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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 8, 2018 | 讻状讗 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 41

Even though the Torah doesn’t demand one take an oath if one entirely denies a claim against him/her, the rabbis obligated one to take an oath (shvuat heset). The gemara聽tries to figure out the difference between an oath that the Torah demands and one that the rabbis instituted. In what cases can a creditor insist that the debtor return the money in front of witnesses and if one did not, then one’s claim that the money was already paid back is ignored completely. Two different versions of Rav Asi are brought as well as two different versions of Shmuel’s opinion are brought. Their opinions are questioned in light of our mishna and explained.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇砖讘讜注讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬驻讱 砖讘讜注讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪驻讻讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪驻讻讬谞谉

搂 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.

讜诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪驻讻讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讚专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讞转 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛

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.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛

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?

讚转谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讚专讘谞谉

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 岣sda 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗驻讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜砖诪讜 讗讗讬讚讱 讘讚专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讛讬讗 讜转拽谞转讗 诇转拽谞转讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉

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.

讜诇专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讟讬讛 讘讻讜讘住讬讛 讚谞砖讘拽讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讝诪谉 谞讙讚讬讛 讜谞讙讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜砖讘拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗驻讬拽 砖讟专讗 注诇 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 驻专讜注 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇砖转讘注 诇讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇驻讜讙诐 讗转 砖讟专讜

Rav A岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟注讬谉 讗讬讛讜 讟注谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 讗砖转讘注 诇讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪砖讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪砖诇讞 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 诪讝讚拽拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛

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.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

搂 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.

转谞谉 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 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转讘注讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Asi鈥檚 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.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讗谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讝驻讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讚诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转驻专注谞讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

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.

转谞谉 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 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 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘注讚讬诐 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 讘注讚讬诐 驻专注 诇讬 讗讜 讬转谉 讗讜 讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗讛 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘砖注转 转讘讬注讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘注讚讬诐 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 讘注讚讬诐 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇驻讜专注谞讬 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转驻专注谞讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞讗诪谉

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.

住讬诪谉 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讬讝驻讬 讜驻专注 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注驻爪讬 住讟专讗讬 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讗 讻讘讬 转专讬

搂 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻讬 驻专注转讬谉 驻专注讬谉 诇讬 讘讗驻讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讗讝诇 讜驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 驻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讚讞讬讬讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻讬 驻专注转 诇讬 驻专注讬谉 诇讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛 诇讚讬诇讬讛 讗讬转谞讬住讜 讛谞讱 讝讜讝讬

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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讱 驻拽讚讜谉 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讘讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 注讚 讚诪转专诪讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讜诪拽讬讬诐 转谞讗讬讛

The creditor came before Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讬转 讚讜讚讗讬 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 驻专注讜谉 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讬讜诪讬 转谞讗讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讚讛讗 讗谞讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 讚转谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讜住驻专讗 讜住驻专讬 讜转讜住驻转讗 讜讻讜诇讗 转诇诪讜讚讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讜讝讬驻转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讜驻专注讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬注讘讜讚 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 讗讜讝驻讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 驻专注讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 住讘专 专讘 砖砖转 诇诪讬诪专 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞砖 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 驻专注转讬讱 诪讗讛 拽讘讬

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鈥檛 I repay you with one hundred kav

  • 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 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 41

讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专专讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗

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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇砖讘讜注讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬驻讱 砖讘讜注讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪驻讻讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪驻讻讬谞谉

搂 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.

讜诇诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诪驻讻讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讚专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讞转 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛

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.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛

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?

讚转谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讚专讘谞谉

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 岣sda 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗驻讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜砖诪讜 讗讗讬讚讱 讘讚专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 讛讬讗 讜转拽谞转讗 诇转拽谞转讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉

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.

讜诇专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讟讬讛 讘讻讜讘住讬讛 讚谞砖讘拽讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讝诪谉 谞讙讚讬讛 讜谞讙讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜砖讘拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗驻讬拽 砖讟专讗 注诇 讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 驻专讜注 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇砖转讘注 诇讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇驻讜讙诐 讗转 砖讟专讜

Rav A岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟注讬谉 讗讬讛讜 讟注谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讟注讬谉 讜讗诪专 讗砖转讘注 诇讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗砖转讘注 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪砖讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪砖诇讞 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 诪讝讚拽拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛

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.

诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

搂 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.

转谞谉 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 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转讘注讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Asi鈥檚 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.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讗谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讝驻讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讚诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转驻专注谞讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

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.

转谞谉 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转转谞讛讜 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 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 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘注讚讬诐 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 讘注讚讬诐 驻专注 诇讬 讗讜 讬转谉 讗讜 讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗讛 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘砖注转 转讘讬注讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘注讚讬诐 讛诇讜讬转讬讱 讘注讚讬诐 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇驻讜专注谞讬 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘

Rav A岣 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗诇 转驻专注谞讬 讗诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞讗诪谉

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.

住讬诪谉 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讬讝驻讬 讜驻专注 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注驻爪讬 住讟专讗讬 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讗 讻讘讬 转专讬

搂 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻讬 驻专注转讬谉 驻专注讬谉 诇讬 讘讗驻讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讗讝诇 讜驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 驻专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讚讞讬讬讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻讬 驻专注转 诇讬 驻专注讬谉 诇讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛 诇讚讬诇讬讛 讗讬转谞讬住讜 讛谞讱 讝讜讝讬

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.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 拽讘讜诇讬 拽讘诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讱 驻拽讚讜谉 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讘讗讬 驻拽讚讜谉 注讚 讚诪转专诪讜 讘讬 转专讬 讚转谞讜 讛诇讻转讗 讜诪拽讬讬诐 转谞讗讬讛

The creditor came before Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讬转 讚讜讚讗讬 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 驻专注讜谉 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讬讜诪讬 转谞讗讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 讚讛讗 讗谞讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 讚转谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讜住驻专讗 讜住驻专讬 讜转讜住驻转讗 讜讻讜诇讗 转诇诪讜讚讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讜讝讬驻转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讜讝驻讬讛 讜驻专注讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬注讘讜讚 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 讗讜讝驻讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 驻专注讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讜讬转讬 讻讗讜诪专 诇讗 驻专注转讬 讚诪讬

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 住讘专 专讘 砖砖转 诇诪讬诪专 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞砖 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 驻专注转讬讱 诪讗讛 拽讘讬

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鈥檛 I repay you with one hundred kav

Scroll To Top