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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 14, 2018 | 讻状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 47

What does one do in a case where both sides are not allowed to take an oath? There is a debate in the mishna聽and there is聽a further debate in the mishna how to explain one of the opinions in the gemara. The two opinions are attributed by Rabbi Ami to Israel and Babylonia and Rav Pappa proves which specific rabbis in Babylonia and Israel match the opinions. Shimon ben Tarfon makes a few statements regarding associating with the right people and not with the wrong ones. The gemara聽discusses the case of the storekeeper who was asked to pay someone’s workers and the workers claim they never got paid and the storekeeper claims he paid them. The gemara raises a question whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agreed with the opinion in the mishna that each swear and get paid by the employer? A case is raised of two groups of witnesses who contradict each other in court – are they believed to testify in a different case or since we know that one for sure lied, do we not聽accept other testimony of theirs. 4 options of cases are brought and one is compared to the case of the workers and the storekeeper.

讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

and any oath that is similar to it, i.e., that is clearly a falsehood, disqualifies one from further oath taking.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 转谞讗 驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 that grew during the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. The Gemara asks: Why do I need these additional examples of a person who is suspect with regard to oath taking? The Gemara explains: The mishna first teaches examples of people who are disqualified by Torah law, and then teaches examples of those who are disqualified by rabbinic law.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞砖讜讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讻讬 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If both litigants were suspect, the oath returned to its place; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: How is it actually taught? What is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion and what is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Rav Na岣an said to him: I do not know. Rava asked him: What is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: I do not know.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 注讘讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讜讘讚讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜

It was stated that Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. And similarly, Rav Zevid bar Oshaya teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. The Gemara records a slightly different version of this tradition: There are those who say that Rav Zevid teaches that Rabbi Oshaya says that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an ruled in an actual case that the litigants divide the disputed amount.

讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 诇讛讬讻谉 讞讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇住讬谞讬 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讞讜讬讘 诇讛

搂 Rabbi Yosei rules in the mishna that in a case where both sides are suspect and cannot take an oath, the oath returned to its place. The Gemara asks: To where did it return? What is meant by the oath returning to its place? Rabbi Ami said that our Sages in Babylonia say: The oath returned to Sinai, where God administered an oath to the Jewish people that they would keep the mitzvot of the Torah, including the prohibition against robbery. The litigant who is robbing the other will be punished by God, not the court. Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael said: The oath returned to the one who was initially liable to take it, i.e., the defendant, and since he is disqualified from taking an oath, he must pay.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 砖拽讬诇 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Pappa said that the term: Our Sages in Babylonia, refers to Rav and Shmuel; and the term: Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael, refers to Rabbi Abba. The fact that the term: Our Sages in Babylonia, refers to Rav and Shmuel is as we learned in the mishna (45a): And likewise, orphans may collect a loan with a promissory note inherited from their father only by taking an oath; and we discussed it (see 48a), asking: From whom do they collect a debt by taking an oath? If we say that they collect this way from the borrower, i.e., those who borrowed from their fathers, that would not make sense. Their father would take payment with the promissory note without taking an oath, and they collect only by means of taking an oath? Don鈥檛 orphans have privileged status? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: And even orphans do not collect with their father鈥檚 promissory note from the borrower鈥檚 orphans, except by means of taking an oath.

讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪转 诪诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诪转 诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诪诇讜讛 讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 诪诇讜讛 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜专讬砖 砖讘讜注讛 诇讘谞讬讜

Rav Pappa continues: And Rav and Shmuel both say that the Sages taught that the lender鈥檚 orphans need to take an oath in order to be paid by the borrower鈥檚 orphans only when the lender died during the lifetime of the borrower, and the lender鈥檚 children had an opportunity to collect directly from the borrower without taking an oath. But if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the lender has already become liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower, since one can collect from orphans only by means of an oath, and a person cannot bequeath an oath, i.e., a debt that requires the taking of an oath in order to be collected, to his children, and no payment is made. The lender鈥檚 children cannot take the oath that their father would have taken, that the promissory note has not been paid. The only oath they can take is that their father never told them that it had been paid, and that is insufficient once the father became liable to take an oath. From here it is clear that Rav and Shmuel hold that when no oath can be taken, the oath returns to Sinai, and the court takes no action.

