The case of the נסכא של ר' אבא is that a person grabbed an object from another person and one witness saw it. The person that grabbed the object said, "Yes I grabbed it but it is mine." R, Aba holds the law since he can not take an oath he must pay. מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם. He can not take an oath because he agrees with the witness that he grabbed it.
The Ri holds in the case of the נסכא של ר' אבא that there is no migo because if he would deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath. [The Migo here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him. So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the Ri says this is not a good migo is that if he would deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath.]The Rivam holds there is a migo because otherwise why would Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba? And the Rivam holds the reason R. Aba does not go with the migo is because of גזרת הכתוב. So then what could the Ri answer to this? I think the Ri would answer that the reason Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba is not because of a migo but because of חזקת ממון.
The fact of the matter is that the Ri you can see holds that Rav and Shmuel do not think like סומכוס.
The Rashbam does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the Ri would agree.
( I am just mentioning this because you can see this relates to Bava Metzia pg 100. The Ri you can see holds the person that originally held the object is not called מרא קמא here because there is a doubt if it belonged to him. But in any case if the law would be like סומכוס that would מרא קמא would not help anything anyway and they would have to divide. So at least we can agree that the Ri is not holding like סומכוס]
_______________________________________________________________________________
The case of the נסכא של ר' אבא is that a person grabbed an object from another person and one witness saw it. The person that grabbed the object said, "Yes I grabbed it, but it is mine." ר' אבא holds the law since he can not take an oath he must pay. מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם. He can not take an oath because he is agrees with the witness. The ר''י holds in the case of the נסכא של ר' אבא that there is no מיגו because if he would deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.
[The מיגו here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him. So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it, but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the ר''י says this is not a good מיגו is that if he would deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.]
The ריב''ם holds there is a מיגו, because otherwise why would רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא? And the ריב''ם holds the reason ר' אבא does not go with the מיגו is because of גזירת הכתוב. So then what could the ר''י answer to this? I think the ר''י would answer that the reason רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא is not because of a מיגו, but because of חזקת ממון. However the ריב''ם would not hold that חזקת ממון would be a good answer because the object was originally in the possession of the other person.
The fact of the matter is that the ר''י you can see holds that רב and שמואל do not think like סומכוס.
The רשב''ם does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the ר''י would agree.
המקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא הוא שאדם תפס חפץ מאדם אחר, ועד אחד ראה את זה. האדם שתפס את האובייקט אמר, "כן תפסתי אותו, אך הוא שלי." ר' אבא מחזיק את החוק הוא שהוא לא יכול להישבע, ולכן הוא חייב לשלם. "מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם." הוא לא יכול להישבע כי הוא מסכים עם העד. הר''י מחזיק במקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא כי אין מיגו כי אם הוא יכחיש שהוא תפס את החפץ, הוא יצטרך לקחת שבועה. הריב''ם מחזיק ישנה מיגו, כי אחרת למה רב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא? וגם הריב''ם מחזיק שהסיבה שר' אבא לא הולך עם המיגו היא בגלל גזירת הכתוב. אז מה יכול הר''י לענות על זה? אני חושב הר''י היה עונה כי הסיבה שרב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא הוא לא בגלל מיגו, אלא בגלל חזקת ממון. אולם ריב''ם לא יחזיק כי חזקת ממון תהיה תשובה טובה כי האובייקט היה במקורו ברשותו של האדם האחר.
אתה יכול לראות שהר''י סובר כי רב ושמואל לא חושבים כמו סומכוס. הרשב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שהחוק הוא כמו סומכוס אבל אתה יכול לראות כאן כי אינו סביר שהר''י יסכים
The Ri holds in the case of the נסכא של ר' אבא that there is no migo because if he would deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath. [The Migo here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him. So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the Ri says this is not a good migo is that if he would deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath.]The Rivam holds there is a migo because otherwise why would Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba? And the Rivam holds the reason R. Aba does not go with the migo is because of גזרת הכתוב. So then what could the Ri answer to this? I think the Ri would answer that the reason Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba is not because of a migo but because of חזקת ממון.
The fact of the matter is that the Ri you can see holds that Rav and Shmuel do not think like סומכוס.
The Rashbam does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the Ri would agree.
( I am just mentioning this because you can see this relates to Bava Metzia pg 100. The Ri you can see holds the person that originally held the object is not called מרא קמא here because there is a doubt if it belonged to him. But in any case if the law would be like סומכוס that would מרא קמא would not help anything anyway and they would have to divide. So at least we can agree that the Ri is not holding like סומכוס]
_______________________________________________________________________________
The case of the נסכא של ר' אבא is that a person grabbed an object from another person and one witness saw it. The person that grabbed the object said, "Yes I grabbed it, but it is mine." ר' אבא holds the law since he can not take an oath he must pay. מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם. He can not take an oath because he is agrees with the witness. The ר''י holds in the case of the נסכא של ר' אבא that there is no מיגו because if he would deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.
[The מיגו here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him. So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it, but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the ר''י says this is not a good מיגו is that if he would deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.]
The ריב''ם holds there is a מיגו, because otherwise why would רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא? And the ריב''ם holds the reason ר' אבא does not go with the מיגו is because of גזירת הכתוב. So then what could the ר''י answer to this? I think the ר''י would answer that the reason רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא is not because of a מיגו, but because of חזקת ממון. However the ריב''ם would not hold that חזקת ממון would be a good answer because the object was originally in the possession of the other person.
The fact of the matter is that the ר''י you can see holds that רב and שמואל do not think like סומכוס.
The רשב''ם does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the ר''י would agree.
המקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא הוא שאדם תפס חפץ מאדם אחר, ועד אחד ראה את זה. האדם שתפס את האובייקט אמר, "כן תפסתי אותו, אך הוא שלי." ר' אבא מחזיק את החוק הוא שהוא לא יכול להישבע, ולכן הוא חייב לשלם. "מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם." הוא לא יכול להישבע כי הוא מסכים עם העד. הר''י מחזיק במקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא כי אין מיגו כי אם הוא יכחיש שהוא תפס את החפץ, הוא יצטרך לקחת שבועה. הריב''ם מחזיק ישנה מיגו, כי אחרת למה רב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא? וגם הריב''ם מחזיק שהסיבה שר' אבא לא הולך עם המיגו היא בגלל גזירת הכתוב. אז מה יכול הר''י לענות על זה? אני חושב הר''י היה עונה כי הסיבה שרב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא הוא לא בגלל מיגו, אלא בגלל חזקת ממון. אולם ריב''ם לא יחזיק כי חזקת ממון תהיה תשובה טובה כי האובייקט היה במקורו ברשותו של האדם האחר.
אתה יכול לראות שהר''י סובר כי רב ושמואל לא חושבים כמו סומכוס. הרשב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שהחוק הוא כמו סומכוס אבל אתה יכול לראות כאן כי אינו סביר שהר''י יסכים
