Shevuos 44a

שבועות מ״ד ע״א

Shevuot 44a

Learn Shevuos 44a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 44a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Why רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא argue about a lost משכון: שמואל's rule, רבי יצחק's rule, or the status of a שומר אבדה.

Overview

A ברייתא records an argument between רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא about a lender who lost the משכון, and the גמרא looks for the reason behind it. It first suggests the משכון was worth less than the loan, so they would be arguing about שמואל's rule. It rejects this: in that case everyone disagrees with שמואל. Instead it says the משכון was worth the full loan, and they argue about רבי יצחק's rule, learned from ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״, that a בעל חוב acquires the משכון. The גמרא then asks whether רבי יצחק's rule is really a dispute between תנאים. It answers that רבי יצחק may have spoken only about a משכון taken after the loan, and for that case everyone agrees with him. So the argument must be about a משכון taken at the time of the loan. There the question is the status of a שומר אבדה, and the גמרא begins quoting רבה, who says such a guard is like a שומר חנם. The opposing view continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (7)

1. QuestionIs the dispute really about שמואל's rule?
2. RejectionNo, the dispute is about רבי יצחק's rule
3. Statementרבי יצחק: a lender acquires the משכון
4. QuestionIs רבי יצחק's rule a dispute between תנאים?
5. Rejectionרבי יצחק may have spoken only about a משכון taken after the loan
6. ResolutionEveryone accepts רבי יצחק for a later משכון, so the dispute is about a משכון taken with the loan
7. ResolutionThe real argument is about the status of someone guarding a lost item