Introduction. Rabbainu Tam says the only case when a guard swears the object was lost by accident is when there is another object that he admits and he gives back. That is there were two objects or two animals that he was guarding.
Tosphot asks on this in two places. One is in Bava Metzia page 98. The question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot. Over there the Mishna says a employee that says he was not paid takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel say that is where there are witnesses that he is in fact an employee. For if there are not witnesses then the employer is believed that he paid because he could have said a stronger plea and certainly be believed. That is the employer could have said "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life."
Rami Bar Chama said what a nice statement that is. Rava asked, "What is nice about it? If it is true then we would never have a case of a guard taking an oath."
That is the entire Gemara that is relevant for us right now. It is from that Gemara that Tosphot sees a contradiction to Rabbainu Tam.
The question of Tosphot is this. If Rabbainu Tam is right, then the case of a guard is not that where there is a possibility of denying the whole thing because it is always a case when there is one object he is agreeing that he owes.
Crystal Clear. But then Tosphot adds two words אהייא קאי which to my learning partner [David Bronson] made no sense.
"Which animal does he deny?" To David these words are problematic.
It is in order to answer the question of David that I wrote the next paragraph.
It occurred to me a possible way to answer the question of my learning partner on Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98. The original question was on the Tosphot on that page that asks אהייא קאי on which animal does the guard deny? The answer I think is this. lets say the guard denied both animals? Then that is a straight case on לא היו דבאים מעולם. That is if he denies the animal that he denies then there is an oath because that is the regular case of הודאה וכפירה. If he denies the other animal then that is the case of כפירה וכפירה. And in fact there would be no oath in that case--but we do not say he could have said that because that is then העזה and we always say that מודה מקצת is נשבע even though he could have denied everything and be believed. But there is no migo because of העזה
In other words this explains the question of Tosphot on Rabbanu Tam.
_____________________________________________________________________________
עלה בדעתי דרך אפשרית כדי לענות על השאלה של השותף הלמידה שלי על בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א. השאלה המקורית היתה על תוספות בדף זה ששואל אהייא קאי על איזו חיה השומר מכחיש? התשובה לדעתי היא זו. נניח השומר הכחיש שתי החיות? אז זה הוא מקרה ישר "לא היו דברים מעולם". כלומר, אם הוא מכחיש את החיה שהוא מכחיש, אז יש שבועה כי זה המקרה הרגיל של הודאה וכפירה. אם הוא מכחיש את חיה האחרת, אז זה המקרה של כפירה וכפירה. ולמעשה לא יהיה שום שבועה במקרה זה, אבל אנחנו לא אומרים שהוא יכול לומר את זה כי הוא אז זה העזה ואנחנו תמיד אומרים מודה מקצת הוא נשבע למרות שהוא יכול היה להתכחש הכל ושיאמין. אבל אין מיגו בגלל העזה. במילים אחרות זה מסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם
Tosphot asks on this in two places. One is in Bava Metzia page 98. The question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot. Over there the Mishna says a employee that says he was not paid takes an oath and gets paid. Rav and Shmuel say that is where there are witnesses that he is in fact an employee. For if there are not witnesses then the employer is believed that he paid because he could have said a stronger plea and certainly be believed. That is the employer could have said "Who are you? I never saw you before in my life."
Rami Bar Chama said what a nice statement that is. Rava asked, "What is nice about it? If it is true then we would never have a case of a guard taking an oath."
That is the entire Gemara that is relevant for us right now. It is from that Gemara that Tosphot sees a contradiction to Rabbainu Tam.
The question of Tosphot is this. If Rabbainu Tam is right, then the case of a guard is not that where there is a possibility of denying the whole thing because it is always a case when there is one object he is agreeing that he owes.
Crystal Clear. But then Tosphot adds two words אהייא קאי which to my learning partner [David Bronson] made no sense.
"Which animal does he deny?" To David these words are problematic.
It is in order to answer the question of David that I wrote the next paragraph.
It occurred to me a possible way to answer the question of my learning partner on Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia page 98. The original question was on the Tosphot on that page that asks אהייא קאי on which animal does the guard deny? The answer I think is this. lets say the guard denied both animals? Then that is a straight case on לא היו דבאים מעולם. That is if he denies the animal that he denies then there is an oath because that is the regular case of הודאה וכפירה. If he denies the other animal then that is the case of כפירה וכפירה. And in fact there would be no oath in that case--but we do not say he could have said that because that is then העזה and we always say that מודה מקצת is נשבע even though he could have denied everything and be believed. But there is no migo because of העזה
In other words this explains the question of Tosphot on Rabbanu Tam.
_____________________________________________________________________________
עלה בדעתי דרך אפשרית כדי לענות על השאלה של השותף הלמידה שלי על בבא מציעא צ''ח ע''א. השאלה המקורית היתה על תוספות בדף זה ששואל אהייא קאי על איזו חיה השומר מכחיש? התשובה לדעתי היא זו. נניח השומר הכחיש שתי החיות? אז זה הוא מקרה ישר "לא היו דברים מעולם". כלומר, אם הוא מכחיש את החיה שהוא מכחיש, אז יש שבועה כי זה המקרה הרגיל של הודאה וכפירה. אם הוא מכחיש את חיה האחרת, אז זה המקרה של כפירה וכפירה. ולמעשה לא יהיה שום שבועה במקרה זה, אבל אנחנו לא אומרים שהוא יכול לומר את זה כי הוא אז זה העזה ואנחנו תמיד אומרים מודה מקצת הוא נשבע למרות שהוא יכול היה להתכחש הכל ושיאמין. אבל אין מיגו בגלל העזה. במילים אחרות זה מסביר את השאלה של תוספות על רבינו תם
