POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 43
1) WHEN A "SHOMER" IS EXEMPT
(a) A Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through
2) THE CLAIMS MUST BE QUANTIFIED
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" - generality;
"Kesef O Chelim" - specifics; "Lishmor" - generality;
1. From the generality, specific, generality we learn
everything similar to the specifics, i.e. something
which can be moved and has intrinsic value;
(d) (Mishnah): A Shomer Sachar need not pay for them...
2. We exclude land, for it cannot be moved; we exclude
slaves, for the Torah equates them to land; we
exclude documents, they lack intrinsic value; we
exclude Hekdesh, for the verse says "Re'ehu".
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" - generality;
"Chamor O Shor O Seh" - specifics; "v'Chol Behemah" -
(g) From the generality, specific, generality we learn
everything similar to the specifics, as above.
(h) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, some things are like land, but
have the law of Metaltelim...
(i) Question (Mishnah): This implies that R. Meir holds that
things connected to land are not like land;
1. Rather than argue about laden vines, he should argue
with Chachamim about barren trees!
(j) Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about grapes
ready to be harvested:
1. R. Meir holds that we consider that they are already
harvested; Chachamim disagree.
(a) One must swear only about something with a measure,
weight or number...
3) A "MASHKON" (SECURITY) THAT WAS LOST
(b) (Abaye): Shimon is exempt only if Reuven claimed *a* full
house, but if he claimed *this* full house, this
quantifies his claim (and Shimon must swear).
(c) Objection (Rava): If so, why does the end of the Mishnah
give the case when Reuven claimed up to the ledge and
Shimon admitted up to the window;
1. Rather, it should teach the more similar case, he
claimed *this* full house, and Shimon must swear!
(d) (Rava): Rather, one must swear only if the claim and
denial were both about something with a measure, weight
(e) Support (Beraisa): If Reuven claimed 'You owe me 30 Sa'im
of wheat', and Shimon denied it all, he is exempt;
1. If Reuven claimed a large lamp or belt and Shimon
admitted that he owes a small one, he is exempt;
(f) Question: When Reuven claims a large lamp and Shimon
admits to a small one, he is exempt - presumably, this is
because the admission is unlike the claim;
2. But if Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of wheat, and Shimon
admitted to owing 15, he is liable; if Reuven
claimed a lamp weighing ten Literin and Shimon
admitted that he owes one of five Literin, he is
3. The general rule is: one must swear only if the
claim and denial were both about something with a
measure, weight or number.
4. Question: What does the general rule come to
5. Answer: Even if he claimed this full house, Shimon
1. The same should apply when Reuven claims a lamp
weighing ten Literin and Shimon admitted that he
owes one of five Literin!
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The lamp is
composed of rings, a five Liter lamp is part of a ten
(h) Objection: If so, the Beraisa could have taught a case of
a belt in which one is liable, i.e. a belt of loops sewn
together (a short belt is part of a long belt)!
1. Rather, we must say that the Beraisa does not
discuss belts of loops;
(i) Answer #2 (R. Aba bar Mamal): A five Liter lamp is part
of a ten Liter lamp, because the latter can be converted
to the former by scraping off some of the metal.
2. Similarly, it does not discuss lamps of rings!
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven lent Shimon four Dinarim and took a
security; the security was lost (Reuven is liable for
1. If Reuven claims that the security was worth two
(Dinarim, therefore Shimon still owes two) and
Shimon claims that it was worth four, he is exempt
(Shimon denies the entire claim);
2. If Reuven claims that the security was worth two,
and Shimon claims that it was worth three, he must
swear (Shimon admits to a Dinar and denies a Dinar);
3. If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight
(so Reuven owes him four), and Reuven claims that it
was worth four, he is exempt (Reuven denies the
4. If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight,
and Reuven claims that it was worth five, he must
5. The one who was watching the security (i.e. Reuven)
i. If Shimon would swear, perhaps Reuven would
show the security (Rashi - and prove that
Shimon swore falsely about its value,
disqualifying Shimon from swearing again;
Tosfos - it would turn out that Shimon's oath
was not needed (since we later saw the
security, we can evaluate it ourselves).
(b) (Gemara) Question: To which case does the last clause
(Reuven must swear, lest...) refer?
(c) Answer (Shmuel, R. Chiya bar Aba, R. Yochanan): To the
1. Question: What does this mean?
(d) (Shmuel): Levi lent 1000 Zuz to Yehudah, and took a
handle (of a shovel, which is worth very little) for a
security. If he loses the handle, he forfeits the loan;
2. Answer #1: It means, the second of the first two
clauses: Reuven claims that it was worth two, Shimon
claims that it was worth three), he must swear;
i. Mid'Oraisa, Shimon swears that it was worth
three; Chachamim enacted that instead Reuven
swears (lest Shimon swear and Reuven will then
show the security).
3. Another answer is suggested by Rav Ashi's law.
i. (Rav Ashi): The Halachah is, Reuven swears that
he does not have the security, Shimon swears
how much it was worth.
4. Answer #2: The Mishnah means, Reuven swears *first*,
for if Shimon would swear first, perhaps Reuven
would show the security.
1. If he took two handles for securities, he does not
forfeit (even) half the loan if he loses one of
them. (If he loses both, he forfeits the loan.)
(e) (Rav Nachman): If he took two, he forfeits half the loan
if he loses one of them;
1. If he took a handle and an ingot, he does not
forfeit half the loan if he loses the ingot (since
the loan can be collected from it, he only deducts
its value from the loan).
(f) (Chachamim of Neharde'a): Even if he took a handle and an
ingot, he forfeits half the loan for losing either one.
(g) Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claims that the security
was worth two, and Shimon claims that it was worth three,
he must swear;
1. Since he lost the security, the loan should be
forfeited! (This argues with all three opinions
above, all agreed with Shmuel when only one security
(h) Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer: The Mishnah is when
Reuven stipulated that if he loses the security, he will
collect the remainder of the loan; Shmuel's law is when
no stipulation was made.
(i) Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer: Shmuel's law is when
Reuven stipulated that he accepts the security as if it
was worth the value of the loan; the Mishnah is when no
stipulation was made.
(j) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Reuven lent Shimon, taking a
security; he lost the security. He swears (that he
lost it) and collects the debt; (He is only a free
watchman, because the security is not for
collection, only a reminder of the loan.)
2. R. Akiva says, he only lent on account of the
security - now that he lost it, he lost the loan.
3. If there was also a loan document, all agree that it
was for collection, he is a paid watchman, he lost
4. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: If the security was worth as much
as the loan, why does R. Eliezer argue?
5. Answer: Rather, the security was worth less than the
loan; R. Akiva holds like Shmuel, R. Eliezer does