Bava Metzia - Daf 4
- עדים obligating a shevuah is derived from פיו and עד אחד
Rebbe Chiya had derived from a kal v’chomer that if פיו (partial admission) obligates a shevuah, then certainly witnesses who testify to part of a debt obligate a shevuah. This is ultimately challenged, because פיו has a relative strength, שכן אינו בהכחשה ובהזמה – that it is not subject to contradiction by witnesses, or hazamah (because one is obligated by his admission, even against one hundred witnesses), as opposed to witnesses, which can be discredited by other witnesses. The Gemara then attempts to derive Rebbe Chiya’s ruling from עד אחד – a single witness (who does not obligate payment but obligates a shevuah denying his testimony). This is also rejected, because this shevuah is against the actual testimony, and cannot prove to swear about the amount beyond the testimony. The Gemara ultimately derives it from the צד השוה – common characteristic between פיו and a single witness: שעל ידי טענה וכפירה הן באין – that as a result of a claim and denial they come to Beis Din, and the defendant swears (when the claim is supported, as Tosafos adds), so the same applies to witnesses.
- Machlokes about swearing by הילך – “here, it is yours”
Rebbe Chiya had said that his ruling is supported by our Mishnah, which requires swearing when two people grasp the cloak, and each one’s grasping is tantamount to testimony supporting his claim. This is rejected, because the opposing claim is also supported by the same “testimony.” Rather, Rebbe Chiya proved another ruling of his from our Mishnah: if someone claims a maneh from his fellow, who responds, “I owe you only fifty zuz, והילך – and here, it is yours,” (meaning, they are unspent and still in the lender’s legal possession), Rebbe Chiya says he must swear, because it is still considered aמודה במקצת. This is supported by our Mishnah, where the litigants swear although the other party has possession of the half they are giving up. Rav Sheishess says one who admits with "הילך" does not swear, because the admitted fifty zuz are כמאן דנקיט להו מלוה דמי – as if the lender is holding them in his hand, and not part of the claim, and the remaining claim is fully denied. Rav Sheishess explains that our Mishnah is a Rabbinic measure (as explained on Daf 3a), but Rebbe Chiya responds that it must reflect a Biblical shevuah.
- סלעים דינרין: swearing about a שטר lacking a specific amount
Rebbe Chiya was challenged from a Baraisa: סלעים דינרין – If a document says the borrower owes selaim or dinarim without an amount specified, and the lender claims the debt is five (selaim or dinarim), while the borrower claims it is three, Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar says he must swear like an ordinary מודה במקצת, whereas Rebbe Akiva says he does not swear, like one who returns lost property (since he voluntarily admitted to more than the two implied by the document). The Gemara infers that where the defendant only admits to two, Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar agrees he would not swear, because the minimum amount recorded in the שטר (which includes a property lien) is akin to הילך. This proves that a מודה במקצת does not swear in a case of הילך!? The Gemara ultimately answers that the reason he would not swear is: דקא מסייע ליה שטרא – because the document supports [the borrower] claiming the debt was two selaim, since no amount was recorded. Alternatively, he would not swear for a claim of two, because the minimum of two indicated by the שטר has a lien on land, and one does not swear about a denial, or admission, of a lien on land.
Siman – Door
The two עדים coming to testify to part of a debt to obligate a shevuah, who walked through a Beis Din door with a picture of פיו and עד אחד painted on them, overheard one man tell another, “I owe you only fifty zuz, והילך – and here, it is yours,” standing behind a lender holding a shtar that just said, “סלעים” without specifying an amount.
