Shevuot 41

ומאן דמתני לה אסיפא הכא הוא דאיכא דררא דממונא אבל התם דליכא דררא דממונא לא

But the one who teaches it in reference to the latter clause maintains that specifically here, in this case, an oath of inducement is administered to the defendant, as he admits that there is a matter of financial association between them; but there, in the case of the first clause, where the defendant maintains that the claim is baseless, and there is no matter of financial association between them, the court does not administer to him an oath of inducement.

מאי איכא בין שבועה דאורייתא לשבועה דרבנן איכא בינייהו מיפך שבועה בדאורייתא לא מפכינן שבועה בדרבנן מפכינן

§ The Gemara asks: Practically speaking, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law, i.e., an oath of inducement? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the transfer of an oath to the other party. In a case where the defendant suggests that instead of taking an oath himself, the claimant should take an oath and collect that which he claims, if the oath is administered by Torah law, we do not transfer the oath to the claimant; the defendant must either take an oath himself or pay. If the oath is administered by rabbinic law, we do transfer the oath.

ולמר בר רב אשי דאמר בדאורייתא נמי מפכינן שבועה מאי איכא בין דאורייתא לדרבנן איכא בינייהו מיחת לנכסיה בדאורייתא נחתינן לנכסיה בדרבנן לא נחתינן לנכסיה

The Gemara asks: And according to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who says that we transfer an oath that is administered by Torah law as well, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether or not the court enters the property of the defendant to collect payment if he refuses to take an oath. With regard to an oath administered by Torah law, we enter his property, and with regard to an oath administered by rabbinic law, we do not enter his property.

ולרבי יוסי דאמר בדרבנן נמי נחתינן לנכסיה

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference according to Rabbi Yosei, who says that even with regard to a debt that is owed by rabbinic law, we enter the property of the debtor to collect the debt?

דתנן מציאת חרש שוטה וקטן יש בהם גזל מפני דרכי שלום רבי יוסי אומר גזל גמור ואמר רב חסדא גזל גמור מדבריהם למאי נפקא מינה להוציאו בדיינין מאי איכא בין דאורייתא לדרבנן

As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 59b): A lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Although these individuals lack halakhic competence and are unable to acquire lost items by Torah law, taking such items from them is considered robbery. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law. Accordingly, what is the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion there? The difference is that according to Rabbi Yosei, if one refuses to return the stolen item, it is appropriated by the judges and returned to the one who found it. The Gemara completes its question: Since according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the court enters one’s property to appropriate even an item that is owed by rabbinic law, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law?

איכא בינייהו שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה בדאורייתא שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה אפכינן ליה שבועה ושמו אאידך בדרבנן תקנתא היא ותקנתא לתקנתא לא עבדינן

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to a case where the one opposing the claimant, the defendant, is suspected with regard to oaths. With regard to an oath administered by Torah law, if the one opposing the claimant is suspected with regard to oaths, we transfer the obligation to take an oath and impose it on the other litigant, i.e., the claimant, who may take an oath and collect that which he claims he is owed. With regard to an oath administered by rabbinic law, the court does not transfer the oath, as transference of an oath is by rabbinic ordinance, and we do not institute one rabbinic ordinance upon another rabbinic ordinance.

ולרבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יוסי דאמרו בדרבנן לא נחתינן לנכסיה מאי עבדינן ליה משמתינן ליה

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, as they say that with regard to an item that is owed by rabbinic law, we do not enter his property to collect the item, what do we do to one who refuses to take an oath of inducement? The Gemara answers: We excommunicate him until he takes an oath.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי האי נקטיה בכובסיה דנשבקיה לגלימיה הוא אלא מאי עבדינן ליה אמר ליה משמתינן ליה עד דמטי זמן נגדיה ונגדינן ליה ושבקינן ליה

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This sanction is no less severe than entering his property and collecting the debt; it is like grabbing him by his testicles [bekhuveseih] until he surrenders his cloak. Rather, what do we do to him? Rav Ashi said to him: We excommunicate him until the time to flog him comes, i.e., for thirty days, and if he still refuses to take an oath or reach a settlement with the claimant, we flog him and then leave him alone.

