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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 12, 2018 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shevuot 45

The mishna聽continues its list of cases where oaths were instituted by the rabbis. The gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn’t get paid. However this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn’t passed yet – once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can swear only if there were witnesses that saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a “migo.” Rava disagrees with this.


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

讗讞转 砖讘讜注转 讛注讚讜转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讜注转 砖讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讜诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜住讜讞专讬 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讻谞讙讚讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

One is considered suspect with regard to oaths if he has been found to have taken a false oath, whether it was an oath of testimony, or whether it was an oath on a deposit, or even an oath taken in vain, which is a less severe prohibition. There are also categories of people who by rabbinic decree are considered suspect with regard to oaths: If one of the litigants was a dice player, or one who lends with interest, or among those who fly pigeons, or among the vendors of produce of the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞砖讜讚讬谉 讞讝专讛 讛砖讘讜注讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜

If both litigants were suspect, the oath returned to its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, and will be explained in the Gemara. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount.

讜讛讞谞讜谞讬 注诇 驻谞拽住讜 讻讬爪讚 诇讗 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻转讜讘 注诇 驻谞拽住讬 砖讗转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讘谞讬 住讗转讬诐 讞讟讬谉 转谉 诇驻讜注诇讬 住诇注 诪注讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讟诇谞讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讛谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

And how does this halakha apply to the storekeeper relying on his ledger? This ruling is not referring to the case where a storekeeper says to a customer: It is written in my ledger that you owe me two hundred dinars. Rather, it is referring to a case where a customer says to a storekeeper: Give my son two se鈥檃 of wheat, or: Give my laborers a sela in small coins. And later the storekeeper says: I gave it to them; but they say: We did not receive it. In such a case, where the father or employer admits that he gave those instructions and it is also recorded in the storekeeper鈥檚 ledger, the storekeeper takes an oath that he gave the son the wheat or paid the laborers, and he receives compensation from the father or employer; and the laborers take an oath that they were not paid and receive their wages from the employer.

讗诪专 讘谉 谞谞住 讻讬爪讚 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 砖讘讜注转 砖讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Ben Nannas said: How is it that both these and those come to take an oath in vain? One of them is certainly lying. Rather, the storekeeper receives his compensation without taking an oath, and the laborers receive their wages without taking an oath.

讗诪专 诇讞谞讜谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 驻讬专讜转 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗讜转讜 讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讜谞转转讜 讘讗讜谞驻诇讬 讬砖讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬诐 诇讱 讜讛讜诇讻转讬诐 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讱 讬砖讘注 讞谞讜谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

搂 If one said to a storekeeper: Give me produce valued at a dinar, and he gave him the produce. And later the storekeeper said to him: Give me that dinar you owe me, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet [be鈥檜npali], the customer shall take an oath that he gave him the dinar. If, after he gave the storekeeper the money, the customer said to him: Give me the produce, and the storekeeper said to him: I gave it to you and you transported it to your house, the storekeeper shall take an oath that he has already filled the order, and he is exempt from supplying the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: Whoever has the produce in his possession has the advantage, and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 诪注讜转 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬 诇讱 讜谞转转讜 讘讗讜谞驻诇讬 讬砖讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛诪注讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬诐 诇讱 讜讛砖诇讻转 诇转讜讱 讻讬住讱 讬砖讘注 砖讜诇讞谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讜诇讞谞讬 诇讬转谉 讗讬住专 注讚 砖讬讟讜诇 讚讬谞专

Similarly, if one said to a money changer: Give me small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently the money changer said to him: Give me the dinar, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet; the customer shall take an oath that he paid. If the customer gave the money changer the dinar, and then said to him: Give me the coins, and the money changer said to him: I gave them to you and you cast them into your purse, the money changer shall take an oath. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not a money changer鈥檚 way to give even an issar until he receives a dinar. Therefore, the fact that the customer received the coins indicates that the money changer already received his payment.

讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讛驻讜讙诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 诪注讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 驻专讜注讛 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 These cases of taking an oath are just like other cases where the Sages said that one takes an oath and receives payment. The mishna (see Ketubot 87a) teaches: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract by acknowledging receipt of partial payment may collect the remainder only by taking an oath; or if one witness testifies that her marriage contract has been paid, she may collect it only by taking an oath. She may collect it from liened property that has been sold to a third party, or from the property of orphans, only by taking an oath, and a woman who collects it from her husband鈥檚 property when not in his presence may collect it only by taking an oath. And likewise, orphans may collect a loan with a promissory note inherited from their father only by taking an oath.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讜 讗讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 砖砖讟专 讝讛 驻专讜注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜诇讚 讛讘谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专 讛讗讘 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 砖讟专 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 驻专讜注 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Orphans who wish to collect payment of money owed to their father must take the following oath: On our oath our father did not direct us on his deathbed not to collect with this promissory note, and our father did not say to us that this note was paid, and we did not find among our father鈥檚 documents a record showing that this promissory note was paid. After taking that oath, they may collect the money. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even if the son was born after the father鈥檚 death, he needs to take an oath in order to receive the money owed to his father. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death: This promissory note has not been paid, the son collects the debt without having to take an oath.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟注谞讛 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讜讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬谉 讜讛讗砖讛 讛谞讜砖讗转 讜讛谞讜转谞转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讘谉 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讗转讛 讟讜注谞讬谞讬 专爪讜谞讬 砖转砖讘注 诇讬 讞讬讬讘

And these people are sometimes required to take an oath that they do not owe anything even when there is no explicit claim against them: Partners, sharecroppers, stewards [apotropin], a woman who does business from home, where she manages the property of orphans, and the member of the household appointed to manage the household鈥檚 affairs. For example, in a case where one of these people said to one of the people whose property he or she manages: What is your claim against me? If the other replied: It is simply my wish that you take an oath to me that you have not taken anything of mine, the former is liable to take that oath.

讞诇拽讜 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讜 谞转讙诇讙诇 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讗转 讛砖讘讜注讛

Once the partners or the sharecroppers have divided the common property, each taking his share, then one side may not require an oath of the other absent a definite claim. But if an oath was imposed upon him due to some other situation, that oath can be extended to impose upon him any other oath, i.e., it can be extended to apply to any other of their disputes. The mishna adds: And the Sabbatical Year abrogates the obligation to take an oath about a debt, just like it abrogates a debt.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 讘注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐 诪讬 砖注诇讬讜 诇砖诇诐 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All those who take an oath that is legislated by the Torah take an oath and do not pay. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that oaths mandated by Torah law serve only to exempt one from payment? We derive it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not put his hand on his neighbor鈥檚 goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution鈥 (Exodus 22:10). According to the verse, with regard to he who would otherwise need to pay, it is on him that the obligation to take the oath is imposed.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讻讬专 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讛诇讻讜转 讛谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 转拽谞讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And these litigants take an oath and receive possession of the disputed funds or property, and it lists a hired worker in that category. The Gemara asks: What is different about a hired worker that the Sages instituted for him that he take an oath and receive his wages? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Great halakhot were taught here. The Gemara asks: Halakhot? Are these oaths actually halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is usually indicated by the use of the term halakhot? They are instituted by rabbinic law. Rather, say: Great ordinances were taught here.

讙讚讜诇讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讜转

The Gemara asks: Since these ordinances are called great, can one conclude by inference that there are also minor ordinances? Are there rabbinic ordinances that are less important?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 注拽专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗砖讻讬专 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 砖讻讬专 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬转讙专讜谉 诇讬讛 驻讜注诇讬谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: Permanent ordinances were taught here; the Sages uprooted the oath from the employer and imposed it upon the hired worker due to the fact that his wages are his livelihood. The Gemara asks: Due to the need to protect the hired worker鈥檚 livelihood, do we penalize the employer by leaving him vulnerable to a dishonest worker? The Gemara answers: The employer himself is amenable to the hired worker taking an oath and collecting his wages, so that laborers will accept employment from him. If the workers are not protected in this manner, they will be wary of accepting work.

讗讚专讘讛 砖讻讬专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇砖转讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞驻拽注 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讙专讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注诇 讻讜专讞讬讛 讗讙专 砖讻讬专 谞诪讬 注诇 讻讜专讞讬讛 诪讬转讙专 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, isn鈥檛 it preferable for the hired worker that in the case of a dispute between them the employer takes the oath and is released from payment? He would agree to this arrangement in order to create conditions in which the employer will readily hire him. If employers are exposed to the risk of being cheated by dishonest workers, they will be wary of hiring. The Gemara answers: The employer perforce hires workers, since he needs the work done. The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the hired worker also perforce accept employment, since he needs it for his livelihood? Rather, the reason the worker takes the oath is that the employer is distracted with managing his laborers, so it is reasonable to assume that he forgot to pay.

讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if it is presumed that the employer forgot to pay, let him give the wages to the worker without the worker taking an oath.

讻讚讬 诇讛驻讬住 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讟专讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬谉 讘讛拽驻讛

The Gemara explains: The oath was instituted to alleviate the concerns of the employer, to ensure him that he is not being cheated. And why did the Sages not institute that the employer should give the worker his wages in the presence of witnesses so that it could readily be established whether he was paid? The Gemara answers: Finding witnesses whenever he pays wages would be a burdensome matter for him. And why did the Sages not institute that the employer should give him his wages at the outset, when he hires him, so there would be no need for an oath? The Gemara answers: They both want the work to be done on credit, i.e., before the wages are paid, as sometimes the employer has no money ready when he hires a worker, and the worker also prefers receiving his money at the end of the day.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽爪抓 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽爪讬爪讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专 诇讬讛

If so, then even with regard to the amount fixed as payment, the employer is apt to be forgetful. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: If the craftsman says: You fixed two coins as my payment and the other, the employer, says: I fixed only one coin as your payment, the halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? The craftsman must bring witnesses to collect the additional sum; an oath is not sufficient. Why is it not assumed that the employer is distracted, and the craftsman would be allowed to take an oath and collect the amount he claims? The Gemara answers: With regard to the fixing of wages, he certainly remembers.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the time the wages were due had passed, the worker should be able to prove that he has not been paid by taking an oath. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that if the established time for paying wages had passed, i.e., the night after the work was performed, and the employer had not given the worker his wages, he no longer can take an oath and receive his wages, but rather must bring witnesses to prove that he was not yet paid.

讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬诪讟讬 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讬讚讻专

The Gemara answers: There is a presumption that the employer will not violate the prohibition against delaying payment of wages (see Leviticus 19:13) and will have paid the worker by the deadline. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that the employer is distracted with his laborers and is apt to forget to pay? The Gemara responds: This statement, that he is presumed to be distracted, applies only before the time arrives that he incurs liability for delaying payment of wages. When the time that he incurs liability arrives, he takes it upon himself to remember to pay.

讜讻讬 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝讜诇 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 砖讻讬专 诪砖讛讗 砖讻专讜

