa - that [the defendant] is exempt from the value of wheat and liable for the value of barley. Rabah bar Nassan teaches us that he is entirely exempt, even from the equivalent amount of wheat.
When we say that if the plaintiff claimed the defendant owes him wheat and he admits that he owes barley, he is exempt -this means that he is exempt not only from the wheat but also from the barley that he admitted owing, because we construe the plaintiff’s claim of wheat as an admission that the defendant does not owe him any barley, as is evident from the end of HaManee’ach (Bava Kama 35b, and Tosfos ד'ה לימא there.)1The Gemara there clearly says that the defendant is exempt from barley as well.
If [the plaintiff] claimed that the subject owes him wheat and [the defendant] admitted that he owes [the plaintiff] barley, he is exempt. What is Rabah bar Nassan teaching us? We have learned this in a Baraisa: If [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and [the defendant] admitted that he owes barley - [the defendant] is exempt. The Gemara explains: If our source was only the Baraisa I would say - what is meant by that Baraisa - that [the defendant] is exempt from the value of wheat and liable for the value of barley. Rabah bar Nassan teaches us that he is entirely exempt, even from the equivalent amount of wheat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy