Commentary for Shevuot 87:1

מאי טעמיה דרבי אליעזר אלא לאו בדלא שוי שיעור זוזי ובדשמואל קא מיפלגי

what is the reason of R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the lender merely takes an oath that he has lost it, and still claims his loan? If the pledge equals the amount of the loan, it was obviously intended as full security; and if he loses it, he should lose his loan.');">¹</span> But [you must therefore say,] it is not equal to the amount of the loan, and they disagree about Samuel's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer does not agree with Samuel, for since the pledge is not worth as much as the loan, the lender accepts it simply as a reminder of the loan and not as full security; and he is regarded as an unpaid guardian of the pledge; therefore he takes the required oaths. And R. Akiba agrees with Samuel that, since the lender made no stipulation, he accepted the pledge as full security, and therefore if he loses it, he loses his money. Hence, Tannaim disagree on this point; then why does Samuel state his ruling as if he originated it? Let him say he agrees with R. Akiba');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 87:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.