פירוש על בבא מציעא 9:3
Tosafot on Bava Metzia
Alternatively, [the Baraisa is speaking of when the plaintiff] claimed utensils and land. The defendant’s admission that he owes utensils is not a situation of ‘הילך - Here, it is yours!’. Even so, since the denial is about land, there is no oath obligation.
There is an assumption that if a plaintiff claimed two types of movable objects such as wheat and barley and the defendant admitted owing barley, he would be liable for an oath. We do not look at each item as an independent claim. Rather, we view them as one aggregate claim and a denial or admission of one of the items is a partial admission or denial of the claim against him.
From this [Gemara] it appears that when [the plaintiff] claims wheat and barley and [the defendant] admits owing one of them, he is obligated to take an oath. We consider both species as one claim and the admission of one as partial admission of that one claim.
We can see from our Gemara that only when the combined claim was land and utensils, [the defendant] who admits owing utensils is exempt because his denial of land does not generate an oath obligation, but if the combined claim was wheat and barley and he admitted owing one of these species, [the defendant] would be obligated to take an oath.
The Gemara in Shavuos 40a: Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: if [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and barley and [the defendant] admitted owing one of them, he is obligated to take an oath. R’ Yitzchak said to [Rav Nachman]: … and so too did R’ Yochanan say.
On 40b the Gemara says: R’ Chiya bar Abba said in the name of R’ Yochanan: If [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and barley and [the defendant] admitted owing one of them, he is exempt from swearing. Since these are two separate species, each one is viewed as an independent claim. This is not a case of partial admission of the claim by the defendant.
We see that Shmuel definitely holds that we view the combined claim of wheat and barley as one. According to R’ Yitzchak, R’ Yochanan agrees with Shmuel. According to R’ Chiya bar Avin, R’ Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel. So too, do Shmuel and R’ Yochanan , according to one version, the opinion of R’ Yitzchak, hold in Perek Shavuos Hadayanim (Shavuos 40a).
There is an assumption that if a plaintiff claimed two types of movable objects such as wheat and barley and the defendant admitted owing barley, he would be liable for an oath. We do not look at each item as an independent claim. Rather, we view them as one aggregate claim and a denial or admission of one of the items is a partial admission or denial of the claim against him.
From this [Gemara] it appears that when [the plaintiff] claims wheat and barley and [the defendant] admits owing one of them, he is obligated to take an oath. We consider both species as one claim and the admission of one as partial admission of that one claim.
We can see from our Gemara that only when the combined claim was land and utensils, [the defendant] who admits owing utensils is exempt because his denial of land does not generate an oath obligation, but if the combined claim was wheat and barley and he admitted owing one of these species, [the defendant] would be obligated to take an oath.
The Gemara in Shavuos 40a: Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: if [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and barley and [the defendant] admitted owing one of them, he is obligated to take an oath. R’ Yitzchak said to [Rav Nachman]: … and so too did R’ Yochanan say.
On 40b the Gemara says: R’ Chiya bar Abba said in the name of R’ Yochanan: If [the plaintiff] claimed wheat and barley and [the defendant] admitted owing one of them, he is exempt from swearing. Since these are two separate species, each one is viewed as an independent claim. This is not a case of partial admission of the claim by the defendant.
We see that Shmuel definitely holds that we view the combined claim of wheat and barley as one. According to R’ Yitzchak, R’ Yochanan agrees with Shmuel. According to R’ Chiya bar Avin, R’ Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel. So too, do Shmuel and R’ Yochanan , according to one version, the opinion of R’ Yitzchak, hold in Perek Shavuos Hadayanim (Shavuos 40a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy