mentioned last week that there is a machloket Tannaim, Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbanan. Machloket, once again, Tannaim. We're on דף י\"ח, עמוד א'. Machloket Here, we have, once again, Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov and the Rabbanan. And the exact circumstances of the machloket We're going to see, in a moment, are initially understood by the Gemara as the literal translation of the way the Gemara brings down the baraita. But we're going to see It's not so pashut. The Gemara's going to have a big shekala vetarya here to determine exactly what the case is where they're arguing. And it's all revolving around the topic of מודה במקצת הטענה, which is what, Bernardo? Partial admit- Partial admittance. It's like letting the door half-open. How does ArtScroll translate it? Um It It says מודה במקצת. Partial admit- I I don't know if the Where does the Gemara use that word? I don't know if the But that's, you know, that's that's the correct I don't know if you're going to find that Partial admission. Partial admission. Partial admission. An oath of partial admission. So, what is the baraita? So,

let's see what the baraita says, once again. דתניא, רבי אלעזר Um Everybody have it? It might A little earlier. רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר. It could be up there. רבי אלעזר רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, right? Back here. אומר, there are times שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו, a person who swears in response to his own claim. Uh-huh. What does that mean? He's nishba, he swears, וטענת על טענת עצמו? Forced Well, forcing him sounds like it's not coming Here it seems like it's in response to his own claim. Right. So, we we don't yet see here anything about it being rabbinical in any way. Super, Super. Simba, Simba. It's right. The Casuba Bowl. Ever- Everybody's Casuba Bowl. Look, you have another American here. Sit down. Not pure, but it's not pure Uh-huh. Okay. Let's give it to him. Let's give him credit, you know, for saying Yeah, it's on the couch. עכ״ל פנים, so again, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו. So again, we're in here The only reason I'm here is cuz it's half-time. Just kidding. We're in here, the world of מודה מודה במקצת. Here, Rabbi Elazar ben Ezer ben Yaakov is making a statement that one could swear, again, in response to his own claim, על טענת עצמו, כיצד? How is that? So here, I just I want to preface what The Gemara is going to know, understand it's very simply k'pshuto, literally. But there may be some changes along the way. מנה לאביך בידי, so the case is as follows. מנה לאביך בידי In

simple English, \"I borrowed money from your father. Let's just say a hundred dollars. I borrowed a hundred dollars from your father, והאכלתיו פרס, and I returned half of it.\" Interesting lashon, it doesn't say \"I borrowed\", could have said, but it doesn't say the word \"borrowed\". Okay. Hi. How are you? Good evening. Yeah, the काउंसिल is here tonight. הרי זה נשבע. So here, will will the borrower does have to swear. וזה הוא שנשבע על טענת עצמו. And this is what we consider one who swears, again, in response to his own claim. Peshita peshita? I mean, he's Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. So, Okay, I want I want to first make sure we have clear the the exact wording here of what Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov is saying and what the Chachamim are going to counter. And then we're going to try and understand Exactly where they argue.

והחכמים אומרים, the Chachamim say, אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור. He says that under these circumstances, when one is coming forth on his own, which is what it seems like the case is over here, when one comes forth on his own and says, \"I borrowed money from your father and I paid him back half of it, the other half I'm ready to pay you,\" so he says that's considered like similar to what we call a משיב אבידה, and therefore, he is patur. So once again, these are the words of the Beraisa. The Gemara's agenda now is to understand, firstly once again, the exact case in which Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov are arguing, as well as the reason behind the argument. So, let's first understand, our first step here is if we take the case at face value here, so we literally have a borrower who is approaching the son of the lender on his own. Once again, he is coming forth on his own and saying that he borrowed money. Now, we understand why Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov is terming this as, like we said, טענת עצמו, this is his own ta'anah. This is his own claim. So, we understand why it's טענת עצמו, meaning why it fits the wording here of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov categorizes this as טענת עצמו. And we understand also likhora why the Rabbanan say that there's no shevuah here, the Rabbanan say he's like what we call a mashiv aveidah, which we'll see soon Rashi explains is like one who comes forth on his own with a lost object, and returns it to the owner, and the owner questions, \"Why is there only half the amount of money in this wallet? There should have been more.\" Once again, he's coming forth on his own. So, וכי האי גוונא, we'll see soon, there is no shevuah, we will not put an oath on the one who finds the wallet. So, too, here if you're coming forth on your own, and claiming like a self-, like we said once again, your own claim, טענת עצמו, so וכי האי גוונא, says the Rabbanan, that's like a mashiv aveidah, you're returning a lost object, and it is not appropriate for there to be a shevuah. So, all this likhora, I hope, is pashut. But what needs to be understood, what the Gemara is going to now ask is, what is the reason though behind Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov? Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov here wants to put a shevuah. Now, when we say shevuah, we mean a shevuah d'oraita, a shevuah that the Torah obligates a modeh b'miktzas. The typical modeh b'miktzas is where there is a claimant, and I say, \"You owe me money,\" and you reply, \"You owe me only half.\" I say, \"You owe me 100,\" and you say, \"No, I only borrowed 50.\" Here, Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says that I come forth, and I say, \"I borrowed money from your father and I paid back half.\" So, there is an hoda'ah, I'm agreeing to the fact that I'm obligated to pay half, but there's also a kefirah, I'm denying the full. I'm saying, \"I don't owe you the full money, because I paid back half.\" Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says that there is a shevuah here. With which the Gemara asks, \"וכי לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור?\" which is the next step of the Gemara, that does רבי אלעזר בן יעקב, וכי לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור? He does not hold of this mashiv aveidah concept? That one who comes forth on his own, you're going to now penalize him with a shevuah? So, those are the words of the Gemara. לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור? Does Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov not hold of this משיב אבידה concept? Now, as simple as this משיב אבידה may sound, the logic may seem compelling that one is coming forth on his own, he finds the wallet in the street, he comes to the owner, says, \"Here it is,\" and the owner questions, \"There should have been more money,\" it seems very logical that there should not be a shevuah placed on the finder, because that will obviously deter them from returning things in the future. \"And he's like returning something. Nobody knew about it.\" Exactly. \"If he's saying.\" So, yeah. So, the thing is though, there is a seemingly a machloket here Rashi and Tosafot as to the basis behind this halachah, that the Gemara seems to understand as a דבר פשוט, as a simple assumption, that a משיב אבידה, one is returning a lost item, certainly in the context of our Gemara, that there is no that there is no shevuah.

Rashi in our sugya refers us to a Mishnah, to mention, I think last week, Masechet Gittin. The Mishnah in Masechet Gittin says that A משיב אבידה, one who returns a lost object, does not swear מפני תיקון העולם as a benefit to society, which seems to imply that it's something which is derabbanan, rabbinical. As if to say that maybe min haTorah there maybe would be a חיוב שבועה, but being that people will not want to return, will be deterred from returning a lost object if they know they might end up with a shevuah if the owner challenges challenges what they are coming back with, so taking מפני תיקון העולם there is no shevuah. If the owner says that there really should have been more here, and the finder says, \"No, this is what I found,\" and it comes out like a מודה במקצת, so I'm saying you should have been $200 in the wallet, I'm saying there's only $100 in the wallet. תיקון העולם says there is no shevuah, with which Rashi explains as the basis for our Gemara's kushya, \"And of course, Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, he doesn't hold of this משיב אבידה תיקון העולם?\" If they're all honest, why wouldn't they want to swear? What would be the problem with swearing? You know, they find something in the street, whatever it is it is. The guy says it's only half. There's a Gemara there. Yeah, the other side says it's only half. I swear it's not. What's the problem? If he's honest, what does he care if he swears or not? What's what's the שבועה דאורייתא that they're taking that's the Swearing is is really a deterrent for someone who's lying. Yeah, even if tell the truth you got to go to beit din, the whole process. Even even time. So that's what it is? It's a it's a It's a tircha? It's a tircha? No, it's not a tircha, it's a There are people that would rather pay than than even swear to prove they're correct, because swearing is something which is very חמור, very serious. Even if they're honest, to say a שבועת שוא a person might start second-guessing and doubting, even if they really believe what they're saying is true, but they have to say it holding a Sefer Torah and turning out the lights, and putting on the candles, and knowing if they say anything false, this is a שבועת שוא, then they're not going A normal person with yirat Shamayim will many times would even rather just pay the money than have to take a shevuah. So instead of picking it up and turning it, you just keep going. I mean, it's easier. Is it that's a so so it's a שבועת היסת? But this is not a שבועה דאורייתא either, right? מודה במקצת is de'oraita. No, but I'm talking about משיב משיב אבידה. But they would That's not a theoretically would have been de'oraita, there would have been a shevuah, because the the owner of the lost object says there was $100 in the wallet, the finder says there was only $50 in the wallet. So, I'm saying I give Basically, one person is claiming a hundred, the other person is admitting half. Sure, מודה במקצת. Yeah. Tosafot מודה במקצת usually means somebody comes and makes a claim against the guy for for payment. Here, he's bringing something, so maybe it's a שבועת היסת anyway. So that wouldn't be as as strict as This might This might be similar to like the הילך, which is in the Gemara Bava Metzia, where he's kind of getting half of the money out of the way before he starts the argument. Right. But I'm not going to get into that now. That's That's what Rashi says.

Tosafot, however, he understands that there's a a de'oraita type logic working here. In the case certainly in our in our story here where, once again, someone on his own is coming forth to do what they call a self-claim, טענת עצמו, his own claim that he borrowed money from his friend's father, and then he goes on to say he paid back half. Tosafot says that this is what he calls a מיגו דאי בעי שתיק, which means that he could have kept quiet, which the פשטות which means Simply, this is the same idea of what we learned about of the הפה שאסר, הפה שהתיר. If this borrower did not come forth with this טענת עצמו, this own claim that he makes that he borrowed money from someone, then the rightful owner would never be getting any money. If he was שותק, if he was quiet, then the money's lost. Now I come forth and I tell you that I borrowed money from you, but included in my response is that I borrowed money and I say I also paid back part of it. So, being that I didn't have to say anything, Tosafot considers this like a הפה שאסר, which we'll hopefully get to sometime in the upcoming סוגיות is really a is really learned out from the Torah. It's not just a תקנת חכמים. It's not rabbinical, but it's actually something which is recognized min haTorah. Like a migo? Yeah, well it's even stronger than a regular migo. Because he could have just been quiet. Didn't have to say anything. Migo usually is you were put in a position where you have to defend yourself, you could have said one lie, you said a different lie. But if you didn't have to say anything, he would have been שתיק, פה שאסר, then it's even stronger than a migo. Some might say it works along the same way as a migo, but certainly something which is stronger than a migo. What do you call that, a migo of what type? What? How did you say? מיגו דאי בעי שתיק. שתיק. A migo that he could have been שתיק, he could have been quiet. שתיקה. So, the מפרשים talk about the reason why Rashi was not ניחא to explain the Gemara's question like Tosafot. That the Gemara was asking: what is the understanding behind why Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov does not consider this borrower to fall into the משיב אבידה category? Rashi was coming with this תקנת חכמים. Tosafot comes along and says there's migo here! He could have been quiet, he didn't have to say anything! And that's something which is learned out from the Torah itself. Why does Rashi seemingly bring it down lower to a תקנת חכמים and say, \"Oh, well we find in the Mishnah that there's a תקנת חכמים that when one finds an aveidah, finds a lost object, he does not swear.\" There should be this, lichorah there should be even a stronger reason, a d'oraita reason of פה שאסר. So, the

Pnei Yehoshua brings us to a machloket in the ראשונים if the idea of a migo could work for לפטור משבועה, to exempt one from the responsibility of swearing. Meaning, what we'll see in a moment is that migo certainly could help someone when it comes to ממונות. There's a claim against someone and trying to get the money out of him, he could have said a better claim and he chose a claim that was not in his best interest, so maybe he could secure the money in his possession with a migo. But could a migo help someone against a shevuah? We're going to see that the Rambam here, he quotes, Pnei Yehoshua brings us to Rambam, that the Rambam here is talking about the הלכות of שותפין, partners, sharecroppers, אפוטרופין, how do we translate that? Guardians? Guardians? Legal guardians. Trustees. Trustees, there we go, thank you. So, this seems like a סוגיא for itself, which we're not going to get into right now, but there seems like the חכמים were מתקן that for these types of people that are either, again, partners, trustees, or sharecroppers, and they have these business relationships which may lead one partner to think that he maybe puts more work into the business than his friend, or the trustee may feel that they put in more time, energy, entitle them to more money than they're really entitled to, basically there's what we call, a person might be what we call מורה היתר, find room to justify why they should be entitled to more money than they're really entitled to. So, because of these concerns, חכמים established certain type of shevuot that even if there's no real evidence for any kind of accusation, but in order that they can trust each other, there are shevuot, oaths that they have to take on in order to be trusted with each other. Now, without going into all the details of those הלכות, the

Rambam does say, however, that even if there are no witnesses as to the relationship between the two people, being partners, or sharecropper, the owner, says the Rambam, if one comes forth on his own and says that he's a partner, or he's a sharecropper for someone, so the Rambam says that even if this person who, again, is declaring on his own, is coming forth on his own saying that, \"I am my neighbor's sharecropper, or we're partners, and I'm telling you I did not steal. I was an honest businessman, we had a good partnership, on my end I didn't steal anything.\" Says the Rambam that, nevertheless, we still apply these הלכות of the oath, of the shevuah on him, and his words are: שאין אומרים, we do not say migo לפטור משבועה. We do not use the migo theory to exempt one from a שבועה, אלא לפטור מממון. What a migo has the ability to do is to exempt one from money. Someone's trying to get money out of you in a way that there is no shevuah involved, it's your proof versus my proof, and a situation where the proof against me may be overwhelming and I would have to pay, but if I have this migo, maybe I wouldn't, so that's where we apply the migo. But to exempt myself from a chiyuv, from an obligation of a shevuah, where I'm put in the and and the only way to defend my property is by swearing, then a migo, says the Rambam, that will not help to patur, to exempt one from a shevuah. Does that imply the klal is that if somebody comes to make a claim against somebody, then the migo it it it can be used, but if he comes on his own, it's not as if it's a migo? Because again, he could have been quiet. So he comes on his own and makes a claim and says I have money He could He could have been quiet, but he's say he's the one who's coming coming forth on his own and saying, \"I am your par- I am this guy's partner, but I was honest.\" So now, normally, if you're a partner, you have to swear if there's any questions about the the integrity between the the relationship here and then if any if anyone have any kind of questions, even if there's no proof. But what the Rambam says is that even though you're coming forth even though there is no evidence that you two are partners, there's no edim, no witnesses. We have no idea that you guys are partners. One partner has no way to prove that the other guy is is a partner with him. And he comes forth on his own and says, \"I am your partner.\" He still would have to now undertake these oaths, and and and if he chooses not to swear, then we we have that old rule that מתוך שאינו יכול לשבע, if you don't want to swear, then you're going to have to pay. Now to be exempt from this obligation of the shevuah, what the Rambam is saying is the migo does not help you for that. So the Pnei Yehoshua wants to connect that with Rashi in our sugya. Now Rashi, even though we have this sevara or maybe even learned out of pesukim or turned out from the Torah later we'll we'll get to that sugya later, this פה שאסר, which according to some opinions is working similar to the למדות of a migo, it's just stronger than a migo. But it's working along the מיגו מהלך. A migo way of thinking, \"I could have been quiet, but I came forth and I said I borrowed money from your parents and I paid back half,\" which falls into the partial admission halacha, which we know is obligation of a shevuah. So says the Pnei Yehoshua here, \"You want to exempt yourself from the shevuah by saying, 'Well, I could have been quiet. I didn't have to say anything.'\" Says the Pnei Yehoshua, \"That's just like the one who comes forth saying that he's a sharecropper, comes forth saying he's a partner, you can't use this idea of a migo to exempt yourself from a shevuah.\" So therefore, Rashi refers us to the תקנת חכמים that we find in Masechet Gittin, that there's a תקנת חכמים that there is no shevuah when one is coming forth on his own to benefit the in that case, benefit the owner, or in our case, it would be to benefit the lender. And I did see, though, quoted from the Chatam Sofer that even Rashi will agree that the sevara, the logic here, is compelling, and it may be even like touching on a You know that sevara, logic, was also like recognized by the Torah. So it was maybe It was like a In a formal way, it was תקנת חכמים, but it's working with this again, compelling logic of the fact that if I didn't say anything, then the the borrower I'm sorry, the lender would would would be lost, would not never get his money back. I come forth and I say, \"I owe him the money.\" Please, sue me. Sue me.

Assuming that there is no שטר... Yes, I'm assuming that there is no שטר here. Thank you. Very important piece of information. There is no other proof other than the fact that the borrower came on his own. If there was a שטר, if there was proof of a document, then the story would be a different story. So Pnei Yehoshua agrees with the Rambam? They say they hold the same? Pnei Yehoshua says that Rashi will be learning like the Rambam. That is the Pnei Yehoshua for tonight. So, moving right along here. So, what we're left with right now, though, is whatever way you slice it, whether it's formally mandated by חכמים, or whether there's real, recognized Torah logic here, but the point is, you're doing something here, you're being honest, you're coming forth, you're telling the lender that you the son of the lender that you borrowed money from his family, and you paid back half, how do we place a shevuah here? How do we place an oath on this borrower? That is the question which the Gemara leaves us here with, which which Rav comes along and says, which is the next line, אמר רב בטוענו קטן. Rav says, and this gets very tricky here, but Rav says the case changes slightly. And

although initially we thought that the borrower was coming forth on his own, and it was, again, what we call his own claim, okay, says Rav that There was a claim that was coming from someone else. There was a claimant here. There was a lender, or the son of a lender, we'll call him a creditor, who is a young child. He's a minor. He's a קטן. And he says, and he's saying it he's saying it with in his mind certainty, that this fellow now, the borrower, borrowed money from this child's father. So, the Gemara here is trying to find a balance where here that on the one hand he's a minor, and he's making a claim against this debtor, this borrower, who once again he knows of his father's הלוואה. He knows of the fact that his father lent the guy money. So here, where Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov We have to fit the pieces to the puzzle here. Once again, Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov was coming with this כיצד, how do we have a טענת עצמו? How do we have one who has his own claim? Where does one swear in response to his own claim? This is also going to be considered, to a certain extent, someone swearing in response to his own claim. And that is because, being that this minor here is the one making the claim, so the defendant, the borrower, what? Not valid. debtor, right, is not required by law, he's not required by halachah to respond to the creditor, to the claim. Because he's a קטן. What's that? He's a קטן, you say? Because he's a קטן. And he's not likened to someone who is coming forth on his own with this אבידה, with a lost object, where there is no claim at all. And this

That's what we call משיב אבידה. When someone's coming forth with a wallet that he found on the street, and he's knocking on the owner's door. So, there's no claim at all. It's kind of a middle middle ground? Some kind of middle ground here, some kind of balance where there's a claim, but not Really. really a valid claim that you're required to respond to, so it could still be categorized as טענת עצמו, as a shevuah again, as a as oath in response to your own to your to your own claim. But on the other hand, you could still see why it's a little different than משיב אבידה, and that's why at least according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, it's a little different than משיב אבידה where there's no claim at all by the lost object. And On the other hand, though, we do see that the חכמים who argue with Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, they still want to consider it, since there is no legal validity to this claim, so he is still considered like a משיב אבידה. There is no real difference between one who comes knocking on the owner's door with a wallet that he found than one who is answering up to a claim that has no real backing to it. So, the רבנן are going to consider it like a משיב אבידה, and it seems like Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov is trying to find this this balance here between being somewhat of a claim, but not enough of a claim, or enough of a claim to be considered not a משיב אבידה, but not enough of a claim to consider it a real טענה, so it's still considered טענת עצמו. Cuz he answers. But even though he didn't have to answer, he answered. Right, right. However the Right. However, the Gemara is not really so satisfied with with with this offer here from Rav, with this suggestion. The Gemara says, והא אמר מר והא אמר מר, אין נשבעין מר said, master said, אין נשבעין על טענת חרש, שוטה וקטן.

There is no shevuah, there is no swearing on the claim of a חרש, deaf person, a a שוטה, one who is a שוטה, not mentally on par with where he's supposed to be. What do they call him over there in ארץ ישראל? Deranged. Deranged, okay. Pretty intense. Yeah. And קטן, as well as a קטן. So, Rashi explains this. He refers to it. Rashi refers us to a Mishnah in Shavuot, and the halachah is that that there is no shevuah there is no shevuah by a a טענה of a claim of a חרש, שוטה וקטן. And we'll just mention now בפשטות the reason is because they their claim is really is really worthless. Sign language doesn't work. What? Sign language doesn't work. Sign Sign language doesn't work, and they don't they're not really a ba- they're not bar daat, they don't have and maybe sign language could be does work, but then these people are considered lacking in their intelligence. Right, and they can't make a claim by Even if they could, but they're lacking in their intelligence, their claim is not really considered a claim, at least not as a claim with certainty, which would require a shevuah. So one who is defending themselves against the claim of a חרש, deaf, שוטה, or a קטן, or a minor, does not have to swear if it were to be a situation that would otherwise require a a shevuah. So how do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile what? If you don't have to swear, then Meaning to say, if if a minor, if if a five-year-old comes over to you and says he lent you a hundred dollars, and you say, \"I borrowed fifty,\" there's still a possibility he could be right, I mean he could You don't swear on possibilities. The obligation of a shevuah is when there is a claim with certainty, when he's coming with a real claim. Yeah, right. Since he doesn't have the fully developed intelligence of an older person, so therefore it's not considered a real claim. Maybe we'll talk about it a little more. I don't know if we'll get to it tonight, but there's there is a little more reasoning behind it. But the simple understanding is that his claim is is really a I mean, it's a it's an understandable rationale, but on the other hand, it's really discounting a very probable, also certainty in reality that that a קטן, all right, depending upon the age, I mean maybe but even a five-year-old. A five-year-old knows somebody borrowed something. Put it this, well, put it put it this way, would would the defendant feel uncomfortable denying the claim completely from this minor instead of Even if he was lying, would he feel like, \"Hey, he's a five-year-old\"? What would you say? Five-year-old came over to you. Show a five-year-old a fifty-dollar bill and to ask him how much it's worth. He'll tell you you owe him a million dollars or a dollar. Happened to me today, but anyway. But do you think a five-year-old is capable of saying that you're I don't know, I I I I mean, you know. Well, so I mean there's an there is an idea about how how the the defendant feels no discomfort in just lying completely to someone who is not as clever. And therefore, the disposition where if he if he was really lying, could have could have just denied the whole thing. Now he is admitting partially, that indicates that he's telling the truth. Rabbi Weinman had an interesting... Rabbi Weinman. Oh, the Weinman, okay. Why do children always run? If you see a child, always, they don't walk from point A to point B, walk. They run. So he said they have no דעת. Little child running. No no intellect. What's wrong with running? I don't get it. Jesus. \"I'm going from here to there, run.\" Interesting. Yeah, okay. So, so now the Gemara tries another explanation here, which does not really last too long either. And that is: מאי קטן? What does קטן mean? Doesn't mean he's a minor, really he's an adult. Rather, גדול, he's an adult. ואמאי קרי ליה קטן, but why do we refer to him as a קטן? לגבי מילי דאבוה קטן הוא. With regard to his father's property, father's business dealings, he's a קטן, meaning he's not He's not well-versed in his father's dealings. Correct, he's not well-versed in his father's dealings. Maybe he thinks he is, as we'll see in a moment, because he's coming with a claim here. And he is coming with a claim, once again, that his father lent this borrower, this debtor, lent him some some money, and the borrower is saying, \"I did pay back part of the money, not all of it.\" So here we have a clear מודה במקצת. He's admitting partially. So the

Gemara seems okay with there being a a obligation of a shevuah in this case, because it does seem to conform to the criteria which the Torah lays out for מודה במקצת, whereas you have a lender who says, \"You owe me money.\" The borrower says, \"I paid back,\" or \"I owe you only half.\" So, there's a shevuah. So, that explains why Rabbi' Elazar ben Yaakov will put a shevuah in this case where the child, the קטן, who is a minor with regard to the assets of his father, but is really an adult, comes forward with, \"Hey, my father lent you money.\" And the guy says, \"Yeah, well, I paid back half of it, I only owe you half.\" And he says, \"No, you didn't pay back anything. Swear.\" So, we understand why he should swear, but the Gemara is bothered then, but the words of Rabbi' Elazar ben Yaakov are that there are times, פעמים, there are times where one is swearing, once again, in response to his own claim, טענת עצמו. This is not his own claim. This is טענת עצמו? This is his friend coming forward with the claims. This is not a claim that he's making on his own. He's not coming on his own and saying, \"I borrowed money.\" The son of the creditor is approaching him and telling him, \"My father lent you money.\" So, how do you call that טענת עצמו? So, that's what the Gemara asks. Asks the Gemara, אי הכי טענת עצמו? טענת אחרים היא! Why are you calling that טענת עצמו? This is a claim made by someone else, being made by the lender. So, now the Gemara tries to wiggle out of it. Well, yeah, you're right. It's טענת אחרים, it is a טענה by someone else, the creditor is making the claim, but at least it's והודאת עצמו. The one who's being מודה, the one who's admitting, that's a self-הודאה. He's admitting that's coming from him. So, the Gemara says, \"Thank you very much, but that's how it is in all מודה במקצת. That doesn't help. כולהו! כולהי טענות, טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו.\" That is the typical case of a מודה במקצת is where the creditor says, \"You owe me money,\" and the debtor says, \"I paid you back half.\" That's הודאת עצמו. So, what's unique about Rabbi' Elazar ben Yaakov's case where he says that he's swearing in response to his own claim? What about this claim that makes it his own? So, now the Gemara moves on to a new explanation of אלא הכא בדרבה קמיפלגי. Now, the Gemara from here brings us to what the case where they really argue. So, what is the case about that they really argue about? The Gemara tells us they really argue about revolving around this idea that Rabbah suggests. And this we mentioned last week, we'll go through this again a little quickly. If I'm going too quick, you could slow me down. But

Rabbah said, דאמר Rabbah, Rabbah said, מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע? Why, in the first place, now he's questioning the whole הלכה of partial admitting חיוב שבועה. Why is there ever a חיוב שבועה when one admits to a partial claim? So, the Gemara says that the reason is, meaning there's a little bit of a deeper understanding here behind the question, Tosafos explains that that he really could have had a migo. What? He could have denied the whole thing. Meaning, is it logical that the Torah puts an oath on someone who's seemingly being honest and if he wanted to lie, he just would have denied the whole claim? \"I don't owe you a hundred dollars. I'm saying I do owe you 50, I don't owe you the other 50.\" Why put a shevuah? Says the Gemara, \"No, חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו, והאי בכוליה בעי דנכפריה, והא דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו.\" That really, in essence, if a person was lying, maybe he would want to deny a full claim, but he feels uncomfortable lying straight out in the face of his lender. Someone did him a favor and lent him the money, he's going to tell him, \"I didn't borrow anything\"? That I can't do, that's a chutzpah. Okay? You can't do that. So, I'll, you know what I'll do? I'll just admit partially. I'll say I only borrowed 50, I'll say I paid back 50. This way, he doesn't feel as uncomfortable lying. So, now the Gemara, again, there's an unspoken question here, the way Rashi learns, now there's an unspoken question here that, okay, well, if we are suspicious that he maybe is really lying, wanted to deny the whole thing, then someone who's the trust here is in question, how can we allow them to swear? Swearing will entitle you to the money so long as we assume that you're an honest person. If you're someone certainly who's proven to be a liar, we will not accept your shevuah. But now that we're choshesh or suspicious that you're a liar, the way Rashi understands the Gemara's question, we also should not be able to put you here under oath because The trust here is in question. We don't know if we could trust you. Do you really have credibility here? You may be really lying. So, the Gemara says, \"No, this guy most likely is not someone who is really so untrustworthy. He's really a good person, ובכולי בעי לאודויי ליה. He really would want to admit to the whole הלואה, to the whole loan. והאי דלא אודי ליה, and this which he's not being honest, כי היכי דלישתמיט ליה. He wants to push off the his creditors because he doesn't have the money right now. וסבר עד דהוו לי זוזי ופרענא ליה. And we will put a shevuah on him in order that he should come forth and be honest.\" So, basically, the idea is what the Gemara is coming out with here, this is Rava talking, that really we would assume that if a person was really wants to pay back the whole הלואה, but he may have reason to push it off, doesn't have the money right now, so really he would put deny the whole thing. But he doesn't feel comfortable lying straight out to the to the lender. So, he comes up with this like compromise, and says, \"You know what? I owe you 50.\" And this way, hopefully, he'll uh he'll be able to pay 50, and he feels like he'll be able to pay back later. So, that's what the Torah is afraid of. Someone like this, we'll make a shevuah on you because we're afraid you're really lying, just to push off the the creditors so he doesn't bother you for a few weeks. And therefore, we want you to swear, and since we're somewhat suspicious of you, that will hopefully be a deterrent for you to either come forth and tell the truth, or if you are telling the truth, then you could happily swear and you will only have to pay back half. So, what the Gemara concludes here with, he said, the מחלוקת, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbanan are revolving around this whole idea of Rava. And that is, this whole idea of Rava was dealing with a borrower and a lender. I'm the borrower, you're the lender. Maybe I'll be uncomfortable saying that I didn't borrow the money from you, but I'll feel a little more comfortable saying I borrowed half of the money from you, because then I'm not mamash lying to your face. But what about if it's the person's child, the person's son? That's the question. What about if it's the person's son? So, here's where we have the machloket. Do I still have that same level of discomfort of עזות, of chutzpah, that I'm not going to say if the one who lent me the money to his son, that, \"I don't owe you anything,\" or do we say that holds true to the son as well? So, here's the Gemara.

Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov סבר, Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov says, \"לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו.\" Son and father, it's all the same. אינו מעיז. A person does not have that chutzpah to deny completely the loan. והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא, and therefore he is not considered one who is coming forth to return a lost like he's not considered like a lost person returning a lost object. רבנן סברי בו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בבנו מעיז ולאו היינו משיב אבידה הוא. So, the way Rashi learns this גמרא לכאורה is that according to Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov the same way I would not deny completely an הלואה, a loan that I took from you. Even when I'm dealing with the person's child, I also will not according to, sorry, Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov, I also will not have that same chutzpah to to the person's son. And therefore, in a case where the person's son is coming forth and making the claim, I'm in the same kind of הלכה's position as if he himself was coming. And just like when he himself comes I have to swear, so too when the son comes, I have to swear. And he explained why? Because Oh, why is there that same level of chutzpah? The Gemara does not explain why. I could suggest the reason to you in one moment, whereas the Rabbanan counter that although a person will feel uncomfortable denying completely the הלואה to the father, but when it comes to the son, maybe we could suggest the idea that he wasn't the one who did me the favor. So, I'm not so concerned to lie out straight to his face. About the whole thing. About the whole thing. So, since I could deny the whole thing, so he says, I have this like migo kind of idea, that I could've said, \"I don't owe you anything.\" If I don't owe you anything, then we know the Torah tells us, where the מסיק the Torah says, there's no shevuah. So, since I could have denied the whole thing and I admitted to halfway, says the Rabbanan, that's like a משיב אבידה, it's like a migo. Could have denied the whole thing and I'm patur, and I'm exempt from a shevuah, and that is the the final Gemara's understanding between the machloket, Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov and and the Rabbanan. As far as maybe the reason what you're asking, for Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov why he equates the son and the father, you could say maybe the reason is like one of the Rishonim asked last week, the whole understanding behind why a person has the chutzpah may not be about the fact that he did you a favor, but it could be also, we said, Last week, a person doesn't have the chutzpah to lie when he knows that he's lying to someone who recognizes the fact that he's lying. Even if it wasn't about the favor, but if you know that I'm lying, I'm not going to lie to you. Even if you're not the one who did me a favor, but I don't have that chutzpah to lie to someone who knows I'm not telling the truth. So, even the son will know that I'm not telling the truth. So, that could be the reason, maybe, behind Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov. And

tomorrow night, hopefully, I think the plan is to get to a kashya Rabbi Akiva Eiger has on this sugya. But I'm happy tonight we got hopefully the pieces of the puzzle here. There's a lot of steps in the Gemara to get taken care of. Tomorrow night, hopefully, we'll talk about a kashya Rabbi Akiva Eiger has. All right, hopefully, b'ezrat Hashem. Sure. Yashar koach. Yashar koach. Yashar koach. Thank you.