Commentary for Shevuot 78:21

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב כולה מתני' שוה וליטרא זהב שאני

It means literally [two ma'ahs];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One claimed two ma'ahs (silver) , and the other admitted a perutah (copper) ; he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim.');">²⁷</span> that which he claimed, the other did not admit to him; and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him. If so, say the latter clause: 'TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] AND A PERUTAH OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.' 'I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,' HE IS LIABLE. Granted, if you say [the Mishnah means] the value [of two ma'ahs and a perutah], therefore he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he admits a portion of the claim: the same kind of goods.');">²⁸</span> but if you say [the Mishnah means it] literally, why is he liable? That which he claimed, the other did not admit to him, and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him! - Is this not an argument against Samuel? But surely R'Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and he admitted to him one of them, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel counts this as being admission of the same kind as the claim; similarly, if he claimed two ma'ahs (silver) and a perutah (copper) , and the other admitted a perutah (copper) , he is liable.');">²⁹</span> This appears to be the more reasonable interpretation, for it states in a later clause: 'A LITRA OF GOLD OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.' - 'I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A LITRA OF SILVER,' HE IS EXEMPT. Granted, if you say the Mishnah means them literally, therefore he is exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he claims gold, and the other admits silver.');">³⁰</span> but if you say it means their value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Goods to the value of a litra of gold, or silver.');">³¹</span> why is he exempt? A litra is much!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sufficient for the minimum required for admission and denial.');">³²</span> - Well then, since the latter clause is intended literally, the first clause is also intended literally; shall w say, then, that it will be a refutation of Rab's view!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause states that if he claims two ma'ahs, and the other admits a perutah, he is exempt, because, presumably (taking the Mishnah literally) he claims silver, and the other admits copper; but if he claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods to the value of a perutah, he would be liable, though the claim was only originally two ma'ahs, and was, after the admission of a perutah, diminished from two ma'ahs.');">³³</span> - [No!] Rab may tell you: The whole Mishnah deals with the value [of ma'ahs and perutah];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause he is therefore exempt, because, after the admission, the claim becomes less than two ma'ahs; and in the second clause, when the claim is two ma'ahs and a perutah, he is liable, because after the admission of a perutah, there is still denial of two ma'ahs.');">³⁴</span> but [the case of] a litra of gold is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah obviously intends this literally, for one claims a certain weight (not coins) of gold, and the other admits the same weight of silver; therefore he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. If the Mishnah had said that one claimed a sum of money in gold, and the other admitted a sum of money in silver, we might have said, legitimately, that goods to the value of those sums were intended, and the man would have been liable; but since the Mishnah states the weight of the gold and silver, it means actually gold and silver; and therefore he is exempt.');">³⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 78:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.