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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 15, 2018 | 讻状讞 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 48

Rav and Shmuel held that orphans can’t collect聽a loan of their parent’s from other orphans if the聽parent of the debtor died first as a parent can’t pass an oath on to one’s children. Rabbi Elazar disagrees with them. The rabbis in later generations tried to override Rav and Shmuel’s opinion聽without success but managed to聽limit it in various ways. Can one do a gilgul聽shvua聽in a case where the oath is a rabbinic oath?


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

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 讗讞专转

If one witness who came to testify about the new moon says that he saw it two oxgoads high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three oxgoads high, their testimony is valid, as a discrepancy of this type is reasonable. But if one says that he saw the moon three oxgoads above the horizon, and the other one says it was five, their testimony is voided. But despite this, they are not disqualified as witnesses, and either of them may join in another testimony.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇注讚讜转 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 讗讞专转 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讜讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

What, is it not teaching that they each can join with another witness for testimony about monetary matters, even though each of them is suspected of giving false testimony? This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion. Rava said, explaining how Rav 岣sda understands this baraita: He, one of the contradictory witnesses, and another witness may combine for another testimony about the new moon, as in doing so, they become two witnesses against one testifying differently; and the statement of one witness has no standing in a place where it is contradicted by two witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讞谞讜谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 驻讬专讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻讬专讜转 爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讜砖谞讬讛谉 注讜专专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛驻砖讬诇谉 讘拽讜驻转讜 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If one said to a storekeeper: Give me produce valued at a dinar, and he gave him the produce, and subsequently the storekeeper and the customer dispute whether the customer ever paid the storekeeper, the mishna rules that the customer takes an oath that he paid. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: When does the customer take this oath? He takes it when the produce is collected and situated in front of them, and the two of them are quarreling about it. But if the customer has it bundled in his basket on his back, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., the storekeeper.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讱 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚驻讬专讬 注讘讬讚讬 讚诪专拽讘讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专拽讘讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讚诇讗 诪专拽讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The mishna continues with a similar case: If one said to a money changer: Give me small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently they dispute whether the customer gave the money changer the dinar, the customer takes an oath that he paid already. The Gemara notes: It is necessary to teach both the case involving the storekeeper and the case involving the money changer, as had it taught us only this first case, one might say that only in that case do the Rabbis say that the customer may take an oath to avoid payment, because produce is prone to spoiling, and since it spoils storekeepers do not retain it but give it to the customer immediately. But with regard to money, which does not spoil, say that they concede to Rabbi Yehuda that a money changer does not give coins to the customer until he has received payment, and the customer does not need to take an oath.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗

And had the ruling been stated only about that case involving the money changer, one might say that only in that case does Rabbi Yehuda say that the customer need not take an oath to avoid payment, but in this case, involving the storekeeper, say he concedes to the Rabbis. Therefore it is necessary to teach this dispute for both cases.

讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讛驻讜讙诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 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 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna teaches (see 45a): Just like other cases where the Sages said that one takes an oath and receives payment, the mishna teaches: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract, etc. And likewise, orphans may not collect with a promissory note inherited from their father except by taking an oath. The Gemara asks: 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 father, 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 an oath.

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 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.

砖诇讞讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖诇讞讜讛 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 砖诇讞讬 诇讛 讜讗讝诇讬 讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讗 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗

The Sages sent a question to Rabbi Elazar in Eretz Yisrael: What is the nature of this oath to the orphans of the borrower that it has the capacity to prevent the lender鈥檚 children from collecting their father鈥檚 debt? Rabbi Elazar sent a reply to them: That is not the correct ruling; rather, the heirs take the heirs鈥 oath, that they have no knowledge that this promissory note was paid, and collect payment of their claim. They sent the same question again to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Rabbi Ami. He said: They continue to send this question to this extent? If we had found a different explanation, wouldn鈥檛 we have sent it to them? Nevertheless, Rabbi Ami said: Since this question came to us, let us say something about it.

注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪转 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 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪转 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

If the litigants stood trial and then the lender died before taking an oath, the lender has already become liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower in accordance with the court鈥檚 ruling, and a person cannot bequeath an oath to his children, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel. If the litigants did not yet stand trial, and the lender died, the lender鈥檚 heirs take the heirs鈥 oath, and collect payment of their claim, as Rabbi Elazar said.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讟讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诪注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讘 诇讜讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rav Na岣an objects to this: Is that to say that it is the court that renders the lender liable to take an oath? At the moment the borrower died, the lender was liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转讗 讗讬 诇讬转讗 诇讬转讗 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 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 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: If the ruling of Rav and Shmuel is accepted, it is accepted; and if it is not accepted, it is not. The Gemara asks: Evidently, Rav Na岣an is uncertain whether the ruling of Rav and Shmuel is accepted. But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an ruled in an actual case against Rav and Shmuel, ruling that where both litigants are suspect about oaths they divide the disputed amount? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an stated his uncertainty with regard to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, who rule in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir that the oath returns to its place, but he himself does not hold accordingly, but rather rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei, who says that they divide the claim.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转讛 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讻转讜讘转讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞砖讘注讛 讜诪转讛

Rav Oshaya raises an objection from a mishna (Ketubot 104a): If a widow died without having received payment of her marriage contract, her heirs, e.g., sons from a previous marriage, may invoke her marriage contract in order to demand payment of it for up to twenty-five years later. Her heirs, who are orphans, can take an oath and collect their claim, even though they are collecting from other orphans, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a situation where the widow took an oath but died before she could collect the payment. When her heirs come to collect, an oath is no longer required.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖谞砖讘注讛 讜诪转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Ketubot 90a): In a case where he married his first wife and she died, and by the terms of the marriage contract, her sons inherit the sum promised in her marriage contract after the husband dies, if he subsequently married his second wife, and then he died, the second wife and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife, in collecting payment of her marriage contract. The heirs of the second wife can collect the marriage contract by taking an oath to the heirs of the first wife, stating that they have no knowledge of their mother having received her marriage contract, even though this is an oath bequeathed to them by their mother. This mishna therefore contradicts the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: This does not contradict their ruling, because they understand it to also be a situation where the second wife took an oath but died before she collected the payment.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 讬讜专砖讬讜 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (Ketubot 86b): If a husband stipulated that when his wife collects payment of her marriage contract he will not impose an oath on her or on her heirs or representatives, he may not impose an oath, but his heirs can administer an oath to her, to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority as representatives. Her heirs take an oath to collect from the husband鈥檚 heirs, though they are all orphans. This is contrary to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, and here it is clear that the wife did not take an oath before she died.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讜转讛 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 讘讙专讜砖讛

Rav Shemaya said: The mishna is in accordance with Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling because it teaches the administration of an oath disjunctively. The heirs can administer an oath to her when she is receiving payment of her marriage contract as a widow, or they can administer an oath to her heirs when she is a divorc茅e who died after the divorce and before her husband died. Since she died first, her heirs were not bequeathed an oath to her husband鈥檚 heirs.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

Rav Natan bar Hoshaya raises an objection from a baraita: Sometimes the power of the son is greater than the power of the father,

砖讛讘谉 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诪转 诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诪诇讜讛

as the son can collect both by taking an oath and without taking an oath, while the father can collect only by taking an oath. What are the circumstances in which this occurs? It is when the borrower died during the life of the lender. The father who is the lender can collect from the borrower鈥檚 heirs only if he takes an oath.

讜拽转谞讬 砖讛讘谉 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

And it is taught: As the son can collect both by taking an oath and without taking an oath. He collects by taking an oath when he takes the heirs鈥 oath, that he has no knowledge that his father鈥檚 debt was paid, and he collects without taking an oath in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, that when there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that a certain promissory note had not been paid, the son collects the debt without taking an oath. In any case, absent testimony to that effect, the father bequeaths the oath to his children and the son can collect by taking an oath, contrary to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef said in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that a debt recorded in a promissory note that stands to be collected is considered as if it is already collected. Therefore, the father is considered to be already in possession of the loan and bequeaths it to his son. Even though the Sages instituted that the son take an oath to the heirs of the borrower, this is not a case of the son inheriting an oath.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬 诪专 谞注拽专讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻驻诇讬 讜讗转讗讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 驻专住讬 诇诪注拽专讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讗 讛讘讜 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛驻讜讙诐 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜诪转 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

搂 It is related that Rav Na岣an arrived in the city of Sura. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna came to see him. They said to him: Let our Master come, and together we will overturn that ruling of Rav and Shmuel. Rav Na岣an said to them: Did I exert myself and come all these parasangs to uproot that ruling of Rav and Shmuel? Rather, let us not extend their ruling by applying it to other situations outside the specific context of when the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender. The Gemara offers an example: This is like what Rav Pappa says: If a creditor vitiates his promissory note, by acknowledging that he has received partial payment and thereby rendering himself liable to take an oath in order to receive the rest, and then he dies, his heirs take the heirs鈥 oath and collect from the debtor.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 注专讘讗 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讟讜 注专讘讗 诇讗讜 讘转专 讬转诪讬 讗讝讬诇

The Gemara relates: There was a certain debtor who died and left a guarantor of his debt, and the orphans of the creditor came to collect from the guarantor. Rav Pappa thought to say: This, too, is a case to which one should not extend Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, as they said only that orphans do not inherit an oath to collect from other orphans, and this should not apply to collecting from a guarantor. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Is that to say that the guarantor will not pursue the orphans and collect from them? Ultimately, collecting from the guarantor is tantamount to collecting from the orphans, and no distinction should be made.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讗讞讗 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讬 讗讘讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讬 讗讞讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who died and left a brother as his heir, who wanted to collect from the orphans of the debtor. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this, too, is a case to which one should not extend Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, since Rav and Shmuel ruled that one does not bequeath an oath to one鈥檚 children, and they did not mention a case where the heir is a brother. Rava said to him: What difference does it make to me if the oath taken by the heir is: My father did not inform me that this debt has been paid, and what difference does it make to me if the oath taken is: My brother did not inform me?

讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讚 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

Rav 岣ma says: Now that the halakha was not stated either in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel has ruled, and his ruling is accepted, and a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled, and his ruling is accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讚讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪拽专注 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚诇诪讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪拽专注 诇讗 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

Rav Pappa says: When that promissory note of orphans comes before our court, we do not tear it up, but we also do not collect the debt with it. We do not collect the debt with it, since perhaps we should hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel that orphans cannot collect debts in a case where their father was required to take an oath to collect, as they cannot take the appropriate oath; but we do not tear it up, since a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled.

讛讛讜讗 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬谞讛 讗讬讙专转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讚诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转讬讬转讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was a certain judge who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. There was a Torah scholar in his city. He said to the judge: I will bring a letter from the West, Eretz Yisrael, stating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The judge said to him: When you bring such a letter, I will consider it, but for now I stand by my ruling. That Torah scholar came before Rav 岣ma, and Rav 岣ma said to him: A judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled, and his ruling cannot be voided.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗讟讜 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟注谞转 讘专讬 讗诇讗 讘讟注谞转 砖诪讗 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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, 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. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that we are dealing with fools who take an oath even though no claim has been brought against them? The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: And these people take an oath without it being in response to a definite claim but only to an uncertain claim, i.e., the claimant cannot know with certainty that he is owed money: Partners, sharecroppers, and the others listed in the mishna.

转谞讗 讘谉 讘讬转 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讻谞讬住 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 驻讬专讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 9:3): With regard to the member of the household whom they mentioned in the mishna, this is not referring to one who enters and exits the house on foot as a family friend, but rather to one who engages laborers, and dismisses laborers, gathers produce, and sends out produce in managing the household.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜专讜 讘讛 讛转讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And what is different about these people listed in the mishna, e.g., partners, such that they are liable to take an oath in response to an uncertain claim? It is because they tend to grant themselves permission to take for themselves from the property for which they are responsible, using as an excuse the effort they invest in their duties.

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 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讟注谞讛 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖转讬 讻住祝

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: One takes an oath in response to an uncertain claim only when there is a claim between them worth at least two silver ma鈥檃.

讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬诪讗 讻驻讬专转 讟注谞讛 讻专讘

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Is it in accordance with that of Shmuel? Shmuel holds that one becomes liable to take an oath after admitting to part of a claim when the value of the entire claim is at least two silver ma鈥檃. Rav holds that the portion one denies he owes must be at least two ma鈥檃 (see 39b). But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach a baraita in support of Rav? The Gemara answers: Say that Rav Na岣an means that the value of the denial of a claim is at least two silver ma鈥檃, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讞诇拽讜 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讙诇讙诇 讘讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Once the partners or the sharecroppers have divided the common property, and each has taken his share, then one side may not require an oath of the other absent a definite claim. A question was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha about extending an oath to an additional situation, in a case where the original oath is by rabbinic law?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讚讗转讬讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讗驻拽注转讬讛 讛讗 砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If one borrowed from another on the eve of, i.e., before, the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year became his partner or sharecropper, the lender may not extend the partner鈥檚 or sharecropper鈥檚 oath to an oath about the loan. The Gemara infers: The reason he may not extend the oath is that he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, so that the Sabbatical Year came and abrogated the loan, rendering the oath irrelevant. Therefore, if he borrowed during the other years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, an oath may be extended from the partner鈥檚 oath or sharecropper鈥檚 oath, which are rabbinic ordinances, to an oath about the loan.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉

The Gemara rejects that inference: Do not say: Therefore, if he borrowed during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, an oath may be extended. Rather, say that one should infer from the baraita that if he became his partner or sharecropper on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year he borrowed from him and incurred an oath by Torah law, that oath may be extended.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that taught explicitly in a baraita? It teaches: If he became his partner or sharecropper on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year he borrowed from him, the oath may be extended. Therefore, the initial inference must be correct. Conclude from it that an oath incurred by rabbinic law may be extended. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna says:

  • 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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 48

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 讗讞专转

If one witness who came to testify about the new moon says that he saw it two oxgoads high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three oxgoads high, their testimony is valid, as a discrepancy of this type is reasonable. But if one says that he saw the moon three oxgoads above the horizon, and the other one says it was five, their testimony is voided. But despite this, they are not disqualified as witnesses, and either of them may join in another testimony.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇注讚讜转 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 讗讞专转 砖诇 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讜讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

What, is it not teaching that they each can join with another witness for testimony about monetary matters, even though each of them is suspected of giving false testimony? This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion. Rava said, explaining how Rav 岣sda understands this baraita: He, one of the contradictory witnesses, and another witness may combine for another testimony about the new moon, as in doing so, they become two witnesses against one testifying differently; and the statement of one witness has no standing in a place where it is contradicted by two witnesses.

讗诪专 诇讞谞讜谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 驻讬专讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻讬专讜转 爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讜砖谞讬讛谉 注讜专专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛驻砖讬诇谉 讘拽讜驻转讜 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: If one said to a storekeeper: Give me produce valued at a dinar, and he gave him the produce, and subsequently the storekeeper and the customer dispute whether the customer ever paid the storekeeper, the mishna rules that the customer takes an oath that he paid. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: When does the customer take this oath? He takes it when the produce is collected and situated in front of them, and the two of them are quarreling about it. But if the customer has it bundled in his basket on his back, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., the storekeeper.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讱 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚驻讬专讬 注讘讬讚讬 讚诪专拽讘讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪专拽讘讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讚诇讗 诪专拽讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The mishna continues with a similar case: If one said to a money changer: Give me small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently they dispute whether the customer gave the money changer the dinar, the customer takes an oath that he paid already. The Gemara notes: It is necessary to teach both the case involving the storekeeper and the case involving the money changer, as had it taught us only this first case, one might say that only in that case do the Rabbis say that the customer may take an oath to avoid payment, because produce is prone to spoiling, and since it spoils storekeepers do not retain it but give it to the customer immediately. But with regard to money, which does not spoil, say that they concede to Rabbi Yehuda that a money changer does not give coins to the customer until he has received payment, and the customer does not need to take an oath.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗

And had the ruling been stated only about that case involving the money changer, one might say that only in that case does Rabbi Yehuda say that the customer need not take an oath to avoid payment, but in this case, involving the storekeeper, say he concedes to the Rabbis. Therefore it is necessary to teach this dispute for both cases.

讻砖诐 砖讗诪专讜 讛驻讜讙诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 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 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

搂 The mishna teaches (see 45a): Just like other cases where the Sages said that one takes an oath and receives payment, the mishna teaches: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract, etc. And likewise, orphans may not collect with a promissory note inherited from their father except by taking an oath. The Gemara asks: 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 father, 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 an oath.

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 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.

砖诇讞讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖诇讞讜讛 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 砖诇讞讬 诇讛 讜讗讝诇讬 讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讗 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗

The Sages sent a question to Rabbi Elazar in Eretz Yisrael: What is the nature of this oath to the orphans of the borrower that it has the capacity to prevent the lender鈥檚 children from collecting their father鈥檚 debt? Rabbi Elazar sent a reply to them: That is not the correct ruling; rather, the heirs take the heirs鈥 oath, that they have no knowledge that this promissory note was paid, and collect payment of their claim. They sent the same question again to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Rabbi Ami. He said: They continue to send this question to this extent? If we had found a different explanation, wouldn鈥檛 we have sent it to them? Nevertheless, Rabbi Ami said: Since this question came to us, let us say something about it.

注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪转 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 诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪转 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

If the litigants stood trial and then the lender died before taking an oath, the lender has already become liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower in accordance with the court鈥檚 ruling, and a person cannot bequeath an oath to his children, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel. If the litigants did not yet stand trial, and the lender died, the lender鈥檚 heirs take the heirs鈥 oath, and collect payment of their claim, as Rabbi Elazar said.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讟讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛 诪注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讻讬讘 诇讜讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讘谞讬 诇讜讛 砖讘讜注讛

Rav Na岣an objects to this: Is that to say that it is the court that renders the lender liable to take an oath? At the moment the borrower died, the lender was liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转讗 讗讬 诇讬转讗 诇讬转讗 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 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 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: If the ruling of Rav and Shmuel is accepted, it is accepted; and if it is not accepted, it is not. The Gemara asks: Evidently, Rav Na岣an is uncertain whether the ruling of Rav and Shmuel is accepted. But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an ruled in an actual case against Rav and Shmuel, ruling that where both litigants are suspect about oaths they divide the disputed amount? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an stated his uncertainty with regard to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, who rule in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir that the oath returns to its place, but he himself does not hold accordingly, but rather rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei, who says that they divide the claim.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪转讛 讬讜专砖讬讛 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 讗转 讻转讜讘转讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞砖讘注讛 讜诪转讛

Rav Oshaya raises an objection from a mishna (Ketubot 104a): If a widow died without having received payment of her marriage contract, her heirs, e.g., sons from a previous marriage, may invoke her marriage contract in order to demand payment of it for up to twenty-five years later. Her heirs, who are orphans, can take an oath and collect their claim, even though they are collecting from other orphans, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a situation where the widow took an oath but died before she could collect the payment. When her heirs come to collect, an oath is no longer required.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪转讛 谞砖讗 砖谞讬讛 讜诪转 讛讜讗 砖谞讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讬讜专砖讬 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖谞砖讘注讛 讜诪转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Ketubot 90a): In a case where he married his first wife and she died, and by the terms of the marriage contract, her sons inherit the sum promised in her marriage contract after the husband dies, if he subsequently married his second wife, and then he died, the second wife and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife, in collecting payment of her marriage contract. The heirs of the second wife can collect the marriage contract by taking an oath to the heirs of the first wife, stating that they have no knowledge of their mother having received her marriage contract, even though this is an oath bequeathed to them by their mother. This mishna therefore contradicts the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: This does not contradict their ruling, because they understand it to also be a situation where the second wife took an oath but died before she collected the payment.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讘诇 讬讜专砖讬讜 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讬讜专砖讬讛 讜讗转 讛讘讗讬谉 讘专砖讜转讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another mishna (Ketubot 86b): If a husband stipulated that when his wife collects payment of her marriage contract he will not impose an oath on her or on her heirs or representatives, he may not impose an oath, but his heirs can administer an oath to her, to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority as representatives. Her heirs take an oath to collect from the husband鈥檚 heirs, though they are all orphans. This is contrary to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, and here it is clear that the wife did not take an oath before she died.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗讜转讛 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬讜专砖讬讛 讘讙专讜砖讛

