Resources for Nedarim 27
1. The גמרא discusses a case where someone left their שטרות in בית דין and said that if they don’t return by a certain time then their שטרות should become nullified and uncollectable. רב הונא says that if in fact he does not return the שטרות are בטל. The גמרא asks why this isn’t a case of אסמכתא? אסמכתא as the ריטב"א defines it is someone who puts a fine upon themselves to pay something they don’t need to pay if they don’t fulfill a certain requirement they create for themselves. We pasken אסמכתא לא קניא since it is assumed that the person lacks real גמירת דעת and never meant to be מחייב themselves. There is a מחלוקת ראשונים as to whether אסמכתא לא קניא is a דין דאוירייתא or just a דין דרבנן. The רשב"א brought by the בית יוסף in בדק הבית in the end of יו"ד סימן רנ"ח says that אסמכתא is קונה by הקדש וצדקה presumably because a person has full גמירת דעת on those cases to pay. However, the מרדכי writes that the reason it is קונה by הקדש וצדקה is that אסמכתא works מדאורייתא as it says אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו. It is only a דין דרבנן that אסמכתא doesn’t work and they never made this גזרה by הקדש וצדקה.
2. In answer to the גמרא’s question about why our case of שטרות given to ב"ד is a not an issue of אסמכתא, the גמרא answers that our case is different because it is just מבטל זכותיה. Theרמב"ם in הלכות מכירה פּרק י"א הל׳ ד seems to understand that “מבטל זכותיה” is saying that אסמכתא simply doesn’t apply to מחילה. The סברא presumably would be that its easier for a person to let go of something they don’t currently have than to commit to giving over something currently in their pocket. The מגיד משנה says theרמב"ם ’s source is the גמרא that says in בבא מציעא דף מ"ח ע"ב that says that if a buyer gives collateral to a seller and says if I don’t go through with our business deal then keep the collateral and the seller says if I back out then I’ll pay you double the collateral, it is a case of אסמכתא. The רמב"ם understands that only the part about “I’ll double it” is אסמכתא, but not the part about the seller keeping the collateral he was given. You see from there that אסמכתא doesn’t apply to מחילה or anything already given. The ראב"ד there, as well as רש"י in ב"מ and the ר"ן here all disagree and say the גמרא in ב"מ is calling both cases an אסמכתא and מחילה is also subject to the problem of אסמכתא. As far as our גמרא, the ר"ן explains that the reason רב הונא said the contract was nullified is because it is as if the person said “if I don’t return then all these contracts are lies and forgeries”. There are several questions on this approach. First, the קהלות יעקב סימן כ asks a fundamental question: how can you suggest that a person can be "מודה על תנאי"? We are talking about facts—the contract is either lies or it isn’t. How can you say it’s lies only on condition I don’t return within 30 days? Can you come into בית דין and give testimony that ראובן killed שמעון on condition it rains tomorrow? To make a הודאת בעל דין that your contracts are forged on condition it doesn’t rain tomorrow doesn’t seem to make sense. Second, how is this fundamentally different than מחילה? Isn’t it just another way of being מוחל your right to collect? If אסמכתא applies to מחילה why wouldn’t it apply to a claim that results in מחילה? An answer to both questions can be found in the מנחת שלמה (who is only addressing the second question). He explains that what the person is really doing here is not making a statement about the facts. Rather, he’s being מוחל on a זכות הטענה. So he is not being מוחל the loan itself which is a type of קנין that the ר"ן would still say is אסמכתא. Rather his is being מוחל on an ability to have a טענה as if he was מודה it was all a lie.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos