אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא מי מצית אמרת דלאו בדון מינה ומינה פליגי והתנן גבי פקדון שבועת הפקדון נוהגת באנשים ובנשים ברחוקין ובקרובין בכשרין ובפסולין בפני ב"ד ושלא בפני ב"ד מפי עצמו ומפי אחרים אינו חייב עד שיכפור בו בב"ד דברי ר"מ וחכ"א בין מפי עצמו ובין מפי אחרים כיון שכפר בו חייב
Hence, you must infer from this that they disagree on [the principle of] 'deduce from it, and [entirely] from it'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they bold that, in the case of deposit, even where adjured by others, he is liable even outside the Beth Din, obviously they deduce liability for adjuration by others from the case of testimony, though they do not make the case of deposit entirely like the case of testimony; for in the latter they hold the denial must always be before the Beth Din; whereas in the case of deposit, once they have deduced that there is liability for adjuration by others, they say, 'establish it in its own place', i.e., make the law of adjuration by others equal to the law of swearing of his own accord, which (in the case of a deposit) does not need to be before the Beth Din.');"><sup>7</sup></span> - [R'Papa replied:] From this, yes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We certainly infer that the Sages hold 'deduce from it, and establish it in its own place'; but from our Mishnah it is not possible to draw this inference, for it may be that the Sages deduce their ruling by inference from minor to major, as explained above.');"><sup>8</sup></span> but from the other it is not possible to infer it.
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that each one of these four sins obligates its doer to bring a ewe or a female goat, like the well-known law of the fixed sin-offering; and he is only exempted with fowl or flour if he is poor. But if he is poor and he brings a ewe or a female goat, he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the reason is that since God, blessed be He, had mercy upon him and exempted him with [something less expensive] it is not appropriate that he push himself to bring more than what his hand can reach. And from this, every understanding person will acquire good counsel: to not make expenditures [that are] more than what is fitting according to his money - as this is a cause to steal from the creatures when he seeks that to which he is accustomed and does not find [it]. And they also said (Keritot 27b) that one who was wealthy and separated money to buy a ewe or a female goat with it and became poor and needs the money, should take two doves or two young pigeons; and he should say, "Behold this money is rendered profane upon these birds." And afterwards, he may benefit from all of the money. And so [too, if] he separated money for fowl and became poor and needed them, he renders them profane on a tenth of an eifah of flour, and benefits from [the money]. And so [too,] a poor person who separated money for a tenth of an eifah [of flour] and became wealthy, adds upon it and brings a ewe or a female goat. And for this matter, a wealthy person is called one so long as he has [the wealth]. And the liability for these sacrifices is only when inadvertent - and with an oath of testimony even when volitional - but if under duress, there is no liability for a sacrifice with any of them (Shevuot 31b). As the Torah exempts any [one under] duress from any liability (Pesachim 71b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