Rav Shemaya said: The mishna is in accordance with Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling because it teaches the administration of an oath disjunctively. The heirs can administer an oath to her when she is receiving payment of her marriage contract as a widow, or they can administer an oath to her heirs when she is a divorc茅e who died after the divorce and before her husband died. Since she died first, her heirs were not bequeathed an oath to her husband鈥檚 heirs.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讛讜砖注讬讗 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

Rav Natan bar Hoshaya raises an objection from a baraita: Sometimes the power of the son is greater than the power of the father,

砖讛讘谉 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诪转 诇讜讛 讘讞讬讬 诪诇讜讛

as the son can collect both by taking an oath and without taking an oath, while the father can collect only by taking an oath. What are the circumstances in which this occurs? It is when the borrower died during the life of the lender. The father who is the lender can collect from the borrower鈥檚 heirs only if he takes an oath.

讜拽转谞讬 砖讛讘谉 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讜注讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讘砖讘讜注讛 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

And it is taught: As the son can collect both by taking an oath and without taking an oath. He collects by taking an oath when he takes the heirs鈥 oath, that he has no knowledge that his father鈥檚 debt was paid, and he collects without taking an oath in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, that when there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that a certain promissory note had not been paid, the son collects the debt without taking an oath. In any case, absent testimony to that effect, the father bequeaths the oath to his children and the son can collect by taking an oath, contrary to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

Rav Yosef said in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that a debt recorded in a promissory note that stands to be collected is considered as if it is already collected. Therefore, the father is considered to be already in possession of the loan and bequeaths it to his son. Even though the Sages instituted that the son take an oath to the heirs of the borrower, this is not a case of the son inheriting an oath.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 注讜诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬 诪专 谞注拽专讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻驻诇讬 讜讗转讗讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 驻专住讬 诇诪注拽专讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讗 讛讘讜 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛驻讜讙诐 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜诪转 讬讜专砖讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖讘讜注转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉

搂 It is related that Rav Na岣an arrived in the city of Sura. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna came to see him. They said to him: Let our Master come, and together we will overturn that ruling of Rav and Shmuel. Rav Na岣an said to them: Did I exert myself and come all these parasangs to uproot that ruling of Rav and Shmuel? Rather, let us not extend their ruling by applying it to other situations outside the specific context of when the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender. The Gemara offers an example: This is like what Rav Pappa says: If a creditor vitiates his promissory note, by acknowledging that he has received partial payment and thereby rendering himself liable to take an oath in order to receive the rest, and then he dies, his heirs take the heirs鈥 oath and collect from the debtor.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 注专讘讗 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讟讜 注专讘讗 诇讗讜 讘转专 讬转诪讬 讗讝讬诇

The Gemara relates: There was a certain debtor who died and left a guarantor of his debt, and the orphans of the creditor came to collect from the guarantor. Rav Pappa thought to say: This, too, is a case to which one should not extend Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, as they said only that orphans do not inherit an oath to collect from other orphans, and this should not apply to collecting from a guarantor. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Is that to say that the guarantor will not pursue the orphans and collect from them? Ultimately, collecting from the guarantor is tantamount to collecting from the orphans, and no distinction should be made.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讗讞讗 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇讜住讬祝 注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讬 讗讘讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讬 讗讞讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who died and left a brother as his heir, who wanted to collect from the orphans of the debtor. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this, too, is a case to which one should not extend Rav and Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, since Rav and Shmuel ruled that one does not bequeath an oath to one鈥檚 children, and they did not mention a case where the heir is a brother. Rava said to him: What difference does it make to me if the oath taken by the heir is: My father did not inform me that this debt has been paid, and what difference does it make to me if the oath taken is: My brother did not inform me?

讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讚 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

Rav 岣ma says: Now that the halakha was not stated either in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel has ruled, and his ruling is accepted, and a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled, and his ruling is accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讚讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪拽专注 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讗讙讘讜讬讬 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚诇诪讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪拽专注 诇讗 拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

Rav Pappa says: When that promissory note of orphans comes before our court, we do not tear it up, but we also do not collect the debt with it. We do not collect the debt with it, since perhaps we should hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel that orphans cannot collect debts in a case where their father was required to take an oath to collect, as they cannot take the appropriate oath; but we do not tear it up, since a judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled.

讛讛讜讗 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬谞讛 讗讬讙专转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讚诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转讬讬转讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讬讬谞讗 讚注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was a certain judge who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. There was a Torah scholar in his city. He said to the judge: I will bring a letter from the West, Eretz Yisrael, stating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The judge said to him: When you bring such a letter, I will consider it, but for now I stand by my ruling. That Torah scholar came before Rav 岣ma, and Rav 岣ma said to him: A judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled, and his ruling cannot be voided.

讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 讗讟讜 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诇讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟注谞转 讘专讬 讗诇讗 讘讟注谞转 砖诪讗 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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, 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. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that we are dealing with fools who take an oath even though no claim has been brought against them? The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: And these people take an oath without it being in response to a definite claim but only to an uncertain claim, i.e., the claimant cannot know with certainty that he is owed money: Partners, sharecroppers, and the others listed in the mishna.

转谞讗 讘谉 讘讬转 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讻谞讬住 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 驻讬专讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 9:3): With regard to the member of the household whom they mentioned in the mishna, this is not referring to one who enters and exits the house on foot as a family friend, but rather to one who engages laborers, and dismisses laborers, gathers produce, and sends out produce in managing the household.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讜专讜 讘讛 讛转讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And what is different about these people listed in the mishna, e.g., partners, such that they are liable to take an oath in response to an uncertain claim? It is because they tend to grant themselves permission to take for themselves from the property for which they are responsible, using as an excuse the effort they invest in their duties.

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 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讟注谞讛 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖转讬 讻住祝

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: One takes an oath in response to an uncertain claim only when there is a claim between them worth at least two silver ma鈥檃.

讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬诪讗 讻驻讬专转 讟注谞讛 讻专讘

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Is it in accordance with that of Shmuel? Shmuel holds that one becomes liable to take an oath after admitting to part of a claim when the value of the entire claim is at least two silver ma鈥檃. Rav holds that the portion one denies he owes must be at least two ma鈥檃 (see 39b). But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach a baraita in support of Rav? The Gemara answers: Say that Rav Na岣an means that the value of the denial of a claim is at least two silver ma鈥檃, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讞诇拽讜 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讛讗专讬住讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讙诇讙诇 讘讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Once the partners or the sharecroppers have divided the common property, and each has taken his share, then one side may not require an oath of the other absent a definite claim. A question was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha about extending an oath to an additional situation, in a case where the original oath is by rabbinic law?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讚讗转讬讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讗驻拽注转讬讛 讛讗 砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If one borrowed from another on the eve of, i.e., before, the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year became his partner or sharecropper, the lender may not extend the partner鈥檚 or sharecropper鈥檚 oath to an oath about the loan. The Gemara infers: The reason he may not extend the oath is that he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, so that the Sabbatical Year came and abrogated the loan, rendering the oath irrelevant. Therefore, if he borrowed during the other years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, an oath may be extended from the partner鈥檚 oath or sharecropper鈥檚 oath, which are rabbinic ordinances, to an oath about the loan.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉

The Gemara rejects that inference: Do not say: Therefore, if he borrowed during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, an oath may be extended. Rather, say that one should infer from the baraita that if he became his partner or sharecropper on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year he borrowed from him and incurred an oath by Torah law, that oath may be extended.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 谞注砖讛 诇讜 砖讜转祝 讗讜 讗专讬住 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that taught explicitly in a baraita? It teaches: If he became his partner or sharecropper on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, and upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year he borrowed from him, the oath may be extended. Therefore, the initial inference must be correct. Conclude from it that an oath incurred by rabbinic law may be extended. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna says:

Scroll To Top