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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 16, 2018 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讞

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

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

Shevuot 49

Study Guide Shevuot 49. Oath of the bailees are discussed – the bailee is not聽responsible on a case where one took a false oath that either聽didn’t change the level of responsibility or obligated one instead of exempting one. The gemara discusses if the person is exempt from responsibility in these cases from an oath of the bailees, would one be responsible for an oath of expression, as one expressed an untruth, even if it had no financial repercussions.


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

诇讻诇 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖讻讬专 砖讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讻诇 讗讬谉 诪拽讬诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖讻讬专 讚诪拽讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇驻转讜讞 诇讜

Any oath, including one incurred by rabbinic law, may be extended to render the person who takes it liable to take an additional oath, except for the oath of a hired worker, which may not be extended, since the hired worker鈥檚 oath was instituted only to alleviate the concerns of the employer. Rav 岣sda says: For everyone, the Sages are not lenient, in that they extend any oath they incur to impose upon them additional oaths, except for a hired worker, for whom they are lenient. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the rulings of Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them as to whether the court initiates extending an oath for him, i.e., even when the other litigant has not suggested it, the court extends the original oath to include an oath about other claims.

讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讘讜专 诪砖诪讟转

搂 The mishna teaches: The Sabbatical Year abrogates the obligation to take an oath about a debt, just like it abrogates a debt. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: It is derived from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd this is the matter [devar] of the release: Every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since the word devar also means statement, this teaches that the Sabbatical Year releases, i.e., abrogates, even a statement, i.e., an oath.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专

MISHNA: There are four types of bailees, to whom different halakhot apply. They are as follows: An unpaid bailee, who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item in his care; and a borrower, who receives an item on loan for his own use without paying a rental fee; a paid bailee, who is paid a salary for safeguarding the deposited item; and a renter, i.e., one who pays a fee for the use of an item or animal.

砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻诇

In the event that one of these bailees is unable to return the deposited item to its owner, the halakha with regard to liability is dependent upon what happened to the item, and upon the type of bailee: An unpaid bailee takes an oath attesting to the fact that he was not negligent with the care of the item and is then exempt from liability for everything, meaning for all types of damage, whether the item was lost, stolen, damaged, or if the animal died. Conversely, a borrower does not have the option of taking an oath, and pays for everything, whether the item was stolen, lost, damaged, or the animal died, even if it was by unavoidable accident.

谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜专讛 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪转讛 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘讚讛 讜讗转 讛讙谞讬讘讛

The halakhot of a paid bailee and a renter are the same: They take an oath concerning an injured animal, and concerning a captured one, and concerning a dead animal, attesting to the fact that these mishaps were not caused by negligence, but rather by unavoidable accident, and then are exempt from liability. But they must pay if the deposit cannot be returned due to loss or theft, even if these were not caused by negligence.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

The mishna clarifies: If the owner of an ox said to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; or if the bailee responded: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or lost; or if he responded: It was lost, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen, in any of the above cases, if the owner of the ox then said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering, despite the fact that he took a false oath. The reason is that his false oath did not render him exempt from liability to pay.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If the owner says to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: I do not know what you are talking about, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering, since he would not have been liable to pay in any of these cases.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐

But if the owner said to the unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It is lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, and then witnesses testify that the bailee consumed it, he pays the owner the principal, since he took the ox for himself. But if there were no witnesses, but after he took the oath he admitted of his own accord that he stole the ox and took a false oath, then he pays the owner the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and he brings a guilt-offering to achieve atonement, as in any other case where one takes a false oath with regard to a deposit.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐

Similarly, if the owner said to the unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It was stolen, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, and then witnesses testify that the bailee stole it, he pays double the principal. If he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then he is exempt from double payment for theft, but pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and brings a guilt-offering to achieve atonement.

讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 砖讙谞讘转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉

If the owner of an ox said to someone in the marketplace, i.e., a stranger who was not a bailee: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says: I did not steal it, and then witnesses testify that the accused did steal it, he pays the double payment. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. If the accused saw witnesses that were approaching to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole the animal but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal.

讗诪专 诇砖讜讗诇 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜

If the owner said to a borrower: Where is my ox? And the borrower said to him:

诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or lost; or if he responded: It was lost, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen, in any of the above cases, if the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing an offering for his false oath, since the oath did not render him exempt from liability to pay. He would have been liable to pay in any case.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 谞讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讞讬讬讘

But if the owner said to the borrower: Where is my ox? And the borrower said to him: I do not know what you are talking about, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering, as he took an oath that would render him exempt from liability to pay.

讗诪专 诇谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If an owner said to a paid bailee or a renter: Where is my ox? And the latter said to him: It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured; or if he said: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured; or if he said: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured; or if he said: It was stolen, but the truth was that it was lost; or if he said: It was lost, but the truth was that it was stolen, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讗讘讚 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If the paid bailee or renter said: It died or was injured or captured, but the truth was that it was stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the paid bailee or renter said: It was lost or stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪讞讜讘讛 诇讞讜讘讛 讜诪驻讟讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讜诪驻讟讜专 诇讞讜讘讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞讜讘讛 诇驻讟讜专 讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注 诇讛拽诇 注诇 注爪诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专

This is the principle: Anyone who changes from one claim of liability to another claim of liability or from one claim of exemption to another claim of exemption or from a claim of exemption to a claim of liability is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering. If he changes from a claim of liability to a claim of exemption, he is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who takes an oath to be lenient with himself is liable; if he takes an oath to be stringent with himself, he is exempt.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that there are four types of bailees? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And is there a tanna who does not accept that there are four types of bailees, as the question and your answer indicate? Rav Na岣an said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Who is the tanna who says that a renter has the same halakhic status as a paid bailee? With regard to this question, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬

The Gemara challenges: But we have heard that Rabbi Meir said the opposite, as it is taught in a baraita: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says: He pays like an unpaid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: He pays like a paid bailee. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar Avuh taught this baraita while reversing the opinions, stating that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that a renter is like a paid bailee; therefore, he said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讛谞讬 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 砖诇砖讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讚讬谞讬讛谉 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara asks: Are these in fact four types of bailees? There are actually only three, as the halakhot relating to a paid bailee and a renter are identical. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There are indeed four types of bailees with regard to the manner in which they accepted the deposit, but only three halakhot that apply to them.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讻讜壮 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讻讜壮 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬

搂 The following cases were stated in the mishna: If the owner of an ox said to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox; or if the owner of an ox said to someone in the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole; or if he said to a bailee: Where is my ox, and the other person said to him: I do not know what you are talking about. With regard to all of these situations referred to in the mishna, Rav says: All of them are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for falsely taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance. And Shmuel says: They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance as well.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪驻诇讙讬 砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讬转讗 讘诇讛讘讗 讜专讘 住讘专 讗讬转讬讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉

With regard to what principle do they disagree? Shmuel holds that he is exempt from bringing an offering because there is no possibility of taking that oath with regard to an event that may occur in the future, i.e., that the deposited animal will die or be stolen or be lost, and Shmuel holds that one is not liable for taking an oath on an utterance in the case of any oath that one cannot take with reference to the future. And Rav holds that there is an obligation to bring a sin-offering because it is possible to take both a negative oath and a positive one. One of the conditions necessary in order for one to incur liability for an oath on an utterance is that the oath can be formulated as both a negative and a positive statement. This oath meets that criterion as one can formulate the oath in the negative, e.g., the deposit was not stolen, as well as in the positive, e.g., it was stolen.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讝专拽 驻诇讜谞讬 爪专讜专 诇讬诐 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讝专拽 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讗讬转讗 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚诇讬转讗 讘诇讛讘讗

The Gemara challenges: But they already disputed this question on another occasion (see 25a), as it was stated: With regard to one who says: On my oath so-and-so threw a stone into the sea, or: On my oath he did not throw it, Rav says: If it was later discovered that his statement was false, he is liable to bring an offering for his oath. And Shmuel says: He is exempt. Rav says that he is liable, as the oath can be positive or negative. And Shmuel says he is exempt because this oath cannot be stated with regard to the future, since he cannot control what so-and-so does.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诪谞驻砖讬讛 拽诪讬砖转讘注 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪砖讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state the dispute in the case of a bailee as well, as if they would teach it to us only in the case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, it may have been understood that it is only in this case that Rav says that the person taking the oath is exempt, since he is taking a false oath of his own accord, but in the case in the mishna here, where it is the court that is administering the oath to him, say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that he is exempt, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the dispute had been stated only in this case, i.e., the case of the bailee to whom the court administers the oath, one might have said: It is in this case that Shmuel says that he is exempt, in accordance with Rabbi Ami鈥檚 statement, but in a case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 诪注爪诪讜 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 诪砖转诪砖 讘讗专讘注 诇砖讜谞讜转 讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讚讛讗

