the latter may nevertheless pay for him his shekel,1 repay his debt2 and restore to him any object he may have lost; but where a reward is taken,3 the benefit is to be given4 to the sacred funds.5 Now, one can well be satisfied [with the ruling that] he may 'pay for him his shekel' [because by this payment] he merely performs a religious act,6 for it was taught:7 It is lawful to withdraw8 [from the funds of the Temple treasury] on the account of that which was lost,9 collected10 or about to be collected;11 and [the ruling that he may] restore to him any object he may have lost' [is also intelligible since thereby] also he is performing a religious duty;12 but [how could he be permitted to] 'repay his debt' [when thereby] he undoubtedly benefits13 him? — R. Oshaia replied: 'This ruling14 is that of15 Hanan who said: HE LOSES HIS MONEY.16 Raba, however, replied: The ruling14 may be said [to agree even with the view of] the Rabbis,17 for here18 we are dealing [with the case of a man] who borrowed money on the condition that he does not repay it [except when he is inclined to do so].19 It is well that Raba does not give the same reply as R. Oshaia, since [he wishes] the ruling to agree even with the opinion of the Rabbis. On what ground, however, does not R. Oshaia [wish to] give the same reply as Raba? — R. Oshaia can answer you: Granted that he20 has no actual benefit;21
MISHNAH. ADMON LAID DOWN SEVEN RULINGS: — 4 IF A MAN DIES AND LEAVES SONS AND DAUGHTERS, IF THE ESTATE IS LARGE,5 THE SONS INHERIT IT AND THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT]6 AND IF THE ESTATE IS SMALL,5 THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED FROM IT, AND THE SONS CAN GO BEGGING.7 ADMON SAID, 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE!'8 R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.9
GEMARA. What does he10 mean?11 — Abaye replied: He means this; 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE and capable of engaging in the study of the Torah?' Said Raba to him: Would, then, he who is engaged in the study of the Torah be entitled to heirship, while he who is not engaged in the study of the Torah not be entitled to be heir?12 — But, said Raba, it is this that he10 meant: AM I BECAUSE I AM A MALE, and entitled to be heir in the case of a large estate, TO BE THE LOSER [of my rights] in the case of a small estate?'
MISHNAH. IF A MAN CLAIMED FROM ANOTHER JARS OF OIL AND [THE LATTER] ADMITTED HIS CLAIM TO [EMPTY] JARS, ADMON RULED: SINCE HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE CLAIM HE MUST TAKE AN OATH,13 BUT THE SAGES SAID: THE ADMISSION OF THE PORTION [OF THE CLAIM] IS NOT OF THE SAME KIND AS THE CLAIM.14 R. GAMALIEL SAID; ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.12
GEMARA. From this15 it may be inferred that, according to the Rabbis,16 [a man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted the claim to the barley is exempt [from oath]. Must it then be said that this presents an objection against a ruling which R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley and he admitted one of them is liable [to an oath]?17 — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab; [Our Mishnah deals with the case of one from] whom a certain quantity18 [of oil] was claimed.19 If so,20 what could Admon's reason be? — This, however, said Raba, [is the explanation]: Both21 [agree] that where [the claimant] said to the other, 'I have the contents22 of ten jars of oil in your tank',23 he claims from him the oil but not the jars, [and if he said], 'You owe me24 ten jars full of oil', he claims both the oil and the jars; they only differ where [the claimant] said to him, 'You owe me24 ten jars of oil'. Admon maintains that in this expression a claim for the jars also is implied, and the Rabbis25 contend that in this expression the jars were not implied.
The reason then26 is because 'in this expression the jars were not implied', but if the jars had been implied in this expression he would apparently have been liable [to the oath]. Must it consequently be presumed that this presents an objection against a ruling of R. Hiyya b. Abba? For R. Hiyya b. Abbah27 ruled: [A man from] whom one claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, is exempt [from an oath]? — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: [The making of such a claim]28 is the same as if one had claimed from another a pomegranate with its peel.29 To this Rabina demurred: A pomegranate without its peel cannot be preserved, but oil can well be preserved without jars!30 [The fact] however, is that31 we are here32 dealing [with the case of a man] who said to another, 'You owe me33 ten jars of oil', and the other replied, 'The [claim for the] oil is a pure invention,34 [and as to] the jars, too, I owe you35 five and you have no [claim to any other] five'. Admon maintains that this expression implies a claim to the jars also and, since [the defendant] must take an oath in respect of the jars,36 he must also take an oath by implication37 in respect of the oil, while the Rabbis38 are of the opinion that such an expression does not imply a claim for the jars [so that] what the one claims39 the other did not admit, and what the latter admitted40 the former did not claim.
- To Next Folio -