Shevuot 45

אחת שבועת העדות ואחת שבועת הפקדון ואפילו שבועת שוא היה אחד מהן משחק בקוביא ומלוה ברבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל

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.

היו שניהן חשודין חזרה השבועה למקומה דברי רבי יוסי רבי מאיר אומר יחלוקו

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.

והחנוני על פנקסו כיצד לא שיאמר לו כתוב על פנקסי שאתה חייב לי מאתים זוז אלא אומר לו תן לבני סאתים חטין תן לפועלי סלע מעות הוא אומר נתתי והן אומרים לא נטלנו הוא נשבע ונוטל והן נשבעין ונוטלין

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’a 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’s 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.

אמר בן ננס כיצד אלו ואלו באין לידי שבועת שוא אלא הוא נוטל שלא בשבועה והן נוטלין שלא בשבועה

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.

אמר לחנוני תן לי בדינר פירות ונתן לו אמר לו תן לי אותו דינר אמר לו נתתיו לך ונתתו באונפלי ישבע בעל הבית שנתן לו את הדינר אמר לו תן לי את הפירות אמר לו נתתים לך והולכתים לתוך ביתך ישבע חנוני רבי יהודה אומר כל שהפירות בידו ידו על העליונה

§ 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’unpali], 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.

אמר לשולחני תן לי בדינר מעות ונתן לו אמר לו תן לי את הדינר אמר לו נתתי לך ונתתו באונפלי ישבע בעל הבית נתן לו את הדינר אמר לו תן לי את המעות אמר לו נתתים לך והשלכת לתוך כיסך ישבע שולחני רבי יהודה אומר אין דרך שולחני ליתן איסר עד שיטול דינר

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’s 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.

כשם שאמרו הפוגמת כתובתה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה ועד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה מנכסים משועבדים ומנכסי יתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה והנפרעת שלא בפניו לא תפרע אלא בשבועה וכן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה

§ 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’s 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.

שבועה שלא פקדנו אבא ולא אמר לנו אבא שלא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אפילו נולד הבן לאחר מיתת האב הרי זה נשבע ונוטל אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אם יש עדים שאמר האב בשעת מיתתו שטר זה אינו פרוע הוא נוטל שלא בשבועה

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’s documents a record showing that this promissory note was paid. After taking that oath, they may collect the money. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even if the son was born after the father’s 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.

ואלו נשבעין שלא בטענה השותפין והאריסין והאפוטרופין והאשה הנושאת והנותנת בתוך הבית ובן הבית אמר לו מה אתה טועניני רצוני שתשבע לי חייב

§ 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’s 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.

חלקו השותפין והאריסין אין יכול להשביעו נתגלגל לו שבועה ממקום אחר מגלגלין עליו את הכל והשביעית משמטת את השבועה

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.

גמ׳ כל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין מנלן דאמר קרא ולקח בעליו ולא ישלם מי שעליו לשלם לו שבועה

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: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he has not put his hand on his neighbor’s goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution” (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.

ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין כו׳ מאי שנא שכיר דתקינו ליה רבנן דמשתבע ושקיל אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכות גדולות שנו כאן הלכות הני הלכתא נינהו אלא אימא תקנות גדולות שנו כאן

§ 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.

גדולות מכלל דאיכא קטנות

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?

אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל תקנות קבועות שנו כאן עקרוה רבנן לשבועה מבעל הבית ושדיוה אשכיר משום כדי חייו משום כדי חייו דשכיר קנסינן ליה לבעל הבית בעל הבית גופיה ניחא ליה דמשתבע שכיר ושקיל כי היכי דאיתגרון ליה פועלין

Rather, Rav Naḥman 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’s 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.

אדרבה שכיר ניחא ליה דלשתבע בעל הבית ונפקע כי היכי דליגריה בעל הבית בעל הבית על כורחיה אגר שכיר נמי על כורחיה מיתגר אלא בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו הוא

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, isn’t 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’t 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.

וליתב ליה בלא שבועה

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.

כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית וליתב ליה בעדים טריחא ליה מילתא וליתב ליה מעיקרא שניהן רוצין בהקפה

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.

אי הכי אפילו קצץ נמי אלמה תניא אומן אומר שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה קציצה ודאי מידכר דכיר ליה

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.

אי הכי אפילו עבר זמנו נמי אלמה תניא עבר זמנו ולא נתן לו הרי זה אינו נשבע ונוטל

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.

חזקה אין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין והאמרת בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו הוא הני מילי מקמי דלימטי זמן חיובא הוא כי מטי זמן חיובא רמי אנפשיה ומידכר

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’t 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.

וכי שכיר עובר משום בל תגזול גבי בעל הבית איכא תרי חזקי חדא דאין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין וחדא דאין שכיר משהא שכרו

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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא ששכרו בעדים אבל שכרו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא שכרתיך מעולם יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך אמר ליה רבי יצחק יישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן

§ Rav Naḥman 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 Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan.

מכלל דפליג עליה ריש לקיש איכא דאמרי מישתא הוה שתי ליה ושתיק ליה ואיכא דאמרי מישהא הוה שהי ליה ושתיק ליה

The Gemara asks: Can one infer from the fact that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that it was specifically Rabbi Yoḥanan who says this, that Reish Lakish, who often engaged in disputes with Rabbi Yoḥanan, disagrees with him, even though Rabbi Yitzḥak did not report that he does? Some say that Reish Lakish was drinking at the time that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

איתמר נמי אמר רב מנשיא בר זביד אמר רב לא שנו אלא ששכרו בעדים אבל שכרו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא שכרתיך מעולם יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך

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.

אמר רמי בר חמא כמה מעליא הא שמעתא אמר ליה רבא מאי מעליותא אם כן שבועת שומרין דחייב רחמנא היכי משכחת לה מתוך שיכול לומר לו לא היו דברים מעולם יכול לומר לו נאנסו

§ Rami bar Ḥama 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.

דאפקיד ליה בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר לו החזרתיו לך יכול לומר לו נאנסו

Rami Bar Ḥama 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.

דאפקיד ליה בשטרא

Rami bar Ḥama 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.

מכלל דתרוייהו סבירא להו המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים אין צריך להחזיר לו בעדים בשטר צריך להחזיר לו בעדים

The Gemara comments: By inference from their statements, one may conclude that both Rava and Rami bar Ḥama 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.

קרי רמי בר חמא עליה דרב ששת וישם דוד את הדברים האלה בלבו דאשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בשכיר אמר ליה אין תנינא שכיר בזמנו נשבע ונוטל כיצד בזמן שאמר לו שכרתני ולא נתת לי שכרי והלה אומר שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך אבל אמר לו שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

§ Rami bar Ḥama would cite this verse about Rav Sheshet: “And David laid up these words in his heart” (I 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.

הא מדסיפא בראיה הוי רישא בלא ראיה

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: