Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 5, 2018 | 讬状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 38

Study Guide Shevuot 38. A braita is brought with a bit of a different version than the聽mishna regarding if one swears to a number of people under what circumstances is one obligated in a sacrifice for each person and in which cases just one sacrifice? The braita聽brings an argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and two amoraim聽bring different explanations as to which cases the argument relates to. What are the details regarding an oath taken in court when one admits to part of a claim?

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, no inference is to be learned from the mishna.

砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬爪讚 转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 驻专讟 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

搂 The mishna teaches: What is the case of an oath on a deposit? It is where the claimant said to the defendant: Give me my deposit, which is in your possession, and the defendant replied: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, or the defendant said to him: Nothing of yours is in my possession; the claimant responded: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen. In either case this defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if he lied. The mishna then discusses a case where five people sued him and he took an oath denying all of their claims. With regard to this case, the Sages taught in a baraita: If he included all the denials in one oath, he is liable for only one false oath; if he specified them, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that if he said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says that only if he said: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, on my oath, i.e., he said the word oath at the end, is he liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable for his oath concerning each individual claim unless he says: On my oath, to each and every claimant.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻专讟讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The phrasing where one uses the conjunction: And, between denials is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a specific denial; and the phrasing where one refrains from using the conjunction: And, is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a specific denial.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讜诇讗 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 驻专讟 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讗 诇讱 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻专讟 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All concede in a case where the defendant says: And nothing of yours, that it is considered specific and that he is liable for his oath concerning each claim, even Rabbi Meir. They disagree only with regard to a case where the defendant said: Nothing of yours, without the conjunctive: And. As Rabbi Meir says: It is considered specific, and Rabbi Yehuda says: It is considered general. And what is the case of a general denial according to Rabbi Meir, where one is liable for only one oath? It is the case where the defendant says, in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 诇讱 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree that they explain the opinion of Rabbi Meir differently? The Gemara responds: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita, and Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred his explanation from the mishna. The Gemara explains: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda says that the phrase: And nothing of yours, is considered a specific denial, for which one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, one may conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda understood that Rabbi Meir said that it is considered a general denial, and therefore, Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said to him: No, it is considered a specific denial.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讜诇讗 诇讱 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘诇讗 诇讱 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讜讬讬 诇驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says in response to this inference that the baraita can be explained differently: Both phrases: Nothing of yours, and: And nothing of yours, are deemed specific denials by Rabbi Meir; and Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to: And nothing of yours, I concede to you that it is considered specific. But with regard to: Nothing of yours, I disagree with you and consider it a general denial. And Shmuel would respond: If that is so, then why does Rabbi Yehuda state in the baraita the instance in which he concedes to Rabbi Meir? Instead of conceding, let him disagree and state the instance in which they differ.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讜诇讗 诇讱 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讚诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 谞砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬

The Gemara proceeds to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: And Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred his explanation from the mishna as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna associated with unattributed statements in the Mishna, says: If he addressed all of the claimants and said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed a general denial, one may conclude by inference that a denial phrased: And nothing of yours, is deemed specific. As if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Meir also deems: And nothing of yours, to be a general denial, then instead of teaching us that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed general, let him teach us that when one states: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, it is general, and all the more so it would be clear that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is considered general.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that one may interpret the statement of Rabbi Meir as follows: Anyone who says: And nothing of yours, is considered as though he says in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

转谞谉 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 转谞讬 诇讗 诇讱

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We learned in the mishna that if the defendant said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim that he falsely denied. Evidently, Rabbi Meir deems: And nothing of yours, to be specific. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: Nothing of yours, nothing of yours, nothing of yours.

转讗 砖诪注 转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 转谞讬 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where the claimant says: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your deposit, or pledge, or stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Evidently, by using the conjunction: Or, Rabbi Meir deems the denials specific, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath you do not have a deposit, a pledge, a stolen item, a lost item, in my possession.

转讗 砖诪注 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 转谞讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讻讜住诪讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: In a case where the claimant said: Give me back my wheat, and barley, and spelt that are in your possession, if the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. The mishna is therefore counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Again, emend the language of the mishna and teach: Wheat, barley, spelt, without the conjunction: Or.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讻诇 讛讻讬 砖讘讬砖 转谞讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: But could it be that this tanna errs so much as he teaches the mishna? The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: According to Shmuel, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: There is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk an olive-bulk, and there is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk; both are considered specific formulations.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讬讚讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讻讜住诪转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 转谞讬 讞讟讛 砖注讜专讛 讻讜住诪转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Meir鈥檚 own statement in the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: Even if the defendant says: On my oath I do not have in my possession your grain of wheat, or grain of barley, or grain of spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Clearly, the conjunction: Or, renders the denial specific according to Rabbi Meir, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath I do not have in my possession a grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt of yours.

诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讛 讘讻诇诇 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讻诇诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪转 讘讻诇诇 讻讜住诪讬谉

The Gemara explains: What novelty is there in a case where one takes an oath in this manner, that Rabbi Meir says: Even? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Even the singular form for wheat includes much wheat, and the singular form for barley includes much barley, and the singular form for spelt includes much spelt, i.e., although the defendant refers to the grains in the singular, his denial is referring to all wheat, all barley, and all spelt.

转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讜诇诐 诪爪讟专驻转

搂 The mishna teaches: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, etc. If the claimant said: Give me back my wheat and barley, and spelt, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If all of the wheat, barley, and spelt were collectively worth at least one peruta, then even if each type of grain was worth less than one peruta, their total value combines to render him liable.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻专讟讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讻诇诇讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling of the mishna. One says that when the mishna teaches that one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, it means that he is liable for the three specific denials of wheat, barley, and spelt, and he must bring three separate offerings; but he is not liable for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, i.e., when he said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. Accordingly, the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan was said with regard to the previous case in the mishna, where the defendant said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. And one says that he is liable also for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, so that the defendant is liable to bring a total of four offerings. Accordingly, even if the grains were worth only one peruta collectively and the defendant is not liable for any of the specific oaths, the defendant remains liable to bring an offering for the general oath according to Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 注砖专讬诐 讛讜讬讬谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚驻专讟讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚讻诇诇讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

The Gemara questions the second opinion: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: If five people claimed from one defendant wheat, barley, and spelt, and the defendant took an oath denying each claim of each claimant, there are then fifteen sin-offerings here that the defendant is liable to bring? And if it is so that the defendant is liable for the general oath as well, there would be a total of twenty sin-offerings that he is liable to bring. The Gemara responds: That tanna calculated the defendant鈥檚 liability for the specific oaths; he did not calculate the defendant鈥檚 liability for the general oaths.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讬诐 讞讟讗讜转 讛讛讬讗 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛

The Gemara now questions the first opinion: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a different baraita: There are twenty sin-offerings here? Evidently, Rabbi 岣yya does calculate the general oaths. The Gemara responds: That baraita does not count the general oaths either; rather, it is referring to a different case entirely, where each of the five claimants claimed from the defendant a deposit and a pledge and a stolen item and a lost item.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讜 讞诪砖讛 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 转谉 诇谞讜 驻拽讚讜谉 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讬砖 诇谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻拽讚讜谉 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 诪讛讜 讗讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: In a case where five people were suing another and they said to him: Give us back our deposit, pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant said to one of them: On my oath your deposit, pledge, stolen item, and lost item are not in my possession, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, what is the halakha? Is he liable for only one oath for each of the four claimants to whom he said: And neither are yours, since these are considered general oaths?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Or perhaps he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim made by each claimant.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讬诐 讞讟讗讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚驻专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: There are twenty sin-offerings here that the defendant must bring. The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances of the baraita? If the defendant specified each claim of each of the claimants in his oath, does Rabbi 岣yya come to teach us a number? Obviously, the defendant is liable to bring twenty offerings. Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not specify an oath to each claimant, but he specified it to the first claimant and said: And neither are yours, to each of the remaining claimants? And therefore, conclude from the baraita that such a denial is considered specific.

讗谞住转 讜驻转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讬拽专 拽谞住 讛讜讗 转讜讘注

搂 The mishna teaches that if one accuses another: You raped or you seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce your daughter, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, the defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if it is false oath, and Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from liability for a false oath on a deposit. The reason is that the payment for rape or seduction is a fine, and one does not pay a fine based on his own admission; therefore, he is also exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for having taken a false oath. The Rabbis hold that he is liable since he would have been liable to pay compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from her being raped or seduced, which are monetary claims. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon holds that since the father is primarily claiming the fine and his claim to the other payments is secondary, the defendant is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讟讬谉 讜讗砖转讻讞 讚讞讟讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚驻讟讜专 讚讻讬 讗砖转讘注 讗讞讟讬谉 讗拽讜砖讟讗 诪砖转讘注

Rava says: To what case is this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon compared? It is compared to a case where a person said to another: Give me back my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession, and the other said to him: On my oath your wheat is not in my possession; and it was then discovered that it was only wheat that he did not have, but he did have the claimant鈥檚 barley and spelt. In that case, the halakha is that he is exempt from liability for an oath on a deposit, as when he took an oath with regard to the wheat, he took a truthful oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘讞讟讬谉 拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讘砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇诇 讜讗砖转讻讞 讞讟讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘

Abaye said to Rava: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the case of the grain, the defendant denies only the other鈥檚 claim of wheat, but he does not deny his claim of barley and spelt. Here, the defendant denies the entire matter, as he claims that he never raped or seduced the man鈥檚 daughter. Rather, this explanation is comparable only to a case where one said to another: Give me back my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession, and the defendant said to him: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession at all, and it was then discovered that it was only wheat that he did not have, but he did have the claimant鈥檚 barley and spelt. In that case, the halakha is that he is liable for an oath on a deposit. This, then, cannot be the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, as he exempts the defendant from liability.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 拽谞住 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讜诇讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讚拽讬抓 讜转讘注 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪讬讚讬 讚讻讬 诪讜讚讛 讘讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻讟专 讜转讘注 诪讬讚讬 讚讻讬 诪讜讚讛 讘讬讛 诪讬驻讟专

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the statement of Rabban Shimon, the father is claiming only the fine and not the compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from his daughter鈥檚 having been raped or seduced. According to the statement of the Rabbis, he is also claiming payment for humiliation and degradation resulting from her having been raped or seduced. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds: A person does not forgo a claim to something with a fixed value, such as a fine, and claim something whose value is not fixed and requires an appraisal, such as humiliation and degradation resulting from being raped or seduced. And the Rabbis hold that one does not forgo a claim to something that the defendant is not exempt from paying if he admits his guilt, and claim something that the defendant is exempt from paying if he admits his guilt, such as a fine.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: By Torah law, the oath imposed by the judges upon one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for the value of at least two silver ma鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 admission is for the value of at least one peruta. And furthermore, if the admission is not of the same type as the claim, i.e., the defendant admitted to a debt that the claimant did not claim, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath.

讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 讻住祝 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 驻讟讜专 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜驻专讜讟讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘

How so? If the claimant said to the defendant: I have two silver ma鈥檃 in your possession, and the latter responded: You have only one peruta, a coin made from copper, in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath (see 39b). But if the claimant said: I have two silver ma鈥檃 and one peruta in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only one peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻讟讜专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 讞讬讬讘

If the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is exempt, as he denies the entire claim. But if the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim.

诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛

If the claimant said: My late father had one hundred dinars in your possession, and I am now claiming them, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as he is like one returning a lost item, since he could have easily denied the entire claim.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna discusses other cases where the defendant denies an entire claim. In a case where one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the latter said to him: Yes, I acknowledge that claim; and the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is exempt. But if he responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, i.e., he denies that a debt ever existed, he is liable to pay, as he already admitted that he owed him the amount.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讬转谞讜 讘注讚讬诐

In a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, to which the claimant responded: Give the money to me only in the presence of witnesses, then if the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is liable to pay, as he is required to give it to him in the presence of witnesses, and he cannot prove that he did so.

诇讬讟专讗 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讬讟专讗 讻住祝 驻讟讜专 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讚讬谞专 讻住祝 讜讟专讬住讬转 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜转 讜驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讻诇 诪讬谉 诪讟讘注 讗讞转

搂 The mishna resumes discussion of the oath imposed by the court in a case where the defendant admits to a part of a claim. If the claimant said: I have a litra, i.e., a specific weight, of gold in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a litra of silver in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as his admission relates to a different item than that which the claim relates to. But if the claimant said: I have a gold dinar in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a silver dinar, or a tereisit, or a pundeyon, or a peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as they are all of one type; they are all coins. Since the claim concerns money, the difference between the different types of coins is disregarded, as the claim is essentially referring to the monetary value, not to a specific type of coin.

讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 拽讟谞讬转 驻讟讜专 讻讜专 驻讬专讜转 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 拽讟谞讬转 讞讬讬讘 砖讛拽讟谞讬转 讘讻诇诇 驻讬专讜转

If the claimant said: I have a kor of grain in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is exempt. But if the claimant said: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is liable, as legumes are included in produce.

讟注谞讜 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讘砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘

If one claimed that another owes him wheat, and the defendant admitted to owing him barley, he is exempt; and Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to take an oath. According to Rabban Gamliel, one who admits to a part of the claim is liable to take an oath even if the admission is not of the same type as the claim.

讛讟讜注谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讘拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诪拽爪转 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

With regard to one who claims that another owes him jugs of oil, and the latter then admitted that he owes him pitchers, i.e., the jugs themselves, but not the oil, Admon says: Since he admitted to him with regard to a part of the claim, and his admission was of the same type as the claim, i.e., the claim included both containers and oil and he admitted to owing him containers, he must take an oath. And the Rabbis say: The partial admission in this case is not of the same type as the claim, as he completely denied owing him oil. Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon as correct.

讟注谞讜 讻诇讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讜讚讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讻驻专 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘拽专拽注讜转 讜讻驻专 讘讻诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讚讛 讘诪拽爪转 讛拽专拽注讜转 驻讟讜专 讘诪拽爪转 讛讻诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讝讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讬砖讘注 注诇讬讛谉

If one claimed that another owes him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied the claim of land, or conversely, he admitted to owing him land but denied the claim of vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath, as oaths are not taken concerning claims involving land. If he admitted to part of the claim about the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to part of the claim about the vessels, he is liable to take an oath concerning the entire claim, as property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that the oath about the movable property can be extended to require him to take an oath concerning the land as well.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讗讘诇 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜诇讛拽讚砖

One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. And the court does not administer an oath to a minor. But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讘讬注讱 讘讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讛砖诪讬诐

GEMARA: How does the court administer an oath to someone who is liable to take an oath? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The court administers to him the oath stated in the Torah, as it is written in Abraham鈥檚 instruction to his servant: 鈥淎nd I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven鈥 (Genesis 24:3).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 砖诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav鈥檚 statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina bar Idi, who says that when one is liable to take an oath, we require him to take it using the ineffable name of God?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讬谞讜讬 讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 爪专讬讱 诇讗转驻讜砖讬 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛

Rav Ashi said to him: You may even say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is merely required to take an oath using an appellation of God. And the practical ramification of Rav鈥檚 statement is that just as in the aforementioned verse, Abraham said: 鈥淧lease put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear鈥 (Genesis 24:2鈥3), instructing his servant to grasp his circumcised penis, which is considered sacred to some degree, so too, in oaths administered by the court, one must grasp a sacred item in his hand while taking the oath.

讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗砖讘注 讘讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讛砖诪讬诐 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗砖讘注 讘转驻诇讬谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专

And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rava; as Rava said: This judge who administers an oath 鈥渂y the Lord, the God of heaven,鈥 without instructing the litigant to grasp a sacred item, is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter that appears in the Mishna; in which case his ruling is revoked, and the litigant must repeat the oath. And Rav Pappa said: This judge who administers an oath in which the litigant grasps phylacteries, not a Torah scroll, is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter that appears in the Mishna; in which case his ruling is revoked, and the litigant must repeat the oath.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讛讗 谞拽讬讟 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava that if the litigant merely took an oath using the ineffable name of God, he is required to take another oath, as he was not grasping any sacred item in his hand; but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, that if the litigant was grasping phylacteries he is required to take another oath, as he was grasping a sacred item in his hand, even though it was not a Torah scroll.

砖讘讜注讛 诪注讜诪讚 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪讬讜砖讘 砖讘讜注讛 讘住驻专 转讜专讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘转驻诇讬谉

One takes an oath while standing, but a Torah scholar takes an oath while sitting. One takes an oath grasping a Torah scroll ab initio, but a Torah scholar may take an oath grasping phylacteries ab initio.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗祝 讛讬讗 讘诇砖讜谞讛 谞讗诪专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: An oath imposed by the judges may also be recited in its language, i.e., in any language spoken by the one taking the oath. It is not required that the oath be in Hebrew.

讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注

Before he takes the oath, the judges say to him: Be aware

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 38

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, no inference is to be learned from the mishna.

砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讻讬爪讚 转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 驻专讟 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

搂 The mishna teaches: What is the case of an oath on a deposit? It is where the claimant said to the defendant: Give me my deposit, which is in your possession, and the defendant replied: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, or the defendant said to him: Nothing of yours is in my possession; the claimant responded: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen. In either case this defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if he lied. The mishna then discusses a case where five people sued him and he took an oath denying all of their claims. With regard to this case, the Sages taught in a baraita: If he included all the denials in one oath, he is liable for only one false oath; if he specified them, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that if he said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 砖讘讜注讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 诇讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says that only if he said: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, on my oath, i.e., he said the word oath at the end, is he liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable for his oath concerning each individual claim unless he says: On my oath, to each and every claimant.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻专讟讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The phrasing where one uses the conjunction: And, between denials is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a specific denial; and the phrasing where one refrains from using the conjunction: And, is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a specific denial.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讜诇讗 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 驻专讟 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讗 诇讱 砖专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻专讟 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All concede in a case where the defendant says: And nothing of yours, that it is considered specific and that he is liable for his oath concerning each claim, even Rabbi Meir. They disagree only with regard to a case where the defendant said: Nothing of yours, without the conjunctive: And. As Rabbi Meir says: It is considered specific, and Rabbi Yehuda says: It is considered general. And what is the case of a general denial according to Rabbi Meir, where one is liable for only one oath? It is the case where the defendant says, in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讬拽 诪讘专讬讬转讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 诇讱 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree that they explain the opinion of Rabbi Meir differently? The Gemara responds: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita, and Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred his explanation from the mishna. The Gemara explains: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda says that the phrase: And nothing of yours, is considered a specific denial, for which one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, one may conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda understood that Rabbi Meir said that it is considered a general denial, and therefore, Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said to him: No, it is considered a specific denial.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讜诇讗 诇讱 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘诇讗 诇讱 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讜讬讬 诇驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says in response to this inference that the baraita can be explained differently: Both phrases: Nothing of yours, and: And nothing of yours, are deemed specific denials by Rabbi Meir; and Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to: And nothing of yours, I concede to you that it is considered specific. But with regard to: Nothing of yours, I disagree with you and consider it a general denial. And Shmuel would respond: If that is so, then why does Rabbi Yehuda state in the baraita the instance in which he concedes to Rabbi Meir? Instead of conceding, let him disagree and state the instance in which they differ.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讜诇讗 诇讱 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻诇诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讚诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 谞砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬

The Gemara proceeds to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: And Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred his explanation from the mishna as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna associated with unattributed statements in the Mishna, says: If he addressed all of the claimants and said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed a general denial, one may conclude by inference that a denial phrased: And nothing of yours, is deemed specific. As if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Meir also deems: And nothing of yours, to be a general denial, then instead of teaching us that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed general, let him teach us that when one states: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, it is general, and all the more so it would be clear that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is considered general.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 诇讱 讻讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 讘讬讚讬 讚诪讬

And Shmuel says that one may interpret the statement of Rabbi Meir as follows: Anyone who says: And nothing of yours, is considered as though he says in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

转谞谉 诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 转谞讬 诇讗 诇讱

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We learned in the mishna that if the defendant said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim that he falsely denied. Evidently, Rabbi Meir deems: And nothing of yours, to be specific. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: Nothing of yours, nothing of yours, nothing of yours.

转讗 砖诪注 转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 转谞讬 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讗讘讬讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where the claimant says: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your deposit, or pledge, or stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Evidently, by using the conjunction: Or, Rabbi Meir deems the denials specific, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath you do not have a deposit, a pledge, a stolen item, a lost item, in my possession.

转讗 砖诪注 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 转谞讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讻讜住诪讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: In a case where the claimant said: Give me back my wheat, and barley, and spelt that are in your possession, if the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. The mishna is therefore counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Again, emend the language of the mishna and teach: Wheat, barley, spelt, without the conjunction: Or.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讻诇 讛讻讬 砖讘讬砖 转谞讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: But could it be that this tanna errs so much as he teaches the mishna? The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: According to Shmuel, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: There is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk an olive-bulk, and there is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk; both are considered specific formulations.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讬讚讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讻讜住诪转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 转谞讬 讞讟讛 砖注讜专讛 讻讜住诪转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Meir鈥檚 own statement in the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: Even if the defendant says: On my oath I do not have in my possession your grain of wheat, or grain of barley, or grain of spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Clearly, the conjunction: Or, renders the denial specific according to Rabbi Meir, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath I do not have in my possession a grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt of yours.

诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讛 讘讻诇诇 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讛 讘讻诇诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪转 讘讻诇诇 讻讜住诪讬谉

The Gemara explains: What novelty is there in a case where one takes an oath in this manner, that Rabbi Meir says: Even? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Even the singular form for wheat includes much wheat, and the singular form for barley includes much barley, and the singular form for spelt includes much spelt, i.e., although the defendant refers to the grains in the singular, his denial is referring to all wheat, all barley, and all spelt.

转谉 诇讬 驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讜诇诐 诪爪讟专驻转

搂 The mishna teaches: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, etc. If the claimant said: Give me back my wheat and barley, and spelt, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If all of the wheat, barley, and spelt were collectively worth at least one peruta, then even if each type of grain was worth less than one peruta, their total value combines to render him liable.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻专讟讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇诇讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讻诇诇讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling of the mishna. One says that when the mishna teaches that one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, it means that he is liable for the three specific denials of wheat, barley, and spelt, and he must bring three separate offerings; but he is not liable for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, i.e., when he said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. Accordingly, the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan was said with regard to the previous case in the mishna, where the defendant said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. And one says that he is liable also for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, so that the defendant is liable to bring a total of four offerings. Accordingly, even if the grains were worth only one peruta collectively and the defendant is not liable for any of the specific oaths, the defendant remains liable to bring an offering for the general oath according to Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 注砖专讬诐 讛讜讬讬谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚驻专讟讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚讻诇诇讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

The Gemara questions the second opinion: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: If five people claimed from one defendant wheat, barley, and spelt, and the defendant took an oath denying each claim of each claimant, there are then fifteen sin-offerings here that the defendant is liable to bring? And if it is so that the defendant is liable for the general oath as well, there would be a total of twenty sin-offerings that he is liable to bring. The Gemara responds: That tanna calculated the defendant鈥檚 liability for the specific oaths; he did not calculate the defendant鈥檚 liability for the general oaths.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讬诐 讞讟讗讜转 讛讛讬讗 讗驻拽讚讜谉 讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛

The Gemara now questions the first opinion: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a different baraita: There are twenty sin-offerings here? Evidently, Rabbi 岣yya does calculate the general oaths. The Gemara responds: That baraita does not count the general oaths either; rather, it is referring to a different case entirely, where each of the five claimants claimed from the defendant a deposit and a pledge and a stolen item and a lost item.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讜 讞诪砖讛 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 转谉 诇谞讜 驻拽讚讜谉 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讜讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 砖讬砖 诇谞讜 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻拽讚讜谉 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讙讝诇 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讱 诪讛讜 讗讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: In a case where five people were suing another and they said to him: Give us back our deposit, pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant said to one of them: On my oath your deposit, pledge, stolen item, and lost item are not in my possession, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, what is the halakha? Is he liable for only one oath for each of the four claimants to whom he said: And neither are yours, since these are considered general oaths?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Or perhaps he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim made by each claimant.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讬诐 讞讟讗讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚驻专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: There are twenty sin-offerings here that the defendant must bring. The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances of the baraita? If the defendant specified each claim of each of the claimants in his oath, does Rabbi 岣yya come to teach us a number? Obviously, the defendant is liable to bring twenty offerings. Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not specify an oath to each claimant, but he specified it to the first claimant and said: And neither are yours, to each of the remaining claimants? And therefore, conclude from the baraita that such a denial is considered specific.

讗谞住转 讜驻转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讬拽专 拽谞住 讛讜讗 转讜讘注

搂 The mishna teaches that if one accuses another: You raped or you seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce your daughter, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, the defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if it is false oath, and Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from liability for a false oath on a deposit. The reason is that the payment for rape or seduction is a fine, and one does not pay a fine based on his own admission; therefore, he is also exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for having taken a false oath. The Rabbis hold that he is liable since he would have been liable to pay compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from her being raped or seduced, which are monetary claims. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon holds that since the father is primarily claiming the fine and his claim to the other payments is secondary, the defendant is exempt from liability.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讟讬谉 讜讗砖转讻讞 讚讞讟讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚驻讟讜专 讚讻讬 讗砖转讘注 讗讞讟讬谉 讗拽讜砖讟讗 诪砖转讘注

Rava says: To what case is this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon compared? It is compared to a case where a person said to another: Give me back my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession, and the other said to him: On my oath your wheat is not in my possession; and it was then discovered that it was only wheat that he did not have, but he did have the claimant鈥檚 barley and spelt. In that case, the halakha is that he is exempt from liability for an oath on a deposit, as when he took an oath with regard to the wheat, he took a truthful oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘讞讟讬谉 拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讘砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讻诇诇 讜讗砖转讻讞 讞讟讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜住诪讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘

Abaye said to Rava: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the case of the grain, the defendant denies only the other鈥檚 claim of wheat, but he does not deny his claim of barley and spelt. Here, the defendant denies the entire matter, as he claims that he never raped or seduced the man鈥檚 daughter. Rather, this explanation is comparable only to a case where one said to another: Give me back my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession, and the defendant said to him: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession at all, and it was then discovered that it was only wheat that he did not have, but he did have the claimant鈥檚 barley and spelt. In that case, the halakha is that he is liable for an oath on a deposit. This, then, cannot be the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, as he exempts the defendant from liability.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 拽谞住 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讜诇讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讚拽讬抓 讜转讘注 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诪讬讚讬 讚讻讬 诪讜讚讛 讘讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻讟专 讜转讘注 诪讬讚讬 讚讻讬 诪讜讚讛 讘讬讛 诪讬驻讟专

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the statement of Rabban Shimon, the father is claiming only the fine and not the compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from his daughter鈥檚 having been raped or seduced. According to the statement of the Rabbis, he is also claiming payment for humiliation and degradation resulting from her having been raped or seduced. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds: A person does not forgo a claim to something with a fixed value, such as a fine, and claim something whose value is not fixed and requires an appraisal, such as humiliation and degradation resulting from being raped or seduced. And the Rabbis hold that one does not forgo a claim to something that the defendant is not exempt from paying if he admits his guilt, and claim something that the defendant is exempt from paying if he admits his guilt, such as a fine.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: By Torah law, the oath imposed by the judges upon one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for the value of at least two silver ma鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 admission is for the value of at least one peruta. And furthermore, if the admission is not of the same type as the claim, i.e., the defendant admitted to a debt that the claimant did not claim, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath.

讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 讻住祝 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 驻讟讜专 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜驻专讜讟讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘

How so? If the claimant said to the defendant: I have two silver ma鈥檃 in your possession, and the latter responded: You have only one peruta, a coin made from copper, in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath (see 39b). But if the claimant said: I have two silver ma鈥檃 and one peruta in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only one peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 驻讟讜专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 讞讬讬讘

If the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is exempt, as he denies the entire claim. But if the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim.

诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛

If the claimant said: My late father had one hundred dinars in your possession, and I am now claiming them, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as he is like one returning a lost item, since he could have easily denied the entire claim.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 驻讟讜专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna discusses other cases where the defendant denies an entire claim. In a case where one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the latter said to him: Yes, I acknowledge that claim; and the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is exempt. But if he responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, i.e., he denies that a debt ever existed, he is liable to pay, as he already admitted that he owed him the amount.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛讜 诇讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讬转谞讜 讘注讚讬诐

In a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, to which the claimant responded: Give the money to me only in the presence of witnesses, then if the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is liable to pay, as he is required to give it to him in the presence of witnesses, and he cannot prove that he did so.

诇讬讟专讗 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讬讟专讗 讻住祝 驻讟讜专 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讬砖 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讚讬谞专 讻住祝 讜讟专讬住讬转 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜转 讜驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讛讻诇 诪讬谉 诪讟讘注 讗讞转

搂 The mishna resumes discussion of the oath imposed by the court in a case where the defendant admits to a part of a claim. If the claimant said: I have a litra, i.e., a specific weight, of gold in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a litra of silver in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as his admission relates to a different item than that which the claim relates to. But if the claimant said: I have a gold dinar in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a silver dinar, or a tereisit, or a pundeyon, or a peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as they are all of one type; they are all coins. Since the claim concerns money, the difference between the different types of coins is disregarded, as the claim is essentially referring to the monetary value, not to a specific type of coin.

讻讜专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 拽讟谞讬转 驻讟讜专 讻讜专 驻讬专讜转 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 诇转讱 拽讟谞讬转 讞讬讬讘 砖讛拽讟谞讬转 讘讻诇诇 驻讬专讜转

If the claimant said: I have a kor of grain in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is exempt. But if the claimant said: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is liable, as legumes are included in produce.