אמר רב פפא האי מאן דאפיק שטרא על חבריה ואמר ליה שטרא פרוע הוא אמרינן ליה לאו כל כמינך זיל שלים ואם אמר לשתבע לי אמרינן ליה אשתבע ליה

§ Rav Pappa said: With regard to one who produced a promissory note against another in court, and the defendant said to him: The debt in the note is already repaid, but for some reason I did not get the promissory note returned to me when I paid you, we say to the defendant: It is not in your power to deny the debt; go pay. But if the defendant said: Let him take an oath to me that I did not repay him, we say to the claimant: Take an oath to him.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ומה בין זה לפוגם את שטרו

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But what is the difference between this case and the case of one who vitiates his promissory note by acknowledging that he has received partial payment? In the latter case, the Sages instituted that the creditor can collect the remainder of the debt only after taking an oath that he was not repaid more than the amount he admitted receiving. According to Rav Pappa, an oath can be administered to any creditor who produces a promissory note, even if he did not vitiate it.

אמר ליה התם אף על גב דלא טעין איהו טענינן ליה אנן הכא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים ליה ואי טעין ואמר אשתבע לי אמרינן ליה זיל אשתבע ליה ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא לא משבעינן ליה

Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of a creditor who vitiated his promissory note, even if the defendant does not himself make a claim demanding that the creditor take an oath, we, the court, make such a claim on his behalf. Here, in a case where the creditor did not vitiate his promissory note, we say to the defendant: Go pay him the debt, but if the defendant demands an oath, saying: Take an oath to me, we say to the creditor: Go take an oath to him. And if he is a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan], we do not administer an oath to him.

אמר ליה רב יימר לרב אשי צורבא מרבנן משלח גלימא דאינשי אלא לא מזדקקינן ליה לדיניה

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Can a Torah scholar uncloak people? Does his being a Torah scholar give him the right to collect money that the defendant claims he does not owe? Rather, if he is a Torah scholar we do not attend to his case.

מנה לי בידך כו׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי יכול לומר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים

§ The mishna teaches that if the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant initially acknowledged the debt, but when he claimed the money the next day the defendant said that he already repaid him, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if there are no witnesses to the fact that he repaid him, he is liable. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me that the debtor can say to the claimant: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas.

תנן מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן למחר אמר לו תנהו לי נתתיו לך פטור והא הכא כיון דתבעיה בעדים כמאן דאוזפיה בעדים דמי וקתני פטור

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Asi’s statement: We learned in the mishna that in a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the latter said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, if the defendant responded: I gave it to you, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: And here, since the claimant claimed the debt from the defendant in the presence of witnesses, and the latter admitted the debt, he is similar to one who lent him the money in the presence of witnesses, and nevertheless, the mishna teaches that the defendant is exempt.

תיובתא דרב אסי

Evidently, he is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi.

אמר לך רב אסי אנא כי אמרי היכא דמעיקרא אוזפיה בעדים דלא לדידיה הימניה הכא הא הימניה

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rav Asi could have said to you: When I said that the debtor is liable to repay him in the presence of witnesses, it was with regard to a case where the creditor lent the money to him in the presence of witnesses at the outset, as he did not trust him. But here, he trusted him at the outset, as he lent it to him in the absence of witnesses. Therefore, the debtor is not required to repay the debt in the presence of witnesses.

רב יוסף מתני הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי יכול לומר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים

Rav Yosef teaches another version of this discussion, like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter need not repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor said: Repay me only in the presence of witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Rav Yehuda continued: When I said this in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me that the debtor can say to the claimant: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas.

תנן מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן אמר לו אל תתנהו לי אלא בפני עדים למחר אמר לו תנהו לי נתתיו לך חייב מפני שצריך ליתן לו בעדים תיובתא דשמואל

The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that in a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, and the claimant then said to him: 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. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

אמר לך שמואל תנאי היא דתניא בעדים הלויתיך בעדים פרע לי או יתן או יביא ראיה שנתן רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר יכול לומר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If the creditor said to the debtor: I lent the money to you in the presence of witnesses and therefore you must repay me in the presence of witnesses, the debtor must either give him the money or bring proof that he already gave it to him. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that he can say to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they subsequently went overseas.

פריך רב אחא ממאי דבשעת הלואה קאי דלמא בשעת תביעה קאי והכי קאמר ליה לאו בעדים הלויתיך בעדים היה לך לפורעני אבל בשעת הלואה דברי הכל חייב

Rav Aḥa refutes this answer: From where is it derived that the baraita is referring to a case where the creditor said this at the time of the loan? Perhaps it is referring to a case where he made no stipulation at the time of the loan, but rather said this at the time of the claim, when the debtor claimed that he had repaid the debt; and this is what he says to him: Didn’t I lend the money you in the presence of witnesses? You should have repaid me in the presence of witnesses. But if he made this stipulation at the time of the loan, all agree that the debtor is liable. Therefore, there is no evidence that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira agrees with the opinion of Shmuel.

אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא הלכתא המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים ורב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר המלוה את חבירו בעדים אין צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים נאמן

In conclusion, Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor says: Repay me only in the presence of witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And if he said to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas, his claim is deemed credible.

סימן ראובן ושמעון דתנו הלכתא יזפי ופרע פלוני ופלוני עפצי סטראי בהימנותא כבי תרי

§ The Gemara cites several incidents involving loans and witnesses, and provides a mnemonic device for them: Reuven and Shimon, who learned halakha, borrowed, and repaid so-and-so and so-and-so gallnuts for a different debt, deeming them credible like two witnesses.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה כי פרעתין פרעין לי באפי ראובן ושמעון אזל ופרעיה באפי תרי מעלמא אמר אביי באפי בי תרי אמר ליה באפי בי תרי פרעיה אמר ליה רבא להכי קאמר ליה באפי ראובן ושמעון כי היכי דלא נדחייה

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of Reuven and Shimon. The debtor went and repaid him in the presence of two other witnesses from the general public. When the case was brought before the Sages, Abaye said: The creditor said to the debtor to repay him in the presence of two people who would serve as witnesses, and he repaid him in the presence of two people. Therefore, the creditor has no further claim. Rava said to him: It is for this reason that the creditor said to him to repay him in the presence of Reuven and Shimon: So that he will not be able to dismiss him by saying that he repaid him in the presence of other witnesses.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה כי פרעת לי פרעין לי באפי בי תרי דתנו הלכתא אזל פרעיה בין דיליה לדיליה איתניסו הנך זוזי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of two people who have learned halakha. The debtor went and repaid him between the two of them, i.e., in the absence of witnesses. Those dinars were subsequently taken from the creditor due to circumstances beyond his control.

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אין קבולי קבלתינהו מיניה דרך פקדון ואמינא ליהוי גבאי פקדון עד דמתרמו בי תרי דתנו הלכתא ומקיים תנאיה

The creditor came before Rav Naḥman for judgment, and said to him: Yes, I received the money from him; but since he did not repay me as stipulated, I accepted it only as a deposit. I accepted it as an unpaid bailee, not as payment, and said to myself: Let it be with me as a deposit until two people who have learned halakha happen to arrive, and the debtor will fulfill his condition. Since the money was taken from me due to circumstances beyond my control, and I had it in my possession only as an unpaid bailee, I am not responsible for it, and the debtor is still liable to repay me.

אמר ליה כיון דקא מודית דודאי שקלתינהו מיניה פרעון מעליא הוי אי אמרת לקיומי תנאיה זיל אייתינהו דהא אנא ורב ששת דתנינא הלכתא וספרא וספרי ותוספתא וכולא תלמודא

Rav Naḥman said to him: Since you admit that you certainly took the money from him, it is a proper repayment. If you say that the debtor is still required to fulfill his condition, go bring the money now, as Rav Sheshet and I have learned halakha, and Sifra, and Sifrei, and Tosefta, and the entire Talmud. Let him give you the money in our presence, and the condition will thereby be fulfilled. Since he gave you the money intending to repay the debt, and did not agree to entrust it to you as an unpaid bailee, your claim is not valid.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי מאה זוזי דאוזיפתך אמר ליה לא היו דברים מעולם אזל אייתי סהדי דאוזפיה ופרעיה אמר אביי מאי ניעבוד אינהו אמרי אוזפיה אינהו אמרי פרעיה רבא אמר כל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I lent you. The latter said to him: This matter never happened; you did not lend me money. The creditor went and brought witnesses who testified that he lent the money to him and that the debtor had repaid him. Abaye said: What is there for the court to do in this case? The same witnesses said both statements; they said that the creditor lent him the money, and they also said that the debtor repaid him. Rava said: Anyone who says: I did not borrow, is considered like one who says: I did not repay. Since there is testimony that he borrowed the money, and he admits that he did not repay it, he is liable to repay the debt.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי מאה זוזי דמסיקנא בך אמר ליה לא פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני אתו פלוני ופלוני אמרי לא היו דברים מעולם סבר רב ששת למימר הוחזק כפרן אמר ליה רבא כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאינש לאו אדעתיה

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: Didn’t I repay you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so? The two people he mentioned, so-and-so and so-and-so, came and said: This matter never happened. Rav Sheshet thought to say that based on the testimony of the witnesses, the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts; his claim that he repaid the debt is no longer accepted, and he is liable to pay. Rava said to him: Anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind, i.e., he is apt to forget it.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי שית מאה זוזי דמסיקנא בך אמר ליה ולא פרעתיך מאה קבי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the six hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: But didn’t I repay you with one hundred kav