Bava Metzia 9

ולמאן דאמר הילך פטור אמאי איצטריך קרא למעוטי קרקע משבועה הא כל קרקע הילך הוא

Now according to him who says that 'Here they are' does not require an oath, why is it necessary to derive from a Scriptural verse the exemption of land from the law of oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu. 42b; infra 57b. ');">¹</span>

אמר לך איצטריך קרא היכא דחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות

since all land [available to the creditor is as if the debtor said,] 'Here they are'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As land cannot be removed it is always at the disposal of the creditor. ');">²</span>

א"נ היכא דטענו כלים וקרקעות והודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות

— He can answer you: The derivation from the Scriptural verse is necessary where [the debtor] has dug pits, ditches and caves [thereby destroying the value of the land], or where one claims vessels and land, and the claim in regard to the vessels is admitted, while the claim in regard to the land is disputed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The admission as regards the vessels is not the equivalent of 'Here they are', and the conclusion drawn from the Scriptural verse is necessary to let us know that such a 'partial admission' cannot impose an oath on the disputed landed property, though forming part of the one claim. ');">³</span>

ת"ש דתני רמי בר חמא ארבעה שומרין צריכין כפירה במקצת והודאה במקצת שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר

Come and hear: Rami b. Hama teaches: Four kinds of bailees require to put forward a partial denial and a partial admission [in order to be liable to an oath]: the gratuitous bailee, the borrower, the paid bailee, and the hirer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K 107a; infra 98a. ');">⁴</span>

היכי דמי לאו דא"ל הילך

How is it to be understood? Is it not that the bailee says to the claimant, 'Here it is'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'partial admission' can only refer to the animal which the bailee admits to have in his possession, and which he is ready to return to the owner. This is like saying, 'Here it is,' and yet the bailee has to swear.! ');">⁵</span>

לא דאמר ליה ג' פרות מסרתי לך ומתו כולהו בפשיעה וא"ל איהו חדא לא היו דברים מעולם וחדא מתה באונס וחדא מתה בפשיעה דבעינא שלומי לך דלאו הילך הוא

— No. [It refers to a case where] the owner says to the bailee, 'I handed you over three cows, and they have all died through your negligence', while the bailee says to the owner, 'One I never received; one died through an accident, and one has died through my negligence, for which I am willing to pay you', so that it is not like [an offer to return the animal by saying.] 'Here it is.'

ת"ש דתני אבוה דרבי אפטוריקי לדרבי חייא קמייתא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידים אותו שיש בידו חמשים זוז יכול ישבע על השאר

Come and hear what the father of R. Apotoriki taught, as a refutation of the first [law of] R. Hiyya: [If one says to another,] 'You have a hundred [<i>zuz</i>] in your possession belonging to me', and the other says, 'I have nothing belonging to you,' and witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff fifty [<i>zuz</i>] — I might think that the defendant ought to swear regarding the rest; therefore the Scriptural text tells us, for any manner of lost thing, whereof he saith that it is this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. The term 'It is this' is construed as implying a partial admission. V. Shebu. 39b; B. K. 107a. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ל (שמות כב, ח) על כל אבדה אשר יאמר כי הוא זה על הודאת פיו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו על העדאת עדים

[indicating thereby that] you impose [an oath] on him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 41b. ');">⁷</span>

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. ');">⁸</span>

והא קרא קאמר ההוא למודה מקצת הטענה

— Do you wish to refute R. Hiyya by citing a Baraitha [that contradicts his view]? R. Hiyya is a Tanna, and he may disagree with it. But [the Baraitha] quotes a Scriptural text? — That [text] refers to one who admits part of the claim. And the father of R. Apotoriki?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he apply the text to exclude the case where witnesses give evidence? ');">⁹</span>

ואבוה דר' אפטוריקי אמר לך כתיב הוא וכתיב זה חד למודה מקצת הטענה וחד להעדאת עדים דפטור

— He will answer you: [The text] says, it, and it also says, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one particle of which is superfluous. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואידך חד למודה מקצת הטענה וחד למודה ממין הטענה

— one term is [meant to apply] to him who admits part of the claim, and the other [is meant to indicate] that in the case of witnesses giving evidence [regarding part of the disputed claim] the defendant is free from taking an oath]. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya. ');">¹¹</span>

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. ');">¹²</span>

ההוא רעיא דהוו מסרי ליה כל יומא חיותא בסהדי יומא חד מסרו ליה בלא סהדי לסוף אמר להו לא היו דברים מעולם אתו סהדי אסהידו ביה דאכל תרתי מינייהו א"ר זירא אם איתא לדר' חייא קמייתא משתבע אשארא

— He does not share the view that the admission has to refer to the same kind of object, for he is of the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, as we have learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 100b; B. K. 35b; Shebu. 38b and 40a; cf. Keth. 108b. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה אביי אם איתא משתבע והא גזלן הוא א"ל שכנגדו קאמינא

If the plaintiff claims wheat, and the defendant admits barley, the defendant is free [from taking an oath], but Rabban Gamaliel obliges [the defendant to take an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the claim is for wheat, and the admission is for barley, it is not considered a 'partial admission' and does not involve an oath. ');">¹⁴</span>

השתא נמי דליתא לדר' חייא נחייביה מדרב נחמן

There was a shepherd to whom people entrusted cattle every day in the presence of witnesses. One day they handed it over to him without witnesses. Subsequently he gave a complete denial [of the receipt of the cattle]. But witnesses came and testified that he had eaten two of the cattle. Said R. Zera: If the first [law of] R. Hiyya is valid, [the shepherd] ought to swear regarding the remainder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the denial is partly contradicted by witnesses R. Hiyya imposes an oath. ');">¹⁵</span>

דתנן מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי פטור ואמר רב נחמן משביעין אותו שבועת היסת

Abaye, however, answered him: If [the law were] valid, would [the shepherd be allowed to] swear? Is he not a robber?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is likely to commit perjury, hence cannot be given an oath. R. Hiyya's law refers to a debt, or pledge, which the defendant denies, not because he has misappropriated it, or used it for himself, but because he does not find it convenient to repay or replace it just then, and intends to do so later. He therefore cannot be regarded as a robber. ');">¹⁶</span>

דרב נחמן תקנתא היא

— [R. Zera] replied: I mean, his opponent should swear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And receive payment. v. Shebu. 44b. ');">¹⁷</span> But even if R. Hiyya's law is rejected, should we not impose an oath [upon the claimant] because of the view of R. Nahman, as we have learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 38b. ');">¹⁸</span> [If one says to another,] 'You have in your possession a hundred [<i>zuz</i>] belonging to me,' and the other says, 'I have nothing belonging to you,' he is free [from taking an oath]; but R. Nahman adds: We make him take 'an oath of inducement'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although no oath is to be imposed on the defendant who denies the whole claim, a Rabbinical oath is put on him in order to induce him to admit the truth, as it is assumed that no one will sue a person without cause. ');">¹⁹</span> — R. Nahman's rule is [only a Rabbinical] provision, [made irrespective of the law],