רב שך באבי עזקי הלכות מלווה ולווה. פרק י''ג הלכה ד A lender has an object as a משכון for a loan of 100 and loses it בלי אונס. He says it was worth 50 and the borrower says 75. The lender takes an oath it is not in his possession and the borrower takes an oath on how much it was worth and pays the 25 besides that that he owes. We have an argument between the רמב''ן and the ר''ן if the borrower has to take an oath on how much the object was worth. This is all clear. But what has been bothering me is this. Even though the lender has to take an oath on how much the object was worth, but let's say he does not take an oath. Then what? Anyway the borrower is taking an oath on how much he says it was worth and pays the rest. But the lender without the oath maybe would not get even that? Or maybe the borrower has to pay anyway what he admits he owes. Or gets 25 and pays 100? But then the borrower is taking an oath and getting money which is the opposite of an oath of the תורה which is when one takes an oath and does not pay and it is also not in the category of things that one takes an oath and gets paid which is a hired worker.
רב שך באבי עזרי הלכות מלווה ולווה. פרק י''ג הלכה ד' למלווה יש חפץ כמשכון להלוואה של 100 ומפסיד אותו בלי אונס. הוא אומר שהיה שווה 50 והלווה אומר 75. המלווה נשבע שבועה זה לא ברשותו והלווה נדר כמה זה שווה ומשלם את ה-25 שהוא חייב. יש לנו ויכוח בין הרמב''ן לר''ן אם הלווה צריך להישבע כמה היה שווה החפץ. כל זה ברור. אבל מה שהפריע לי זה. אף על פי שהמלווה צריך להישבע כמה היה שווה החפץ, אבל נניח שאינו נשבע. ואז מה? בכל מקרה הלווה נשבע כמה הוא אומר שזה שווה ומשלם את השאר. אבל המלווה בלי השבועה אולי לא יקבל אפילו את זה? או אולי הלווה צריך לשלם בכל מקרה את מה שהוא מודה שהוא חייב. או מקבל 25 ומשלם 100? אבל אז הלווה שבועה ומקבל כסף שזה ההפך משבועת התורה שהיא נשבע ולא משלם וגם זה לא בקטגוריית הדברים נשבעים ומשלמים. שהוא שכיר.
__________________________________________________________________________
Rav Shach's Avi Ezri Laws of Loans. A lender has an object as a guarantee for a loan of 100 and loses it. He says it was worth 50 and the borrower says 75. The lender takes an oath it is not in his possession and the borrower takes an oath on how much it was worth and pays the 25 besides that that he owes.
I know I have not been blogging and also not learning Torah. However there is one small thing that I have been thinking and puzzling about. It is in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri Laws of Loans 13:4. You have a lender who has an object as a guarantee and he loses it in such a way that he is obligated. [There are ways in which he would not be obligated for example: robbers.] So we have an argument between the Ramban {Nachmanides} and the Ran {Rabbainu Nisim}if the borrower has to take an oath on how much the object was worth. This is all clear.
But what has been bothering me is this. Even though the lender has to take an oath on how much the object was worth, but let's say he does not take an oath. Then what? Anyway the borrower is taking an oath on how much he says it was worth and pays the rest. But the lender without the oath maybe would not get even that? Or maybe the borrower has to pay anyway what he admits he owes. Or gets25 and pays 100? But then the borrower is taking an oath and getting money which is the opposite of an oath of the Torah which is when one takes an oath and does not pay and it is also not in the category of things that one takes an oath and gets paid which is a hired worker. So this case seems confusing to me.
