Q&A: A Loan Is Given to Be Spent
A Loan Is Given to Be Spent
Question
In the Talmud, Bava Kamma 103a: “They asked: If he claimed one maneh as a loan, and the other admitted it as a deposit and said it was stolen, what is the law? Rav Pappa said: He is obligated to take an oath. He claimed a maneh—he admitted to a maneh that had been given into his hand. Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said: He is exempt. What he claimed, the other did not admit; what he admitted, the other did not claim. They raised an objection: ‘I deposited two vessels with you.’ He said to him, ‘One vessel was on this day and one vessel was on that day,’ and they were stolen—he is liable. But according to Rav Huna son of Rav Natan, why is he liable? What he claimed, the other did not admit; what he admitted, the other did not claim. It is different there, because a loan is given to be spent.” (Rashi: “If he claimed one maneh as a loan, and the other admitted it as a deposit and said it was stolen—what is the law? He claimed that he should repay him the maneh that he had lent him, and the other says: I was an unpaid bailee over the maneh, and it was stolen. Rav Pappa said: He is obligated in an oath—by Torah law. ‘What he claimed, the other did not admit; what he admitted, the other did not claim’—therefore he is considered a complete denier and takes a rabbinic oath of inducement. ‘It is different there, because a loan is given to be spent’—so he is not claiming the very maneh that is still in his possession. But with vessels, he is claiming the very vessels that are in his possession; what difference does it make whether he deposited them on this day or on another day.)
I didn’t understand the answer given for Rav Huna, “a loan is given to be spent.” I understand that the point of the answer is that a claim of a loan and a claim of a deposit are two different claims, and therefore he is a complete denier regarding the loan; but a claim of two deposits that were deposited together and a claim of two deposits that were deposited one after the other is really the same claim. But why does that depend on the fact that a loan is given to be spent?
Answer
It is very much connected, and that is exactly the difference between a loan and a deposit, as opposed to two different deposits. See the Tur, section 522.
Discussion on Answer
Great question. You could ask that about every answer the Talmud gives: what, it didn’t know it beforehand? In short, I’m done.
The rule that a loan is given to be spent is a well-known rule, and according to the Rabbi’s answer it’s clear that it’s very relevant and makes a distinction between a loan and a deposit, as opposed to two deposits, so what changed from the question to the answer?
In the initial assumption they thought it was like any two claims, and they answered that a loan is different. In particular, it may be that they were teaching this very point—that “a loan is given to be spent” is interpreted like Maimonides and not like the view of those who disagree.
In general, the Talmud sometimes asks a question whose answer is known in order to present things in a didactic way. But it doesn’t really matter; there’s nothing here that requires any special explanation unless one is just being stubborn.
Nice trick. I also already knew the Rabbi’s answer—I just wanted the points to be presented in a didactic way.
According to Rav Pappa, if he claimed one maneh as a loan and the other admitted it as a deposit and said it was stolen, he is obligated in a Torah-level oath—but what oath is this, and what exactly does he swear? It’s not clear to me whether this is the oath of one who admits part of the claim, where he swears that there was never any loan at all, or whether it is the oath of bailees, where he swears that the deposit was stolen, even though the claimant is admitting that the defendant is not really his bailee at all.
The oath of bailees. According to your own claim that this was a deposit—swear to me.
And why shouldn’t the defendant say: according to your position, I’m not your bailee, so I won’t swear to you?
?
Because the depositor does in fact want an oath; it’s just that the implication of his words is that they are not owed one. He has not waived the oath—rather, it simply follows from what he says that there is no obligation of an oath. But this still requires more thought.
By the way, where is this Talmud passage? There’s something similar on page 106, but I can’t find this one right now.
So then what was the Talmud asking? Did it not know that a loan is given to be spent?