Bava Kamma - Daf 107
- מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה במקצת הטענה ישבע
The Torah’s parsha about שומרים obligates swearing for מודה בקמצת – one who admits to part of a claim. Rebbe Chiya bar Yosef said: עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן – a mixture of parshios is written here. He explains that "כי הוא זה" – “this is it” (i.e., this is all I owe you), the source text for swearing byמודה במקצת, does not belong in the passage of שומר חנם (where it is written); rather, it is referring to one who denies a loan. Rabbah explained: מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה במקצת הטענה ישבע – Why did the Torah say that one who admits to part of a claim must swear about his denial? חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו – It is because there is a presumption that a person is not so brazen as to deny his obligation to the face of his creditor (Rashi explains because he lent him money). Thus, completely denying a loan is believed without swearing. One who partially admits does so because he cannot fully deny. The reason he did not fully admit is to stall for time until he has the money to pay. Therefore, the Torah required him to swear so he admits completely. Regarding a פקדון, which the שומר can be so bold as to fully deny, as Rashi explains, the בעל הפקדון did not do the שומר any favor, one must swear even for a full denial.
- Amoraim who hold the laws of שומרים require הודאה במקצת
Above, Rebbe Chiya bar Abba taught that the Torah required swearing about a פקדון even for a full denial. On the previous Daf, Rebbe Yochanan disagreed and said that a שומר חנם who falsely swears that the item was stolen from him, אינו חייב עד שיכפור במקצת ויודה במקצת – is not liable to pay כפל unless he denies part of the claim and admits to part of the claim, because the passuk says "כי הוא זה" – “this is it” regarding the שומר חנם’s false claim, which is where he pays כפל. Similarly, Rami bar Chama said: ארבעה שומרין צריכין כפירה במקצת והודאה במקצת – the four שומרים of the Torah require partial denial and partial admission to become obligated to swear but would not swear for a full denial. He also explains that the passuk says "כי הוא זה" – “this is it” regarding a שומר חנם, implying his obligation to swear is where he partially admits (because Rami bar Chama does not hold it is a “mixture of passages”). He explains how he derives the other שומרים.
- טעון טענת גנב after שליחות יד
Rebbe Chiya bar Yosef says about a שומר חנם who falsely swears the item was stolen: אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד – he is not liable to pay כפל unless he misappropriated it (i.e., used it without permission) before he swore. The Torah requires a שומר חנם swears "אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו" – that he did not lay his hand upon his fellow’s property, which implies that the כפל penalty for swearing falsely which follows is where he did misappropriate the פקדון. Rebbe Chiya bar Abba said that Rebbe Yochanan held he is liable בעומדת על אבוסה – where the [watched animal] is standing by the trough, i.e., where it was not used. Rebbe Zeira asked him if Rebbe Yochanan holds he is only liable when he did not misappropriate the פקדון, but if he did, he becomes a גזלן and will not pay כפל for swearing falsely, or does Rebbe Yochanan hold he pays כפל in both cases? The Rosh writes that the end of the Gemara proves Rebbe Yochanan obligates כפל in both cases. Rav Sheishess says that if he misappropriated the פקדון, he does not pay כפל.