The Gemara asks: Is the hired worker suspected of demanding his wages twice and violating the prohibition against robbery (see Leviticus 19:13)? The Gemara answers: With regard to the employer there are two presumptions supporting his claim that the wages were paid: One is that the employer will not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and one is that a hired worker will not defer requesting his wages. Therefore, if he is requesting his wages after the deadline, he probably already received them, and he no longer can prove his claim with only an oath.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讻专讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages only when the employer hired him in the presence of witnesses. But if he hired him not in the presence of witnesses, then since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo] and said to him: I never hired you, he can instead say to him: I hired you but already gave you your wages, and that claim is accepted by the court. There is a principle in halakha that one is deemed credible when he makes a less advantageous claim than he could have made. Rabbi Yitz岣k said to Rav Na岣an: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬砖讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Can one infer from the fact that Rabbi Yitz岣k said that it was specifically Rabbi Yo岣nan who says this, that Reish Lakish, who often engaged in disputes with Rabbi Yo岣nan, disagrees with him, even though Rabbi Yitz岣k did not report that he does? Some say that Reish Lakish was drinking at the time that Rabbi Yo岣nan made his statement and therefore was silent, and some say that he was waiting for him to complete his statement and therefore was silent. It remains unclear whether he disagreed.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讻专讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱

It was also stated that Rav Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages only when the employer hired him in the presence of witnesses. But if he hired him not in the presence of witnesses, since he could have said to him: I never hired you, he can instead say to him: I hired you but already gave you your wages, and that claim is accepted by the court.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讗诐 讻谉 砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讚讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 谞讗谞住讜

Rami bar 岣ma said: How excellent is this halakha. Rava said to him: What is its excellence? If the halakha is so, how can you ever find an instance of the oath of the bailees concerning a deposit that the Merciful One imposed? Since the bailee could say to the owner: These events never occurred, i.e., I never accepted a deposit from you, he can say to him: The deposit was lost by accident. He will not need to take an oath to support his claim, since he would have been deemed credible without taking an oath if he had denied accepting the deposit at all.

讚讗驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 谞讗谞住讜

Rami Bar 岣ma answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant where the owner deposited the item with him in the presence of witnesses. Rava retorts: Even then, since he could say to him: I already returned it to you, and his claim would be accepted without his taking an oath, he can say to him: The deposit was lost by accident, and his claim will be accepted without his taking an oath.

讚讗驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讘砖讟专讗

Rami bar 岣ma answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant where the owner deposited the item with him, with a document given as a receipt. Possession of the receipt serves as evidence that the bailee has not returned the deposit.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 讘砖讟专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara comments: By inference from their statements, one may conclude that both Rava and Rami bar 岣ma hold that if one deposits an item with another person in the presence of witnesses, he does not need to return it to him in the presence of witnesses, and his claim that he returned it without witnesses is accepted. But if one deposits an item with another person with a document given as a receipt, he needs to return it to him in the presence of witnesses, who can testify that it was returned.

拽专讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜讬砖诐 讚讜讚 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘诇讘讜 讚讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘砖讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讻讬爪讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转谞讬 讜诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 砖讻专讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma would cite this verse about Rav Sheshet: 鈥淎nd David laid up these words in his heart鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:13), as Rav Sheshet took it upon himself to find sources that would support or contradict the statements of Rav and Shmuel. As it is recounted that Rav Sheshet encountered Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Does the Master teach any halakhot about a hired worker? Rabba bar Shmuel said to him: Yes, I teach this baraita (Tosefta 6:1): A hired worker within his time for receiving wages takes an oath and receives payment. How so? This applies in a case when the worker said to the employer: You hired me but did not give me my wages, and the other, the employer, says: I hired you and gave you your wages. But if the hired worker said to him: You fixed two coins as my payment, and the other, the employer, says: I fixed only one coin as your payment, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, who must provide witnesses to testify that the wage was the greater sum.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘专讗讬讛 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘诇讗 专讗讬讛

Rav Sheshet suggested: Since the latter clause addresses a case in which proof, witness testimony, is required, the first clause must address a case in which proof is not required. This contradicts the statements of Rav and Shmuel above that the worker may take an oath and receive payment only when he has witnesses that this person hired him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 45

讗讞转 砖讘讜注转 讛注讚讜转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讜注转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讜注转 砖讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讜诪诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 讜诪驻专讬讞讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜住讜讞专讬 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讻谞讙讚讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

One is considered suspect with regard to oaths if he has been found to have taken a false oath, whether it was an oath of testimony, or whether it was an oath on a deposit, or even an oath taken in vain, which is a less severe prohibition. There are also categories of people who by rabbinic decree are considered suspect with regard to oaths: If one of the litigants was a dice player, or one who lends with interest, or among those who fly pigeons, or among the vendors of produce of the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞砖讜讚讬谉 讞讝专讛 讛砖讘讜注讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜

If both litigants were suspect, the oath returned to its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, and will be explained in the Gemara. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount.

讜讛讞谞讜谞讬 注诇 驻谞拽住讜 讻讬爪讚 诇讗 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻转讜讘 注诇 驻谞拽住讬 砖讗转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讘谞讬 住讗转讬诐 讞讟讬谉 转谉 诇驻讜注诇讬 住诇注 诪注讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 讜讛谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讟诇谞讜 讛讜讗 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讛谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

And how does this halakha apply to the storekeeper relying on his ledger? This ruling is not referring to the case where a storekeeper says to a customer: It is written in my ledger that you owe me two hundred dinars. Rather, it is referring to a case where a customer says to a storekeeper: Give my son two se鈥檃 of wheat, or: Give my laborers a sela in small coins. And later the storekeeper says: I gave it to them; but they say: We did not receive it. In such a case, where the father or employer admits that he gave those instructions and it is also recorded in the storekeeper鈥檚 ledger, the storekeeper takes an oath that he gave the son the wheat or paid the laborers, and he receives compensation from the father or employer; and the laborers take an oath that they were not paid and receive their wages from the employer.

讗诪专 讘谉 谞谞住 讻讬爪讚 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 砖讘讜注转 砖讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Ben Nannas said: How is it that both these and those come to take an oath in vain? One of them is certainly lying. Rather, the storekeeper receives his compensation without taking an oath, and the laborers receive their wages without taking an oath.

讗诪专 诇讞谞讜谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 驻讬专讜转 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗讜转讜 讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬讜 诇讱 讜谞转转讜 讘讗讜谞驻诇讬 讬砖讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬诐 诇讱 讜讛讜诇讻转讬诐 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讱 讬砖讘注 讞谞讜谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

搂 If one said to a storekeeper: Give me produce valued at a dinar, and he gave him the produce. And later the storekeeper said to him: Give me that dinar you owe me, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet [be鈥檜npali], the customer shall take an oath that he gave him the dinar. If, after he gave the storekeeper the money, the customer said to him: Give me the produce, and the storekeeper said to him: I gave it to you and you transported it to your house, the storekeeper shall take an oath that he has already filled the order, and he is exempt from supplying the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: Whoever has the produce in his possession has the advantage, and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 诪注讜转 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬 诇讱 讜谞转转讜 讘讗讜谞驻诇讬 讬砖讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讚讬谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 讛诪注讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 谞转转讬诐 诇讱 讜讛砖诇讻转 诇转讜讱 讻讬住讱 讬砖讘注 砖讜诇讞谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讜诇讞谞讬 诇讬转谉 讗讬住专 注讚 砖讬讟讜诇 讚讬谞专

Similarly, if one said to a money changer: Give me small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently the money changer said to him: Give me the dinar, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet; the customer shall take an oath that he paid. If the customer gave the money changer the dinar, and then said to him: Give me the coins, and the money changer said to him: I gave them to you and you cast them into your purse, the money changer shall take an oath. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not a money changer鈥檚 way to give even an issar until he receives a dinar. Therefore, the fact that the customer received the coins indicates that the money changer already received his payment.

讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讛驻讜讙诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜注讚 讗讞讚 诪注讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 驻专讜注讛 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 These cases of taking an oath are just like other cases where the Sages said that one takes an oath and receives payment. The mishna (see Ketubot 87a) teaches: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract by acknowledging receipt of partial payment may collect the remainder only by taking an oath; or if one witness testifies that her marriage contract has been paid, she may collect it only by taking an oath. She may collect it from liened property that has been sold to a third party, or from the property of orphans, only by taking an oath, and a woman who collects it from her husband鈥檚 property when not in his presence may collect it only by taking an oath. And likewise, orphans may collect a loan with a promissory note inherited from their father only by taking an oath.

砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讜 讗讘讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 砖砖讟专 讝讛 驻专讜注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讜诇讚 讛讘谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专 讛讗讘 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 砖讟专 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 驻专讜注 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Orphans who wish to collect payment of money owed to their father must take the following oath: On our oath our father did not direct us on his deathbed not to collect with this promissory note, and our father did not say to us that this note was paid, and we did not find among our father鈥檚 documents a record showing that this promissory note was paid. After taking that oath, they may collect the money. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Even if the son was born after the father鈥檚 death, he needs to take an oath in order to receive the money owed to his father. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death: This promissory note has not been paid, the son collects the debt without having to take an oath.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟注谞讛 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讜讛讗驻讜讟专讜驻讬谉 讜讛讗砖讛 讛谞讜砖讗转 讜讛谞讜转谞转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讘谉 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讗转讛 讟讜注谞讬谞讬 专爪讜谞讬 砖转砖讘注 诇讬 讞讬讬讘

And these people are sometimes required to take an oath that they do not owe anything even when there is no explicit claim against them: Partners, sharecroppers, stewards [apotropin], a woman who does business from home, where she manages the property of orphans, and the member of the household appointed to manage the household鈥檚 affairs. For example, in a case where one of these people said to one of the people whose property he or she manages: What is your claim against me? If the other replied: It is simply my wish that you take an oath to me that you have not taken anything of mine, the former is liable to take that oath.

讞诇拽讜 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛砖讘讬注讜 谞转讙诇讙诇 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讗转 讛砖讘讜注讛

Once the partners or the sharecroppers have divided the common property, each taking his share, then one side may not require an oath of the other absent a definite claim. But if an oath was imposed upon him due to some other situation, that oath can be extended to impose upon him any other oath, i.e., it can be extended to apply to any other of their disputes. The mishna adds: And the Sabbatical Year abrogates the obligation to take an oath about a debt, just like it abrogates a debt.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 讘注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐 诪讬 砖注诇讬讜 诇砖诇诐 诇讜 砖讘讜注讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All those who take an oath that is legislated by the Torah take an oath and do not pay. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that oaths mandated by Torah law serve only to exempt one from payment? We derive it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not put his hand on his neighbor鈥檚 goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution鈥 (Exodus 22:10). According to the verse, with regard to he who would otherwise need to pay, it is on him that the obligation to take the oath is imposed.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讻讬专 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讚诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讛诇讻讜转 讛谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 转拽谞讜转 讙讚讜诇讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And these litigants take an oath and receive possession of the disputed funds or property, and it lists a hired worker in that category. The Gemara asks: What is different about a hired worker that the Sages instituted for him that he take an oath and receive his wages? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Great halakhot were taught here. The Gemara asks: Halakhot? Are these oaths actually halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is usually indicated by the use of the term halakhot? They are instituted by rabbinic law. Rather, say: Great ordinances were taught here.

讙讚讜诇讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟谞讜转

The Gemara asks: Since these ordinances are called great, can one conclude by inference that there are also minor ordinances? Are there rabbinic ordinances that are less important?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽谞讜转 拽讘讜注讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 注拽专讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讘讜注讛 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜砖讚讬讜讛 讗砖讻讬专 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜 讚砖讻讬专 拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪砖转讘注 砖讻讬专 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬转讙专讜谉 诇讬讛 驻讜注诇讬谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: Permanent ordinances were taught here; the Sages uprooted the oath from the employer and imposed it upon the hired worker due to the fact that his wages are his livelihood. The Gemara asks: Due to the need to protect the hired worker鈥檚 livelihood, do we penalize the employer by leaving him vulnerable to a dishonest worker? The Gemara answers: The employer himself is amenable to the hired worker taking an oath and collecting his wages, so that laborers will accept employment from him. If the workers are not protected in this manner, they will be wary of accepting work.

讗讚专讘讛 砖讻讬专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇砖转讘注 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞驻拽注 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讙专讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注诇 讻讜专讞讬讛 讗讙专 砖讻讬专 谞诪讬 注诇 讻讜专讞讬讛 诪讬转讙专 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, isn鈥檛 it preferable for the hired worker that in the case of a dispute between them the employer takes the oath and is released from payment? He would agree to this arrangement in order to create conditions in which the employer will readily hire him. If employers are exposed to the risk of being cheated by dishonest workers, they will be wary of hiring. The Gemara answers: The employer perforce hires workers, since he needs the work done. The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the hired worker also perforce accept employment, since he needs it for his livelihood? Rather, the reason the worker takes the oath is that the employer is distracted with managing his laborers, so it is reasonable to assume that he forgot to pay.

讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if it is presumed that the employer forgot to pay, let him give the wages to the worker without the worker taking an oath.

讻讚讬 诇讛驻讬住 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讟专讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬谉 讘讛拽驻讛

The Gemara explains: The oath was instituted to alleviate the concerns of the employer, to ensure him that he is not being cheated. And why did the Sages not institute that the employer should give the worker his wages in the presence of witnesses so that it could readily be established whether he was paid? The Gemara answers: Finding witnesses whenever he pays wages would be a burdensome matter for him. And why did the Sages not institute that the employer should give him his wages at the outset, when he hires him, so there would be no need for an oath? The Gemara answers: They both want the work to be done on credit, i.e., before the wages are paid, as sometimes the employer has no money ready when he hires a worker, and the worker also prefers receiving his money at the end of the day.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽爪抓 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽爪讬爪讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专 诇讬讛

If so, then even with regard to the amount fixed as payment, the employer is apt to be forgetful. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: If the craftsman says: You fixed two coins as my payment and the other, the employer, says: I fixed only one coin as your payment, the halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? The craftsman must bring witnesses to collect the additional sum; an oath is not sufficient. Why is it not assumed that the employer is distracted, and the craftsman would be allowed to take an oath and collect the amount he claims? The Gemara answers: With regard to the fixing of wages, he certainly remembers.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the time the wages were due had passed, the worker should be able to prove that he has not been paid by taking an oath. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that if the established time for paying wages had passed, i.e., the night after the work was performed, and the employer had not given the worker his wages, he no longer can take an oath and receive his wages, but rather must bring witnesses to prove that he was not yet paid.

讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬诪讟讬 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讬讚讻专

The Gemara answers: There is a presumption that the employer will not violate the prohibition against delaying payment of wages (see Leviticus 19:13) and will have paid the worker by the deadline. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that the employer is distracted with his laborers and is apt to forget to pay? The Gemara responds: This statement, that he is presumed to be distracted, applies only before the time arrives that he incurs liability for delaying payment of wages. When the time that he incurs liability arrives, he takes it upon himself to remember to pay.

讜讻讬 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝讜诇 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 砖讻讬专 诪砖讛讗 砖讻专讜

The Gemara asks: Is the hired worker suspected of demanding his wages twice and violating the prohibition against robbery (see Leviticus 19:13)? The Gemara answers: With regard to the employer there are two presumptions supporting his claim that the wages were paid: One is that the employer will not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and one is that a hired worker will not defer requesting his wages. Therefore, if he is requesting his wages after the deadline, he probably already received them, and he no longer can prove his claim with only an oath.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讻专讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages only when the employer hired him in the presence of witnesses. But if he hired him not in the presence of witnesses, then since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo] and said to him: I never hired you, he can instead say to him: I hired you but already gave you your wages, and that claim is accepted by the court. There is a principle in halakha that one is deemed credible when he makes a less advantageous claim than he could have made. Rabbi Yitz岣k said to Rav Na岣an: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬砖转讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬砖讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Can one infer from the fact that Rabbi Yitz岣k said that it was specifically Rabbi Yo岣nan who says this, that Reish Lakish, who often engaged in disputes with Rabbi Yo岣nan, disagrees with him, even though Rabbi Yitz岣k did not report that he does? Some say that Reish Lakish was drinking at the time that Rabbi Yo岣nan made his statement and therefore was silent, and some say that he was waiting for him to complete his statement and therefore was silent. It remains unclear whether he disagreed.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讻专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讻专讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 砖讻专转讬讱 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱

It was also stated that Rav Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages only when the employer hired him in the presence of witnesses. But if he hired him not in the presence of witnesses, since he could have said to him: I never hired you, he can instead say to him: I hired you but already gave you your wages, and that claim is accepted by the court.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讗诐 讻谉 砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讚讞讬讬讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 谞讗谞住讜

Rami bar 岣ma said: How excellent is this halakha. Rava said to him: What is its excellence? If the halakha is so, how can you ever find an instance of the oath of the bailees concerning a deposit that the Merciful One imposed? Since the bailee could say to the owner: These events never occurred, i.e., I never accepted a deposit from you, he can say to him: The deposit was lost by accident. He will not need to take an oath to support his claim, since he would have been deemed credible without taking an oath if he had denied accepting the deposit at all.

讚讗驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 谞讗谞住讜

Rami Bar 岣ma answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant where the owner deposited the item with him in the presence of witnesses. Rava retorts: Even then, since he could say to him: I already returned it to you, and his claim would be accepted without his taking an oath, he can say to him: The deposit was lost by accident, and his claim will be accepted without his taking an oath.

讚讗驻拽讬讚 诇讬讛 讘砖讟专讗

Rami bar 岣ma answered: The oath of the bailees is still relevant where the owner deposited the item with him, with a document given as a receipt. Possession of the receipt serves as evidence that the bailee has not returned the deposit.

诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 讘砖讟专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara comments: By inference from their statements, one may conclude that both Rava and Rami bar 岣ma hold that if one deposits an item with another person in the presence of witnesses, he does not need to return it to him in the presence of witnesses, and his claim that he returned it without witnesses is accepted. But if one deposits an item with another person with a document given as a receipt, he needs to return it to him in the presence of witnesses, who can testify that it was returned.

拽专讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜讬砖诐 讚讜讚 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘诇讘讜 讚讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘砖讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讻讬爪讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖讻专转谞讬 讜诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 砖讻专讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 砖讻专转讬讱 讜谞转转讬 诇讱 砖讻专讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma would cite this verse about Rav Sheshet: 鈥淎nd David laid up these words in his heart鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:13), as Rav Sheshet took it upon himself to find sources that would support or contradict the statements of Rav and Shmuel. As it is recounted that Rav Sheshet encountered Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Does the Master teach any halakhot about a hired worker? Rabba bar Shmuel said to him: Yes, I teach this baraita (Tosefta 6:1): A hired worker within his time for receiving wages takes an oath and receives payment. How so? This applies in a case when the worker said to the employer: You hired me but did not give me my wages, and the other, the employer, says: I hired you and gave you your wages. But if the hired worker said to him: You fixed two coins as my payment, and the other, the employer, says: I fixed only one coin as your payment, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, who must provide witnesses to testify that the wage was the greater sum.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讘专讗讬讛 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讘诇讗 专讗讬讛

Rav Sheshet suggested: Since the latter clause addresses a case in which proof, witness testimony, is required, the first clause must address a case in which proof is not required. This contradicts the statements of Rav and Shmuel above that the worker may take an oath and receive payment only when he has witnesses that this person hired him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

Scroll To Top