In amud (a), the rabbis discuss what should happen when a person states that they will sell their field including all trees except for some. Perhaps the sycamore; the carob tree. Is this like one who wishes to sell a group of field except for one field? What about selling some of the sycamores but not all of them? The rabbis tend to lean toward voiding this sale.
Rabbi Amram poses a question: if a person gives another person a document, and then when he asks for it back, the document's holder says "I returned it to you", what is the law? Do we believe that the document was lost?
The rabbis argue about whether or not we believe the person claiming to have already returned the document. Must he swear, either that the document was lost, or that he returned it? If he swears, is he believed? They consult another related case regarding a found business document. Can a collector win all - or half - of the property of orphans if he swears that their father never paid? The rabbis note that this document is half a loan and half a deposit. And if a person holds that document, is that proof that he has not been paid? Does it matter if the orphans swear that they did not know of their father's debts? The rabbis teach that Rav Chisda wins this argument: he says that there is a migo against the argument: if he had paid half he would have told his children. But what if he died suddenly, the rabbis question?
The rabbis lean back upon the suggestion that when one swears, s/he can collect half.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment