{"id":3681,"date":"2016-09-30T08:22:25","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T06:22:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3681"},"modified":"2016-09-30T08:22:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T06:22:25","slug":"bava-metzia-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/09\/bava-metzia-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

The gemara concludes that the kal va’chomer<\/em>\u00a0from which Rabbi Chiya derived that two witnesses who testify to half a claim can obligate the defendant to swear about the rest t was referring to was learned out jointly (by a b’meh hatzad<\/em>) from both one who admits to part of a claim (modeh bemiktzat<\/em>) and from one witness who both need to swear. \u00a0The gemara questions the proof for this halacha that Rabbi Chiya brought from our mishna and concludes that our mishna was brought for proof for a different halacha – one where one admits to half a claim and then says “heilach<\/em>“. \u00a0Rabbi Chiya hold that in that case one is still obligated to swear and that halacha can be proven from our mishna. \u00a0An opposing opinion is brought by Rav Sheshet. \u00a0Then the gemara brings a braita to first disprove Rabbi Chiya but reconciles it. \u00a0Then brings the same braita to prove Rabbi Chiya (or question Rav Sheshet) but rejects it. \u00a0Then brings another question on Rav Sheshet;s opinion from a mishna but also rejects it.<\/p>\n

\n