专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讟祝 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚讗 住讛讚讗 讚诪讞讟祝 讞讟驻讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讟驻讬 讜讚讬讚讬 讞讟驻讬

The fact that the term: Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael, refers to Rabbi Abba is as the following story illustrates. As there was a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another. The one from whom it was taken came before Rav Ami while Rabbi Abba was sitting before him, and he brought one witness who testified that the other man did, in fact, snatch it from him. The one who snatched it said to him: Yes, it is true that I snatched it, but I merely snatched that which was mine.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讬讻讬 诇讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 住讛讚讬 谞驻讟专讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 住讛讚讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬砖转讘注 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讙讝诇谉

Rabbi Ami said: How should judges rule in this case? If they were to say to the one who snatched the metal: Go pay for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because there are not two witnesses who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were to accept his claim and exempt him entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because there is one witness who testified against him. If they were to say to him: Go take an oath, which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, once he said that he did in fact snatch it, and there is no proof that it is his, he is like a robber, and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讜讻诇 讛诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 诪砖诇诐

Rabbi Abba said to him: He is one who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath is liable to pay. This illustrates that Rabbi Abba holds that the oath returns to its place, i.e., to the defendant, who is disqualified from taking oaths, and that consequently he must pay.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖讘注转 讛壮 转讛讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 讘讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

Rava said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba; as Rabbi Ami teaches this baraita: The verse states that 鈥渢he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:10), but not between their heirs. What are the circumstances in which one would be liable to take an oath, but his heirs would be exempt?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讗讘讜讛讗

If we say that it is where the lender鈥檚 son said to the borrower鈥檚 son: One hundred dinars that belonged to my father were in the possession of your father, as a loan, and you must repay me, and the borrower鈥檚 son said to him: He had a debt of fifty, and the other fifty he did not have to pay him, i.e., he did not owe it, that is difficult. Under these circumstances, what does it matter to me if it is he, the borrower鈥檚 heir, or his father, the original borrower? Since the son is admitting that he owes part of the money and denying the rest with certainty, he is liable to take an oath, just like his father would have been.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讬讚注谞讗 讜讞诪砖讬谉 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

Rather, is it not that the lender鈥檚 son said to the borrower鈥檚 son: One hundred dinars that were my father鈥檚 were left in the possession of your father, and you must repay me, and the borrower鈥檚 son said to him: Concerning fifty dinars, I know that my father owed them, but I do not know anything about the other fifty dinars.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讬讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 讙讘讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘讬讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 拽专讗 讙讘讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rabba continues: Granted, if you say that his father, in a case like this, would be liable to take an oath, due to his partial admission, then the verse was necessary to exempt the heirs from taking the oath. But if you say that in a case like this, his father is also exempt from taking an oath, why do I need a verse about exempting the heirs? Evidently, an oath reverts to one who is liable to take it, and when he cannot take that oath he must pay the claim against him.

讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 砖讘注转 讛壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav and Shmuel, who hold that one who cannot take an oath does not have to pay, and therefore there is no difference between the heirs and the father, what do they derive from this verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:10)?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讛壮 转讛讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讘讜注讛 讞诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon ben Tarfon says: The verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both,鈥 teaches that when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, the oath applies to them both, i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God鈥檚 name.

砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讜拽讘 讗讞专 谞讜讗祝 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转谞讗祝 诇讗 转谞讗讬祝

Since this Sage was mentioned, the Gemara cites some of his other statements. Shimon ben Tarfon says: With regard to the prohibition of following after an adulterer, i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, from where is it derived? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not commit adultery [lo tinaf ]鈥 (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: You shall not cause adultery [lo tanif ].

