Bava Metzia on BM page 98a; Shavuot 45b/
Introduction. According to Rabbainu Tam, Rav Chiya bar Joseph says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. That means a שומר שכר paid guard you do not need כפירה. So if you have נאנסו והודאה alone that is enough to take an oath. Rav Chiya bar Aba says שומר שכר (paid guard) need כפירה in order to take an oath.
That in my book I said Rashi can say he explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. I don't think in my book I made this point very clear. At any rate, what I was saying makes a lot of sense. But Tosphot when he asks on Rashi tries to fend off this point. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this.
רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a Migo then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. Rashi in a different place in Shas says that a שומר takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. Tosphot asks rightly that that Rashi is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written in my book that Rashi can say Rava is going like רבי חייא בר אבא [you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath] and that the place where Rashi says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.
What Tosphot writes in Shavuot I think is meant to fend off this answer of Rashi. There he writes in his question about Rabbainu Tam "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is no oath with הודאה ונאנסו he admits there is an oath with הודאה וכפירה" What Tosphot is doing is saying a point not just about his question on Rabbainu Tam but also implying with his "even" to say that רבי חייא בר יוסף also agrees מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה would have an oath.
___________________________________________________________________________
רש''י can say he explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. But תוספות when he asks on רש''י tries to fend off this point. That much I did not mention in my notes. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן that is when it says by a שומר the words כי הוא זה we need to put those words somewhere else because they don't fit with the case of a שומר. If the object is there let him give it back.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this. Rather the words fit in their place because we say with a guard he need to be מודה מקצת admission in part in order to take an oath.
רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a מיגו then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. רש''י in a different place says that a שומר takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. What תוספות asks rightly that that רש''י is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written that רש''י can say רבא is going like רבי חייא בר אבא you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath, and that the place where רש''י says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.
What תוספות writes in שבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך I think is meant to push off this answer of רש''י. There he writes in his question about רבינו תם "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is No oath with הודאה ונאנסו he admits there is an שבועה with הודאה וכפירה. What תוספות is doing is saying a point not just about his question on רבינו תם but also implying with his אפילו to say that רבי חייא בר also agrees you need מודה מקצת That is you need כפירה והודאה. It is only for נאנסו alone that would get an oath. Thus he is already striving to get to the ריב''א.
Introduction. According to Rabbainu Tam, Rav Chiya bar Joseph says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. That means a שומר שכר paid guard you do not need כפירה. So if you have נאנסו והודאה alone that is enough to take an oath. Rav Chiya bar Aba says שומר שכר (paid guard) need כפירה in order to take an oath.
That in my book I said Rashi can say he explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. I don't think in my book I made this point very clear. At any rate, what I was saying makes a lot of sense. But Tosphot when he asks on Rashi tries to fend off this point. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this.
רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a Migo then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. Rashi in a different place in Shas says that a שומר takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. Tosphot asks rightly that that Rashi is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written in my book that Rashi can say Rava is going like רבי חייא בר אבא [you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath] and that the place where Rashi says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.
What Tosphot writes in Shavuot I think is meant to fend off this answer of Rashi. There he writes in his question about Rabbainu Tam "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is no oath with הודאה ונאנסו he admits there is an oath with הודאה וכפירה" What Tosphot is doing is saying a point not just about his question on Rabbainu Tam but also implying with his "even" to say that רבי חייא בר יוסף also agrees מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה would have an oath.
___________________________________________________________________________
רש''י can say he explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. But תוספות when he asks on רש''י tries to fend off this point. That much I did not mention in my notes. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן that is when it says by a שומר the words כי הוא זה we need to put those words somewhere else because they don't fit with the case of a שומר. If the object is there let him give it back.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this. Rather the words fit in their place because we say with a guard he need to be מודה מקצת admission in part in order to take an oath.
רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a מיגו then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. רש''י in a different place says that a שומר takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. What תוספות asks rightly that that רש''י is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written that רש''י can say רבא is going like רבי חייא בר אבא you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath, and that the place where רש''י says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.
What תוספות writes in שבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך I think is meant to push off this answer of רש''י. There he writes in his question about רבינו תם "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is No oath with הודאה ונאנסו he admits there is an שבועה with הודאה וכפירה. What תוספות is doing is saying a point not just about his question on רבינו תם but also implying with his אפילו to say that רבי חייא בר also agrees you need מודה מקצת That is you need כפירה והודאה. It is only for נאנסו alone that would get an oath. Thus he is already striving to get to the ריב''א.