讟注谞讜 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讘砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘

If one claimed that another owes him wheat, and the defendant admitted to owing him barley, he is exempt; and Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to take an oath. According to Rabban Gamliel, one who admits to a part of the claim is liable to take an oath even if the admission is not of the same type as the claim.

讛讟讜注谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讘拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诪拽爪转 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 诪诪讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讗讚诪讜谉

With regard to one who claims that another owes him jugs of oil, and the latter then admitted that he owes him pitchers, i.e., the jugs themselves, but not the oil, Admon says: Since he admitted to him with regard to a part of the claim, and his admission was of the same type as the claim, i.e., the claim included both containers and oil and he admitted to owing him containers, he must take an oath. And the Rabbis say: The partial admission in this case is not of the same type as the claim, as he completely denied owing him oil. Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon as correct.

讟注谞讜 讻诇讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讜讚讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讻驻专 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘拽专拽注讜转 讜讻驻专 讘讻诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讚讛 讘诪拽爪转 讛拽专拽注讜转 驻讟讜专 讘诪拽爪转 讛讻诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讝讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讬砖讘注 注诇讬讛谉

If one claimed that another owes him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied the claim of land, or conversely, he admitted to owing him land but denied the claim of vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath, as oaths are not taken concerning claims involving land. If he admitted to part of the claim about the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to part of the claim about the vessels, he is liable to take an oath concerning the entire claim, as property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that the oath about the movable property can be extended to require him to take an oath concerning the land as well.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讗讘诇 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜诇讛拽讚砖

One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. And the court does not administer an oath to a minor. But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讘讬注讱 讘讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讛砖诪讬诐

GEMARA: How does the court administer an oath to someone who is liable to take an oath? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The court administers to him the oath stated in the Torah, as it is written in Abraham鈥檚 instruction to his servant: 鈥淎nd I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven鈥 (Genesis 24:3).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 砖诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav鈥檚 statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina bar Idi, who says that when one is liable to take an oath, we require him to take it using the ineffable name of God?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讬谞讜讬 讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 爪专讬讱 诇讗转驻讜砖讬 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛

Rav Ashi said to him: You may even say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is merely required to take an oath using an appellation of God. And the practical ramification of Rav鈥檚 statement is that just as in the aforementioned verse, Abraham said: 鈥淧lease put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear鈥 (Genesis 24:2鈥3), instructing his servant to grasp his circumcised penis, which is considered sacred to some degree, so too, in oaths administered by the court, one must grasp a sacred item in his hand while taking the oath.

讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗砖讘注 讘讛壮 讗诇讛讬 讛砖诪讬诐 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚讗砖讘注 讘转驻诇讬谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讟注讛 讘讚讘专 诪砖谞讛 讜讞讜讝专

And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rava; as Rava said: This judge who administers an oath 鈥渂y the Lord, the God of heaven,鈥 without instructing the litigant to grasp a sacred item, is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter that appears in the Mishna; in which case his ruling is revoked, and the litigant must repeat the oath. And Rav Pappa said: This judge who administers an oath in which the litigant grasps phylacteries, not a Torah scroll, is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter that appears in the Mishna; in which case his ruling is revoked, and the litigant must repeat the oath.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讛讗 谞拽讬讟 讞驻爪讗 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava that if the litigant merely took an oath using the ineffable name of God, he is required to take another oath, as he was not grasping any sacred item in his hand; but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, that if the litigant was grasping phylacteries he is required to take another oath, as he was grasping a sacred item in his hand, even though it was not a Torah scroll.

砖讘讜注讛 诪注讜诪讚 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诪讬讜砖讘 砖讘讜注讛 讘住驻专 转讜专讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘转驻诇讬谉

One takes an oath while standing, but a Torah scholar takes an oath while sitting. One takes an oath grasping a Torah scroll ab initio, but a Torah scholar may take an oath grasping phylacteries ab initio.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗祝 讛讬讗 讘诇砖讜谞讛 谞讗诪专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: An oath imposed by the judges may also be recited in its language, i.e., in any language spoken by the one taking the oath. It is not required that the oath be in Hebrew.

讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注

Before he takes the oath, the judges say to him: Be aware

Scroll To Top