讜转专讙谞讜 讘讗讛诇讬讻诐 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 转专转诐 讜讙讬谞讬转诐 讘讗讛诇讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

Commenting on the verse describing the response of the Jewish people to the spies鈥 slander of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淎nd you murmured [vatteragenu] in your tents and said: Because the Lord hated us, He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:27), Shimon ben Tarfon says:Teragenu鈥 is interpreted as though it is composed of two Hebrew expressions: You explored [tartem] the land, and: You disparaged [ginnitem] it, in the tent of the Omnipresent.

注讚 讛谞讛专 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讛专 驻专转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讬谞讗 讜讗讬讚讛谉 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 注讘讚 诪诇讱 讻诪诇讱

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎s far as the great river, the river Euphrates鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:7), Shimon ben Tarfon says: Although it is not the largest river, the Euphrates is called great in accordance with the adage: Draw close to the one anointed with oil and become anointed as well. Because the Euphrates is close to Eretz Yisrael, it is called great. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a similar idea: The servant of a king is like a king.

讜讛讞谞讜谞讬 注诇 驻讬谞拽住讜 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讜专讞 砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 (讘专 讗讘讗) 转谞讬谞讗 砖谞讬讛诐 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches that the storekeeper relying on his ledger takes an oath and receives payment. If an employer tells a storekeeper to pay his laborers, and the storekeeper claims he paid them, while the laborers claim that they did not receive payment, both the storekeeper and the laborers take oaths and receive payment from the employer. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Why is there the bother with this oath, that it is imposed upon both of them? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: We learn in the mishna (see 45a) that both of them take an oath and receive payment of their claims from the employer.

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 驻讜注诇讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept from him that this is the halakha, or did he not accept it from him? Come and hear as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The laborers take an oath to the storekeeper that he had not paid them. And if it is so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 ruling, then Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should have instead said that the laborers take an oath to the employer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讜注诇讬诐 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘诪注诪讚 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讻住驻讜 诪讬谞讬讛

Rava said: Do not conclude that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 ruling. Rather, interpret his statement as follows: The laborers take an oath to the employer in the presence of the storekeeper, so that they will feel ashamed to lie with him present, since he knows whether or not he paid them.

讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讛诪讻讞讬砖讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜 讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪注讬讚讛 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪注讬讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讘讛讚讬 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

It was stated about a similar topic that if there were two sets of witnesses who contradict one another, and it is clear that one set must be testifying falsely, Rav Huna says: This set can come by itself and testify about other cases, and that set can come by itself and testify. Neither set of witnesses is disqualified for future testimony, since there is no way of knowing which was lying. Rav 岣sda said: Why do I need to become involved with lying witnesses? Since each set of witnesses is possibly untrustworthy, both sets are disqualified.

砖谞讬 诪诇讜讬谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 讜诇讜讛 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara cites the circumstances relevant to this dispute. If, after contradicting each other, the two sets of witnesses testified about circumstances involving two distinct lenders, and two distinct borrowers, and therefore two separate promissory notes, each one signed by a different set of witnesses, this sort of scenario is the subject of their dispute. According to Rav Huna both promissory notes are valid, and according to Rav 岣sda neither is valid. In the case of a single lender, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, with each signed by a different one of the sets of witnesses, the holder of the promissory note is at a disadvantage and can collect only the lower sum. One of the promissory notes is necessarily not valid, as it is signed by witnesses who testified falsely.

砖谞讬 诪诇讜讬谉 讜诇讜讛 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 讜诪诇讜讛 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

In the case of two lenders, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, this is the same as the mishna, where two claimants who contradict each other come to collect payment from a single person who must pay them both, as the evidence for both claims has a presumption of validity. In the case of two borrowers, and a single lender, and two promissory notes, what is the halakha? Can each of the borrowers claim that the promissory note supporting the claim against him is not valid, as it could have been signed by the untrustworthy set of witnesses; or does each of them have to pay unless he can prove that the promissory note against him was signed by the unfit set of witnesses? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection from a baraita:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 47

讜讻诇 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

and any oath that is similar to it, i.e., that is clearly a falsehood, disqualifies one from further oath taking.

讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 转谞讗 驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 that grew during the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. The Gemara asks: Why do I need these additional examples of a person who is suspect with regard to oath taking? The Gemara explains: The mishna first teaches examples of people who are disqualified by Torah law, and then teaches examples of those who are disqualified by rabbinic law.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讞砖讜讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讬讻讬 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If both litigants were suspect, the oath returned to its place; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: How is it actually taught? What is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion and what is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Rav Na岣an said to him: I do not know. Rava asked him: What is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: I do not know.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转谞讬 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 注讘讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讜讘讚讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜

It was stated that Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. And similarly, Rav Zevid bar Oshaya teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. The Gemara records a slightly different version of this tradition: There are those who say that Rav Zevid teaches that Rabbi Oshaya says that Rabbi Yosei says: They divide the disputed amount. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an ruled in an actual case that the litigants divide the disputed amount.

讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 诇讛讬讻谉 讞讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇住讬谞讬 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 讞讝专讛 砖讘讜注讛 诇诪讞讜讬讘 诇讛

搂 Rabbi Yosei rules in the mishna that in a case where both sides are suspect and cannot take an oath, the oath returned to its place. The Gemara asks: To where did it return? What is meant by the oath returning to its place? Rabbi Ami said that our Sages in Babylonia say: The oath returned to Sinai, where God administered an oath to the Jewish people that they would keep the mitzvot of the Torah, including the prohibition against robbery. The litigant who is robbing the other will be punished by God, not the court. Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael said: The oath returned to the one who was initially liable to take it, i.e., the defendant, and since he is disqualified from taking an oath, he must pay.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讘讘诇 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 砖拽讬诇 讘诇讗 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

Rav Pappa said that the term: Our Sages in Babylonia, refers to Rav and Shmuel; and the term: Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael, refers to Rabbi Abba. The fact that the term: Our Sages in Babylonia, refers to Rav and Shmuel is as we learned in the mishna (45a): And likewise, orphans may collect a loan with a promissory note inherited from their father only by taking an oath; and we discussed it (see 48a), asking: From whom do they collect a debt by taking an oath? If we say that they collect this way from the borrower, i.e., those who borrowed from their fathers, that would not make sense. Their father would take payment with the promissory note without taking an oath, and they collect only by means of taking an oath? Don鈥檛 orphans have privileged status? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: And even orphans do not collect with their father鈥檚 promissory note from the borrower鈥檚 orphans, except by means of taking an oath.

讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪转 诪诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诪转 诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诪诇讜讛 讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 诪诇讜讛 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讛 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜专讬砖 砖讘讜注讛 诇讘谞讬讜

Rav Pappa continues: And Rav and Shmuel both say that the Sages taught that the lender鈥檚 orphans need to take an oath in order to be paid by the borrower鈥檚 orphans only when the lender died during the lifetime of the borrower, and the lender鈥檚 children had an opportunity to collect directly from the borrower without taking an oath. But if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the lender has already become liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower, since one can collect from orphans only by means of an oath, and a person cannot bequeath an oath, i.e., a debt that requires the taking of an oath in order to be collected, to his children, and no payment is made. The lender鈥檚 children cannot take the oath that their father would have taken, that the promissory note has not been paid. The only oath they can take is that their father never told them that it had been paid, and that is insufficient once the father became liable to take an oath. From here it is clear that Rav and Shmuel hold that when no oath can be taken, the oath returns to Sinai, and the court takes no action.

专讘讜转讬谞讜 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讟祝 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚讗 住讛讚讗 讚诪讞讟祝 讞讟驻讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讟驻讬 讜讚讬讚讬 讞讟驻讬

The fact that the term: Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael, refers to Rabbi Abba is as the following story illustrates. As there was a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another. The one from whom it was taken came before Rav Ami while Rabbi Abba was sitting before him, and he brought one witness who testified that the other man did, in fact, snatch it from him. The one who snatched it said to him: Yes, it is true that I snatched it, but I merely snatched that which was mine.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讬讻讬 诇讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 住讛讚讬 谞驻讟专讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 住讛讚讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬砖转讘注 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讙讝诇谉

Rabbi Ami said: How should judges rule in this case? If they were to say to the one who snatched the metal: Go pay for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because there are not two witnesses who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were to accept his claim and exempt him entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because there is one witness who testified against him. If they were to say to him: Go take an oath, which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, once he said that he did in fact snatch it, and there is no proof that it is his, he is like a robber, and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讜讻诇 讛诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 诪砖诇诐

Rabbi Abba said to him: He is one who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath is liable to pay. This illustrates that Rabbi Abba holds that the oath returns to its place, i.e., to the defendant, who is disqualified from taking oaths, and that consequently he must pay.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖讘注转 讛壮 转讛讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 讘讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

Rava said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba; as Rabbi Ami teaches this baraita: The verse states that 鈥渢he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:10), but not between their heirs. What are the circumstances in which one would be liable to take an oath, but his heirs would be exempt?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讗讘讜讛讗

If we say that it is where the lender鈥檚 son said to the borrower鈥檚 son: One hundred dinars that belonged to my father were in the possession of your father, as a loan, and you must repay me, and the borrower鈥檚 son said to him: He had a debt of fifty, and the other fifty he did not have to pay him, i.e., he did not owe it, that is difficult. Under these circumstances, what does it matter to me if it is he, the borrower鈥檚 heir, or his father, the original borrower? Since the son is admitting that he owes part of the money and denying the rest with certainty, he is liable to take an oath, just like his father would have been.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讗 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讬讚注谞讗 讜讞诪砖讬谉 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

Rather, is it not that the lender鈥檚 son said to the borrower鈥檚 son: One hundred dinars that were my father鈥檚 were left in the possession of your father, and you must repay me, and the borrower鈥檚 son said to him: Concerning fifty dinars, I know that my father owed them, but I do not know anything about the other fifty dinars.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讬讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬驻讟专 讙讘讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘讬讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专 拽专讗 讙讘讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rabba continues: Granted, if you say that his father, in a case like this, would be liable to take an oath, due to his partial admission, then the verse was necessary to exempt the heirs from taking the oath. But if you say that in a case like this, his father is also exempt from taking an oath, why do I need a verse about exempting the heirs? Evidently, an oath reverts to one who is liable to take it, and when he cannot take that oath he must pay the claim against him.

讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 砖讘注转 讛壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav and Shmuel, who hold that one who cannot take an oath does not have to pay, and therefore there is no difference between the heirs and the father, what do they derive from this verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both鈥 (Exodus 22:10)?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讛壮 转讛讬讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讘讜注讛 讞诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon ben Tarfon says: The verse: 鈥淭he oath of the Lord shall be between them both,鈥 teaches that when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, the oath applies to them both, i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God鈥檚 name.

砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讜拽讘 讗讞专 谞讜讗祝 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转谞讗祝 诇讗 转谞讗讬祝

Since this Sage was mentioned, the Gemara cites some of his other statements. Shimon ben Tarfon says: With regard to the prohibition of following after an adulterer, i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, from where is it derived? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not commit adultery [lo tinaf ]鈥 (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: You shall not cause adultery [lo tanif ].

