Ideas in Talmud Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9.
I added a little idea which is so simple I embarrassed I did not think of it before. Mainly that there was a question on the opinion of the Riva in Tosphot page 98.
[The Riva was one of the Baali HaTosphot.]
I do not know who asked it. Maybe Tosphot themselves or maybe my learning partner. The question was the Riva has to treat a case of "I do not know" as if it was a case of אונס that is armed robbery, and he also needs to treat it as if it was a case of denial.
For we know the opinion of the Riva is thus if the a guard of an animal or object loses it and says "there was no object" that does not require an oath at all unless there is with it another object that he admits he owes. That is it is a case of מודה מקצת. But if he says there was an object but there was armed robbery, then he needs to take an oath.
[Unlike Rashi or Rabbainu Tam]
What if he says "I do not know." The Gemara says "I do not know" requires another animal of "I admit I owe it." So to the Riva I do not know is טענת כפירה. But then the Gemara also says to Rami Bar Chama that if you have I do not know you need also
admission and denial. So there I do not know is a case of אונס
I can't look it up to see if this fits into the Gemara. But it seems to me this minute that if he says, "I do not know if there was armed robbery or not" that is considered armed robbery--and thus is required an oath. But if he says, "I do not know if I borrowed another animal or not," that is considered denial.
Off hand it would seem that this probably would not work in our Gemara on page 98 since the Gemra is dealing with only one kind of ''I do not know.'' But without a Gemara, I can't tell.
If this would work, then probably my learning partner would have seen it. Still it is a tantalizing possibility to think we might have good answer for the Riva.
I added a little idea which is so simple I embarrassed I did not think of it before. Mainly that there was a question on the opinion of the Riva in Tosphot page 98.
[The Riva was one of the Baali HaTosphot.]
I do not know who asked it. Maybe Tosphot themselves or maybe my learning partner. The question was the Riva has to treat a case of "I do not know" as if it was a case of אונס that is armed robbery, and he also needs to treat it as if it was a case of denial.
For we know the opinion of the Riva is thus if the a guard of an animal or object loses it and says "there was no object" that does not require an oath at all unless there is with it another object that he admits he owes. That is it is a case of מודה מקצת. But if he says there was an object but there was armed robbery, then he needs to take an oath.
[Unlike Rashi or Rabbainu Tam]
What if he says "I do not know." The Gemara says "I do not know" requires another animal of "I admit I owe it." So to the Riva I do not know is טענת כפירה. But then the Gemara also says to Rami Bar Chama that if you have I do not know you need also
admission and denial. So there I do not know is a case of אונס
I can't look it up to see if this fits into the Gemara. But it seems to me this minute that if he says, "I do not know if there was armed robbery or not" that is considered armed robbery--and thus is required an oath. But if he says, "I do not know if I borrowed another animal or not," that is considered denial.
Off hand it would seem that this probably would not work in our Gemara on page 98 since the Gemra is dealing with only one kind of ''I do not know.'' But without a Gemara, I can't tell.
If this would work, then probably my learning partner would have seen it. Still it is a tantalizing possibility to think we might have good answer for the Riva.
