{"id":3678,"date":"2016-09-29T08:15:12","date_gmt":"2016-09-29T06:15:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3678"},"modified":"2016-09-29T08:18:42","modified_gmt":"2016-09-29T06:18:42","slug":"bava-metzia-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/09\/bava-metzia-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

The gemara continues to compare the law in our mishna to other tannatic opinions relating to other cases of disputed money which seem to reach\u00a0different conclusions. \u00a0Each time the gemara distinguishes between the cases and explains that they could potentially agree with the law in our mishna. \u00a0Then the gemara compares two of the cases brought to each other showing that neither of the opinions work together. \u00a0But again the gemara distinguishes between the cases. \u00a0Rabbi Chiya bring s a halacha about a case where the defendant denies a clim but witnesses testify about half of the amount. \u00a0The law requires the defendant to pay the half and swear that he doesn’t owe the other half. \u00a0This is learned by\u00a0a kal vachomer<\/em> from modeh bemiktzat<\/em> (one who admits half a claim). \u00a0The gemara brings our mishna as a proof for this law of rabbi Chiya and then proceed to try to figure what is the kal vachomer<\/em> that Rabbi Chiya was referring to.<\/p>\n

\n