讜转专讙谞讜 讘讗讛诇讬讻诐 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 转专转诐 讜讙讬谞讬转诐 讘讗讛诇讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐

Commenting on the verse describing the response of the Jewish people to the spies鈥 slander of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淎nd you murmured [vatteragenu] in your tents and said: Because the Lord hated us, He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:27), Shimon ben Tarfon says:Teragenu鈥 is interpreted as though it is composed of two Hebrew expressions: You explored [tartem] the land, and: You disparaged [ginnitem] it, in the tent of the Omnipresent.

注讚 讛谞讛专 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讛专 驻专转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讬谞讗 讜讗讬讚讛谉 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 注讘讚 诪诇讱 讻诪诇讱

With regard to the verse: 鈥淎s far as the great river, the river Euphrates鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:7), Shimon ben Tarfon says: Although it is not the largest river, the Euphrates is called great in accordance with the adage: Draw close to the one anointed with oil and become anointed as well. Because the Euphrates is close to Eretz Yisrael, it is called great. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a similar idea: The servant of a king is like a king.

讜讛讞谞讜谞讬 注诇 驻讬谞拽住讜 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讜专讞 砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 (讘专 讗讘讗) 转谞讬谞讗 砖谞讬讛诐 谞砖讘注讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches that the storekeeper relying on his ledger takes an oath and receives payment. If an employer tells a storekeeper to pay his laborers, and the storekeeper claims he paid them, while the laborers claim that they did not receive payment, both the storekeeper and the laborers take oaths and receive payment from the employer. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Why is there the bother with this oath, that it is imposed upon both of them? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: We learn in the mishna (see 45a) that both of them take an oath and receive payment of their claims from the employer.

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 驻讜注诇讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讞谞讜谞讬 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept from him that this is the halakha, or did he not accept it from him? Come and hear as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The laborers take an oath to the storekeeper that he had not paid them. And if it is so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 ruling, then Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should have instead said that the laborers take an oath to the employer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讜注诇讬诐 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘诪注诪讚 讞谞讜谞讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讻住驻讜 诪讬谞讬讛

Rava said: Do not conclude that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 ruling. Rather, interpret his statement as follows: The laborers take an oath to the employer in the presence of the storekeeper, so that they will feel ashamed to lie with him present, since he knows whether or not he paid them.

讗讬转诪专 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讛诪讻讞讬砖讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜 讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪注讬讚讛 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪注讬讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讘讛讚讬 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

It was stated about a similar topic that if there were two sets of witnesses who contradict one another, and it is clear that one set must be testifying falsely, Rav Huna says: This set can come by itself and testify about other cases, and that set can come by itself and testify. Neither set of witnesses is disqualified for future testimony, since there is no way of knowing which was lying. Rav 岣sda said: Why do I need to become involved with lying witnesses? Since each set of witnesses is possibly untrustworthy, both sets are disqualified.

砖谞讬 诪诇讜讬谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 讜诇讜讛 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara cites the circumstances relevant to this dispute. If, after contradicting each other, the two sets of witnesses testified about circumstances involving two distinct lenders, and two distinct borrowers, and therefore two separate promissory notes, each one signed by a different set of witnesses, this sort of scenario is the subject of their dispute. According to Rav Huna both promissory notes are valid, and according to Rav 岣sda neither is valid. In the case of a single lender, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, with each signed by a different one of the sets of witnesses, the holder of the promissory note is at a disadvantage and can collect only the lower sum. One of the promissory notes is necessarily not valid, as it is signed by witnesses who testified falsely.

砖谞讬 诪诇讜讬谉 讜诇讜讛 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 讜诪诇讜讛 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

In the case of two lenders, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, this is the same as the mishna, where two claimants who contradict each other come to collect payment from a single person who must pay them both, as the evidence for both claims has a presumption of validity. In the case of two borrowers, and a single lender, and two promissory notes, what is the halakha? Can each of the borrowers claim that the promissory note supporting the claim against him is not valid, as it could have been signed by the untrustworthy set of witnesses; or does each of them have to pay unless he can prove that the promissory note against him was signed by the unfit set of witnesses? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection from a baraita:

Scroll To Top