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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 9, 2018 | 讻状讘 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shevuot 42

Various cases are brought where stipulations were made by either the creditor or the debtor and the gemara discusses what happened when the condition wasn’t exactly fulfilled but the loan was returned – who is believed.聽 The gemara tries to resolve the contradiction in the mishna that one can’t swear for a minor and yet it also says that one can swear to a minor.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

注驻爪讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘砖讬转讗 砖讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗转讜 转专讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 拽爪讜转讗 讚转专注讗 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

of gallnuts [aftzei] that were worth six dinars for each kav at the time? The creditor said to him: Weren鈥檛 they worth four dinars for each kav at the time? Two witnesses came and said: Yes, they were worth four dinars per kav. Rava said that the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts. Rami bar 岣ma said: But didn鈥檛 you say that anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind? Perhaps he merely forgot what the price of gallnuts was at the time that he paid. Rava said to him: People remember the standard, set market price.

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 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note attesting to the debt. The latter said to him: I already repaid you. The creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. Rav Na岣an said that the promissory note is undermined by the fact that the creditor admits that he received payment equal to the amount specified in the note, and his claim that there was an additional debt is unsubstantiated. Rav Pappa said that the promissory note is not undermined.

讜诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 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 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗转讜专讬 讬讛讘转 诇讬 讜讗转讬转 讜讗讬转讬讘转 讗诪住讞转讗 讜拽讘讬诇转 讝讜讝讱 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Pappa, in what way is this case different from the incident where a certain person said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note. The latter said to him: Didn鈥檛 you give me that money as an investment to be used for buying oxen to be slaughtered? And you came and sat in the slaughterhouse and received your money, including your share of the profits, from the sale of the slaughtered oxen. And the creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. And Rav Pappa said that in that case the promissory note is undermined.

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 讗转讜专讬 讬讛讘转 诇讬 讜诪转讜专讬 砖拽诇转 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讜专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, since the debtor said: You gave me the money for oxen and you took payment from oxen, and the creditor admitted that this had happened, the promissory note is undermined because there is no support for his claim that there was another debt in addition to the acknowledged transaction for the oxen. Here, say that the payment was in fact for a different debt.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Pappi said: The promissory note is not undermined, and Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The promissory note is undermined. And the halakha is that the promissory note is undermined.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讚讻专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讘诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讻讚讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜

And this statement applies in a case where he repaid him in the presence of witnesses and did not mention the promissory note to the creditor; but in a case where he repaid him privately, between the two of them, in the absence of witnesses, since [miggo] the creditor can say to him: This matter never happened, i.e., he could deny that he received any payment, he can also say that this money was for a different debt. And this is like the case involving Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, who repaid a debt in the absence of witnesses, and the creditor then claimed that the payment was for another debt (see Ketubot 85a).

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讛讬 讚讛讬诪谞讬讛 讟驻讬 诪谞驻砖讬讛 讟驻讬 诪住讛讚讬 诪讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible whenever you say to me that I did not repay the debt. He then went and repaid the debt in the presence of witnesses, and the creditor later denied that he had been repaid. Abaye and Rava both say that the witnesses are not deemed credible and the creditor can collect payment, as the debtor deemed him credible at the outset. Rav Pappa objects to this and says: Although he deemed him more credible than himself concerning the possibility that the debtor would claim that he repaid the debt and the creditor would deny having been repaid, did he deem him more credible than witnesses? Therefore, he is exempt.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻讘讬 转专讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘讬 转专讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay the debt. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny the testimony of three witnesses, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘 讚注讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讚讻诪讛 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讘拽讬讗讬 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜转专讬 讻诪讗讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Say that although the Sages say that we follow the majority of opinions, and the opinion of three people is therefore accepted against the opinion of two, this statement applies with regard to assessing value, as the more people there are, the more knowledgeable they are. But with regard to testimony, one hundred witnesses are like two, and two are like one hundred. Therefore, in this case there is no distinction between two witnesses and three witnesses.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻讘讬 转专讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 讜驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘讬 转专讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara presents another version of the incident: A certain person said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny their testimony, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 转专讬 讻诪讗讛 讜诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 讗专讘注讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇讚注讜转 谞讞讬转 诇讚注讜转

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this: Two witnesses are like one hundred, and one hundred are like two. But if the debtor said to the creditor that he deems him credible like three witnesses, and then went and repaid him in the presence of four, then once he entered, by mentioning a larger number than what is necessary for testimony, the realm of opinions, in which three people carry greater weight than two, he has entered the realm of opinions, and four witnesses are deemed more credible than three. Therefore, the creditor is not deemed credible against them.

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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪讜专 讜讗讬谉 谞转讬谞转 拽讟谉 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers that in the passage from which the halakhot of admission to part of a claim are derived, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The word 鈥渕an鈥 indicates that the reference is only to adults, and delivery by a minor is nothing, i.e., it is not recognized as a halakhically significant act, as a minor is not halakhically competent.

讗讘诇 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜诇讛拽讚砖 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

搂 The mishna teaches: But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor?

讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讗 讘讟注谞转 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讝讛讜 砖谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻讟讜专

Rav said: The halakha that one takes an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is with regard to one who comes to court with a claim for a debt owed to his late father, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: There are times when although no one claimed of a person that he owes money, that person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one said to another: Your father had one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half; and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is only like one returning a lost item, as the son did not claim the money at all, and is exempt from taking an oath.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讟注谞讜 拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: But is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost item is exempt from taking an oath attesting to the fact that he did not take anything from it? Rav said: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor advanced a claim against him. The creditor鈥檚 minor son claimed that the debtor did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The debtor鈥檚 partial admission came in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not comparable to the act of returning a lost item.

拽讟谉 讜讛讗诪专转 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 诇注讜诇诐 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 拽讟谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita be referring to the claim of a minor? But didn鈥檛 you say in the mishna that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to an adult son; and why did Rav call him a minor? It was due to the fact that with regard to his father鈥檚 matters, one is like a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father鈥檚 dealings. Here, too, Rav explains that the halakha in the mishna that one takes an oath to a minor is referring to an adult claiming a debt owed to his late father.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: If so, if the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna describe the individual as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language because although it is the claim of others, he is taking an oath on the basis of that claim and his own partial admission.

讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges: All other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are also cases of a claim of others and his own admission. Yet in the baraita Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.

讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讘注讬 讚诇讬讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who did him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact, i.e., that he does not deny all of it, is because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor.

讜讘讻讜诇讬讛 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讚讛讜讬 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

Rabba continues: And in order not to exhibit insolence, he wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt; and this fact, i.e., that he did not admit the entire debt to him, is because he may be temporarily avoiding paying him. He rationalizes doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only until the time that I have enough money, and then I will repay him. And therefore, the Merciful One says in the Torah: Impose an oath on him in order to induce the debtor to admit the entire debt to him.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬 讘谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜诪讚诇讗 诪注讬讝 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗

With regard to this principle, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains: It is no different with regard to the creditor himself, and it is no different with regard to his son; the debtor would not exhibit insolence and deny the debt. And therefore, he is not deemed as one returning a lost item on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of the original creditor that one would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son, who did not lend him the money, he would exhibit insolence and deny the claim entirely. And since this debtor is not exhibiting insolence, as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, he is deemed as one returning a lost item, and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.

诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Can you interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the former clause that if the claimant said: My late father had one hundred dinars in your possession, 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? The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a case where the claimant did not say: I am certain that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. Here, by contrast, it is a case where he said: I am certain that you owe him.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇拽讟谉 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 诇讛拽讚砖 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讛拽讚砖

Returning to the Gemara鈥檚 question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, Shmuel said a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath to a minor, it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order to collect from the minor鈥檚 property. Similarly, if one鈥檚 debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath to a representative of the Temple treasury in order to collect from the consecrated property.

诇拽讟谉 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara challenges: The halakha that one takes an oath to a minor in order to collect from a minor鈥檚 property is one that we learn in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I need two mishnayot to teach this halakha?

讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谉 诇讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara answers: By mentioning this halakha twice, the Mishna teaches us this: The halakha applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, in accordance with the statement of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught: The orphans of which the Sages spoke are adult orphans, and needless to say, the same halakha also applies to minor orphans. This principle applies with regard to both the halakha that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of an oath, and to the halakha that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from inferior-quality land.

诇讛拽讚砖 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讛拽讚砖 转谞讬谞讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讙讘讜讛

With regard to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath to a representative of the Temple treasury in order to collect a debt from consecrated property, the Gemara asks: We learn this halakha in the mishna (45a): From liened property that has been sold one collects a debt only by means of an oath. And what difference is it to me whether the property was liened to an ordinary person, and what difference is it to me whether the property was liened to the Most High, i.e., it was consecrated?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this halakha to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might enter your mind to say that it is specifically in order to collect a debt from an ordinary person that one is required to take an oath, as a person is liable to collude with another against an ordinary person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. But one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, as a person does not collude with another against the Temple treasury. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛拽讚讬砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 谞讗诪谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讘专讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that in the case of a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, his statement is deemed credible, as the presumption is that a person does not collude with another against the Temple treasury? The Sages said in response: That statement applies only in the case of a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned about collusion, even against the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐

MISHNA: And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath by Torah law: Canaanite slaves, and financial documents, and land, and consecrated property. In a case where these items are stolen, there is no payment of double the principal, nor is there payment of four or five times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. An unpaid bailee who lost one of these items does not take an oath that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and a paid bailee does not pay for the loss or theft of one of these items.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rabbi Shimon says there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to consecrated property for which one bears the financial responsibility to compensate the Temple treasury in the event of their loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, one takes an oath concerning them, as they are considered his own property. But with regard to consecrated property for which he does not bear the financial responsibility for their loss, one does not take an oath concerning them.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讘拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖专 讙驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谞讜转 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

Rabbi Meir says: There are certain items that are physically on the land but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective, and the Rabbis do not concede to him concerning this point. How so? If one makes the claim: I assigned you ten grapevines laden with fruit to safeguard, and the other one says: They are only five vines, Rabbi Meir deems the defendant liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讬转 诪诇讗 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讛谞讞转 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 驻讟讜专 讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讝讬讝 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讞讬讬讘

One takes an oath only concerning an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number. How so? If the claimant says: I transferred to you a house full of produce, or: I transferred to you a pouch full of money, and the other person says: I do not know how much you gave me, but what you left in my possession you may take, and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if this party says that the house was full up to the ledge, and that party says that it was full up to the window, the defendant is liable to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount.

讙诪壮 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讻诇诇 注诇 砖讜专 讜注诇 讞诪讜专 讜注诇 砖讛 讜注诇 砖诇诪讛 驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

GEMARA: From where do we derive that one is exempt from the payment of double the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing鈥e shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase 鈥渇or every matter of trespass鈥 is a generalization; the phrase 鈥渨hether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing鈥 is a detail; and when the verse states: 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing,鈥 it then generalized again.

讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉

Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Applying this principle here, one may conclude that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value is subject to double payment.

讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

Land is therefore excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are also excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淗e shall pay double to his neighbor,鈥 i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.

讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛

The mishna teaches: And there is no payment of double the principal, nor is there payment of four or five times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since the Merciful One states in the Torah fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment, one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.

砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee who lost one of the excluded items does not take an oath. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 42

注驻爪讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘砖讬转讗 砖讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗转讜 转专讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞讬砖 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 拽爪讜转讗 讚转专注讗 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

of gallnuts [aftzei] that were worth six dinars for each kav at the time? The creditor said to him: Weren鈥檛 they worth four dinars for each kav at the time? Two witnesses came and said: Yes, they were worth four dinars per kav. Rava said that the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts. Rami bar 岣ma said: But didn鈥檛 you say that anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind? Perhaps he merely forgot what the price of gallnuts was at the time that he paid. Rava said to him: People remember the standard, set market price.

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 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note attesting to the debt. The latter said to him: I already repaid you. The creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. Rav Na岣an said that the promissory note is undermined by the fact that the creditor admits that he received payment equal to the amount specified in the note, and his claim that there was an additional debt is unsubstantiated. Rav Pappa said that the promissory note is not undermined.

讜诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 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 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗转讜专讬 讬讛讘转 诇讬 讜讗转讬转 讜讗讬转讬讘转 讗诪住讞转讗 讜拽讘讬诇转 讝讜讝讱 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Pappa, in what way is this case different from the incident where a certain person said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note. The latter said to him: Didn鈥檛 you give me that money as an investment to be used for buying oxen to be slaughtered? And you came and sat in the slaughterhouse and received your money, including your share of the profits, from the sale of the slaughtered oxen. And the creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. And Rav Pappa said that in that case the promissory note is undermined.

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 讗转讜专讬 讬讛讘转 诇讬 讜诪转讜专讬 砖拽诇转 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讜专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, since the debtor said: You gave me the money for oxen and you took payment from oxen, and the creditor admitted that this had happened, the promissory note is undermined because there is no support for his claim that there was another debt in addition to the acknowledged transaction for the oxen. Here, say that the payment was in fact for a different debt.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转专注 砖讟专讗

What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Pappi said: The promissory note is not undermined, and Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The promissory note is undermined. And the halakha is that the promissory note is undermined.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讚讻专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讘诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪专 住讬讟专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讻讚讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜

And this statement applies in a case where he repaid him in the presence of witnesses and did not mention the promissory note to the creditor; but in a case where he repaid him privately, between the two of them, in the absence of witnesses, since [miggo] the creditor can say to him: This matter never happened, i.e., he could deny that he received any payment, he can also say that this money was for a different debt. And this is like the case involving Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, who repaid a debt in the absence of witnesses, and the creditor then claimed that the payment was for another debt (see Ketubot 85a).

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 住讛讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讛讬 讚讛讬诪谞讬讛 讟驻讬 诪谞驻砖讬讛 讟驻讬 诪住讛讚讬 诪讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible whenever you say to me that I did not repay the debt. He then went and repaid the debt in the presence of witnesses, and the creditor later denied that he had been repaid. Abaye and Rava both say that the witnesses are not deemed credible and the creditor can collect payment, as the debtor deemed him credible at the outset. Rav Pappa objects to this and says: Although he deemed him more credible than himself concerning the possibility that the debtor would claim that he repaid the debt and the creditor would deny having been repaid, did he deem him more credible than witnesses? Therefore, he is exempt.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻讘讬 转专讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘讬 转专讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay the debt. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny the testimony of three witnesses, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘 讚注讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讚讻诪讛 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讘拽讬讗讬 讟驻讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜转专讬 讻诪讗讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Say that although the Sages say that we follow the majority of opinions, and the opinion of three people is therefore accepted against the opinion of two, this statement applies with regard to assessing value, as the more people there are, the more knowledgeable they are. But with regard to testimony, one hundred witnesses are like two, and two are like one hundred. Therefore, in this case there is no distinction between two witnesses and three witnesses.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讛讬诪谞转 诇讬 讻讘讬 转专讬 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 讗讝诇 讜驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转诇转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讘讬 转专讬 讛讬诪谞讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讬讛

The Gemara presents another version of the incident: A certain person said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny their testimony, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 转专讬 讻诪讗讛 讜诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 驻专注讬讛 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 讗专讘注讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇讚注讜转 谞讞讬转 诇讚注讜转

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this: Two witnesses are like one hundred, and one hundred are like two. But if the debtor said to the creditor that he deems him credible like three witnesses, and then went and repaid him in the presence of four, then once he entered, by mentioning a larger number than what is necessary for testimony, the realm of opinions, in which three people carry greater weight than two, he has entered the realm of opinions, and four witnesses are deemed more credible than three. Therefore, the creditor is not deemed credible against them.

