Gittin - Daf 51
- Compensation for improvements when second purchase preceded the additional obligations
On the previous Daf, Amoraim offered two explanations why one can only collect compensation for produce (or improvements) of a purchased land (which was later found to have been stolen) from the seller’s own properties. However, a Baraisa proves a different reason. Rebbe Nassan says: אימתי – When is it true that the compensation for the improvements are only collected from the seller’s property? בזמן שקדם מקחו של שני לשבחו של ראשון – Only when the second purchase preceded the improvements of the first purchaser (and the obligation to compensate for them was created thereafter). אבל קדם שבחו של ראשון למקחו של שני – But if the improvements of the first purchaser (and the obligation to compensate for them) preceded the second purchase, גובה מנכסים משועבדים – he does collect from the sold properties in the second purchaser’s possession. This proves that the reason for the Mishnah is משום דלא קדים – because [the improvements (or produce)] did not precede the second purchase, and not the reasons given by the Amoraim on Daf 50!? The Gemara responds that it is a machlokes Tannaim, and a Baraisa records Tannaim who hold of the Amoraim’s reasons.
- שני כיסין קשורין מצאת לי, שני שוורין קשורין מצאת לי
Rebbe Yitzchak said: שני כיסין קשורין מצאת לי – If one says to his friend, “You found two purses of mine tied together,” והלה אומר לא מצאתי אלא אחד – and the other says, “I only found one,” נשבע – [the finder] must swear (because of מודה במקצת – partial admission) that he only found one. שני שוורים קשורין מצאת לי – But if he says, “You found two oxen of mine tied together, and the other says, “I only found one,” he does not swear. The Gemara explains the distinction: שוורין מנתחי מהדדי – Oxen pull apart from each other and may have broken free of each other. Therefore, the owner cannot be certain that the finder found both oxen, and one does not swear against an uncertain claim. כיסין לא מנתחי מהדדי – Purses, however, do not pull apart from each other, and therefore the owner knows that if the finder found one, he must have found the other. If the finder concedes he found two oxen but claims he returned one, he does swear, because the owner can know with certainty he did not.
- Machlokes about swearing based on a son’s claim
It was taught in a Baraisa: Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov says: מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס – If one says, “A maneh (an amount of money) of your father’s was in my possession, and I paid him half of it,” הרי זה נשבע – he must swear that he paid half. But the Chachomim say: אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור – He is like one who returns lost property and is exempt from swearing. The Gemara asserts that the orphan must be claiming the full amount, because otherwise everyone would agree the debtor would not swear. The machlokes is ultimately explained based on Rabbah’s rationale for the shevuah of מודה במקצת. He explains that the defendant does not escape swearing based on his ability to have fully denied the debt, because חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו – it is presumed that a person is not brazen enough to completely deny his debt to his creditor’s face. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov says that even to the creditor’s son, a person is unable to completely deny the claim, and therefore must swear. Whereas, the Chachomim hold: בו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בבנו מעיז – to [the creditor himself] he is not so brazen to fully deny, but to his son he would be brazen enough to fully deny the claim. Since he partially admitted voluntarily, he is exempt from swearing, like one who returns a lost item.
