I was just thinking over the sugia [Subject in the Talmud] in Bava Metzia 98 and Shavuot and the Tosphot. The first time I learned it Rashi made sense to me. Then my learning partner explained what the question of Tosphot on Rashi is. And thus Tosphot brings Rabbainu Tam. And then there is a question on Rabbainu Tam and so Tosphot then brings the Riva.
As I was thinking it over again as I was out doing shopping it occurred to me again that Rashi makes sense. With no access to a Gemara bear with me as I write down what I remember. But my memory might be playing tricks and I have no way to check. I looked at my own notes so I am not saying I remember this all from scratch. Still I might have forgotten something
At any rate here is what I remember. The Mishna in Shavuot says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel said that is when there are witnesses. If there are no witnesses then the employer has a Migo. He could have said "who are you? I never saw you before." But instead he says "I paid you already." Rava [I think] asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know Rashi holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
Now full stop. Does this make sense? To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a migo. So if you believe a person because he has a migo then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could Tosphot ask on this?
That is all I really have to say right now. But just for completeness let me add what I recall Tosphot says after this. That is that rabbainu Tam says the only time there is שבועת השומרים is when there is מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה
________________________________________________________________________________
The משנה in שבועות says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. רב and שמואל said that is when there are witnesses. If there are no witnesses, then the employer has a מיגו. He could have said who are you? I never saw you before. But instead he says I paid you already. רבא asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know רש''י holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a מיגו. So if you believe a person because he has a מיגו then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could תוספות ask on this?
המשנה בשבועות אומרת שכיר נשבע ונוטל. עובד לוקח שבועה ומקבל תשלום. רב ושמואל אמרו כי זה כאשר יש עדים. אם אין עדים, אז למעסיק יש מיגו. הוא היה יכול לומר מי אתה? מעולם לא ראיתי אותך. אבל במקום זה הוא אומר שילמתי לך כבר. רבא שאל, "אם כן אז לא יכולה להיות שבועת השומרים (שבועה לשומר). עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שרש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים אפילו כשאינו מודה מקצת. לי זה נשמע הגיוני לחלוטין. המקרה הרגיל של שבועת השומרים היא כאשר יש מיגו. אז אם אתה מאמין אדם כי יש לו מיגו, אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים. ברור כשמש. מה קורה בעולם של תוספותשהם שואלים על זה?
Ideas in Bava Metzia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.
___________________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.
As I was thinking it over again as I was out doing shopping it occurred to me again that Rashi makes sense. With no access to a Gemara bear with me as I write down what I remember. But my memory might be playing tricks and I have no way to check. I looked at my own notes so I am not saying I remember this all from scratch. Still I might have forgotten something
At any rate here is what I remember. The Mishna in Shavuot says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel said that is when there are witnesses. If there are no witnesses then the employer has a Migo. He could have said "who are you? I never saw you before." But instead he says "I paid you already." Rava [I think] asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know Rashi holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
Now full stop. Does this make sense? To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a migo. So if you believe a person because he has a migo then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could Tosphot ask on this?
That is all I really have to say right now. But just for completeness let me add what I recall Tosphot says after this. That is that rabbainu Tam says the only time there is שבועת השומרים is when there is מודה מקצת that is כפירה והודאה
________________________________________________________________________________
The משנה in שבועות says שכיר נשבע ונוטל. A worker takes an oath and gets paid. רב and שמואל said that is when there are witnesses. If there are no witnesses, then the employer has a מיגו. He could have said who are you? I never saw you before. But instead he says I paid you already. רבא asked if so then there can never be שבועת השומרים an oath for a guard. Now we know רש''י holds שבועת השומרים is even when there is no מודה מקצת
To me it makes perfect sense. The normal case of שבועת השומרים is when there is a מיגו. So if you believe a person because he has a מיגו then there could never be שבועת השומרים. Crystal clear. What in the world could תוספות ask on this?
המשנה בשבועות אומרת שכיר נשבע ונוטל. עובד לוקח שבועה ומקבל תשלום. רב ושמואל אמרו כי זה כאשר יש עדים. אם אין עדים, אז למעסיק יש מיגו. הוא היה יכול לומר מי אתה? מעולם לא ראיתי אותך. אבל במקום זה הוא אומר שילמתי לך כבר. רבא שאל, "אם כן אז לא יכולה להיות שבועת השומרים (שבועה לשומר). עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שרש''י מחזיק שבועת השומרים אפילו כשאינו מודה מקצת. לי זה נשמע הגיוני לחלוטין. המקרה הרגיל של שבועת השומרים היא כאשר יש מיגו. אז אם אתה מאמין אדם כי יש לו מיגו, אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים. ברור כשמש. מה קורה בעולם של תוספותשהם שואלים על זה?
Ideas in Bava Metzia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what Rashi held by כפירה. Tosphot understands that Rashi holds כפירה takes an oath. If so then in fact there is a question on Rashi. The question is there is no migo. But the way I see it, Rashi holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.
___________________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it looks like to me is that it all depends on what רש''י held by כפירה. The way תוספות understands that רש''י is that if the שומר said כפירה then he takes an oath. If so, then in fact there is a question on רש''י. The question is there is no מיגו. But the way I see it, רש''י holds the שבועת השומרים is when he says נאנס but if he had said כפירה then he would have been believed.