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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪讜专 讜讗讬谉 谞转讬谞转 拽讟谉 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers that in the passage from which the halakhot of admission to part of a claim are derived, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard鈥 (Exodus 22:6). The word 鈥渕an鈥 indicates that the reference is only to adults, and delivery by a minor is nothing, i.e., it is not recognized as a halakhically significant act, as a minor is not halakhically competent.

讗讘诇 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜诇讛拽讚砖 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

搂 The mishna teaches: But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor?

讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讗 讘讟注谞转 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讝讛讜 砖谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻讟讜专

Rav said: The halakha that one takes an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is with regard to one who comes to court with a claim for a debt owed to his late father, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: There are times when although no one claimed of a person that he owes money, that person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one said to another: Your father had one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half; and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is only like one returning a lost item, as the son did not claim the money at all, and is exempt from taking an oath.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讟注谞讜 拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: But is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost item is exempt from taking an oath attesting to the fact that he did not take anything from it? Rav said: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor advanced a claim against him. The creditor鈥檚 minor son claimed that the debtor did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The debtor鈥檚 partial admission came in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not comparable to the act of returning a lost item.

拽讟谉 讜讛讗诪专转 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 诇注讜诇诐 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 拽讟谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita be referring to the claim of a minor? But didn鈥檛 you say in the mishna that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to an adult son; and why did Rav call him a minor? It was due to the fact that with regard to his father鈥檚 matters, one is like a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father鈥檚 dealings. Here, too, Rav explains that the halakha in the mishna that one takes an oath to a minor is referring to an adult claiming a debt owed to his late father.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: If so, if the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna describe the individual as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language because although it is the claim of others, he is taking an oath on the basis of that claim and his own partial admission.

讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges: All other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are also cases of a claim of others and his own admission. Yet in the baraita Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.

讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讘注讬 讚诇讬讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what reason did the Torah say that one who admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person does not exhibit insolence by lying in the presence of his creditor, who did him a favor by lending money to him. And this person who denies part of the claim actually wants to deny all of the debt, so as to be exempt, and this fact, i.e., that he does not deny all of it, is because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor.

讜讘讻讜诇讬讛 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪砖转诪讬讟 诪讬谞讬讛 住讘专 注讚 讚讛讜讬 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

Rabba continues: And in order not to exhibit insolence, he wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt; and this fact, i.e., that he did not admit the entire debt to him, is because he may be temporarily avoiding paying him. He rationalizes doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only until the time that I have enough money, and then I will repay him. And therefore, the Merciful One says in the Torah: Impose an oath on him in order to induce the debtor to admit the entire debt to him.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬 讘谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜诪讚诇讗 诪注讬讝 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗

With regard to this principle, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains: It is no different with regard to the creditor himself, and it is no different with regard to his son; the debtor would not exhibit insolence and deny the debt. And therefore, he is not deemed as one returning a lost item on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of the original creditor that one would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son, who did not lend him the money, he would exhibit insolence and deny the claim entirely. And since this debtor is not exhibiting insolence, as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, he is deemed as one returning a lost item, and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.

诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Can you interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the former clause that if the claimant said: My late father had one hundred dinars in your possession, 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? The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a case where the claimant did not say: I am certain that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. Here, by contrast, it is a case where he said: I am certain that you owe him.

砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇拽讟谉 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 诇讛拽讚砖 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讛拽讚砖

Returning to the Gemara鈥檚 question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, Shmuel said a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath to a minor, it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order to collect from the minor鈥檚 property. Similarly, if one鈥檚 debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath to a representative of the Temple treasury in order to collect from the consecrated property.

诇拽讟谉 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 转谞讬谞讗 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara challenges: The halakha that one takes an oath to a minor in order to collect from a minor鈥檚 property is one that we learn in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I need two mishnayot to teach this halakha?

讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谉 诇讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara answers: By mentioning this halakha twice, the Mishna teaches us this: The halakha applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, in accordance with the statement of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught: The orphans of which the Sages spoke are adult orphans, and needless to say, the same halakha also applies to minor orphans. This principle applies with regard to both the halakha that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of an oath, and to the halakha that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from inferior-quality land.

诇讛拽讚砖 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讛拽讚砖 转谞讬谞讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诇讙讘讜讛

With regard to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath to a representative of the Temple treasury in order to collect a debt from consecrated property, the Gemara asks: We learn this halakha in the mishna (45a): From liened property that has been sold one collects a debt only by means of an oath. And what difference is it to me whether the property was liened to an ordinary person, and what difference is it to me whether the property was liened to the Most High, i.e., it was consecrated?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this halakha to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might enter your mind to say that it is specifically in order to collect a debt from an ordinary person that one is required to take an oath, as a person is liable to collude with another against an ordinary person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. But one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, as a person does not collude with another against the Temple treasury. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛拽讚讬砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 谞讗诪谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讘专讬讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that in the case of a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, his statement is deemed credible, as the presumption is that a person does not collude with another against the Temple treasury? The Sages said in response: That statement applies only in the case of a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned about collusion, even against the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐

MISHNA: And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath by Torah law: Canaanite slaves, and financial documents, and land, and consecrated property. In a case where these items are stolen, there is no payment of double the principal, nor is there payment of four or five times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. An unpaid bailee who lost one of these items does not take an oath that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and a paid bailee does not pay for the loss or theft of one of these items.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rabbi Shimon says there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to consecrated property for which one bears the financial responsibility to compensate the Temple treasury in the event of their loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, one takes an oath concerning them, as they are considered his own property. But with regard to consecrated property for which he does not bear the financial responsibility for their loss, one does not take an oath concerning them.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谉 讘拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖专 讙驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谞讜转 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

Rabbi Meir says: There are certain items that are physically on the land but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective, and the Rabbis do not concede to him concerning this point. How so? If one makes the claim: I assigned you ten grapevines laden with fruit to safeguard, and the other one says: They are only five vines, Rabbi Meir deems the defendant liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath.

讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讬转 诪诇讗 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讛谞讞转 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 驻讟讜专 讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讝讬讝 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讞讬讬讘

One takes an oath only concerning an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number. How so? If the claimant says: I transferred to you a house full of produce, or: I transferred to you a pouch full of money, and the other person says: I do not know how much you gave me, but what you left in my possession you may take, and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if this party says that the house was full up to the ledge, and that party says that it was full up to the window, the defendant is liable to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount.

讙诪壮 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讻诇诇 注诇 砖讜专 讜注诇 讞诪讜专 讜注诇 砖讛 讜注诇 砖诇诪讛 驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇

GEMARA: From where do we derive that one is exempt from the payment of double the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing鈥e shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase 鈥渇or every matter of trespass鈥 is a generalization; the phrase 鈥渨hether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing鈥 is a detail; and when the verse states: 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing,鈥 it then generalized again.

讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉

Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Applying this principle here, one may conclude that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value is subject to double payment.

讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘

Land is therefore excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are also excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse: 鈥淗e shall pay double to his neighbor,鈥 i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.

讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛

The mishna teaches: And there is no payment of double the principal, nor is there payment of four or five times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since the Merciful One states in the Torah fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment, one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.

砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee who lost one of the excluded items does not take an oath. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top