Having mentioned Rabbi Ami鈥檚 ruling, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable for falsely taking an oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淥r if [ki] anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him鈥nd the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:4鈥6). Only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable, as the verse can be understood in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The term ki has four distinct meanings: If, perhaps, rather, and as. According to Rabbi Ami, its meaning in the above verse is: If, indicating that only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讚砖讜讗诇 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜砖讘砖讜讻专 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 讻驻专讜 诪诪讜谉

Rabbi Elazar says: All of them, i.e., all those listed in the mishna as exempt, are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for taking an oath on an utterance, except for a borrower who says: I do not know what you are talking about, and a paid bailee or a renter who claims that the deposit was stolen or lost. In these cases, the bailee is liable for taking an oath of the bailees, as he denied a monetary claim, meaning that he wanted to render himself exempt from liability to pay. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
This chapter explained that a bailee who makes a false claim and takes an oath to that effect is not always liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees. The principle with regard to this matter was stated at the end of the mishna: Any bailee who makes a false claim that would in any case not render him exempt from liability to pay, and takes an oath to that effect, is not liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 砖讘讜注讜转

 

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Shevuot 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 49

诇讻诇 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖讻讬专 砖讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讻诇 讗讬谉 诪拽讬诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪砖讻讬专 讚诪拽讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇驻转讜讞 诇讜

Any oath, including one incurred by rabbinic law, may be extended to render the person who takes it liable to take an additional oath, except for the oath of a hired worker, which may not be extended, since the hired worker鈥檚 oath was instituted only to alleviate the concerns of the employer. Rav 岣sda says: For everyone, the Sages are not lenient, in that they extend any oath they incur to impose upon them additional oaths, except for a hired worker, for whom they are lenient. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the rulings of Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them as to whether the court initiates extending an oath for him, i.e., even when the other litigant has not suggested it, the court extends the original oath to include an oath about other claims.

讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讘讜专 诪砖诪讟转

搂 The mishna teaches: The Sabbatical Year abrogates the obligation to take an oath about a debt, just like it abrogates a debt. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: It is derived from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd this is the matter [devar] of the release: Every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). Since the word devar also means statement, this teaches that the Sabbatical Year releases, i.e., abrogates, even a statement, i.e., an oath.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专

MISHNA: There are four types of bailees, to whom different halakhot apply. They are as follows: An unpaid bailee, who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item in his care; and a borrower, who receives an item on loan for his own use without paying a rental fee; a paid bailee, who is paid a salary for safeguarding the deposited item; and a renter, i.e., one who pays a fee for the use of an item or animal.

砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻诇

In the event that one of these bailees is unable to return the deposited item to its owner, the halakha with regard to liability is dependent upon what happened to the item, and upon the type of bailee: An unpaid bailee takes an oath attesting to the fact that he was not negligent with the care of the item and is then exempt from liability for everything, meaning for all types of damage, whether the item was lost, stolen, damaged, or if the animal died. Conversely, a borrower does not have the option of taking an oath, and pays for everything, whether the item was stolen, lost, damaged, or the animal died, even if it was by unavoidable accident.

谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜专讛 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪转讛 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘讚讛 讜讗转 讛讙谞讬讘讛

The halakhot of a paid bailee and a renter are the same: They take an oath concerning an injured animal, and concerning a captured one, and concerning a dead animal, attesting to the fact that these mishaps were not caused by negligence, but rather by unavoidable accident, and then are exempt from liability. But they must pay if the deposit cannot be returned due to loss or theft, even if these were not caused by negligence.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

The mishna clarifies: If the owner of an ox said to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; or if the bailee responded: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or lost; or if he responded: It was lost, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen, in any of the above cases, if the owner of the ox then said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering, despite the fact that he took a false oath. The reason is that his false oath did not render him exempt from liability to pay.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If the owner says to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: I do not know what you are talking about, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering, since he would not have been liable to pay in any of these cases.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐

But if the owner said to the unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It is lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, and then witnesses testify that the bailee consumed it, he pays the owner the principal, since he took the ox for himself. But if there were no witnesses, but after he took the oath he admitted of his own accord that he stole the ox and took a false oath, then he pays the owner the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and he brings a guilt-offering to achieve atonement, as in any other case where one takes a false oath with regard to a deposit.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讛讜讚讛 诪注爪诪讜 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗砖诐

Similarly, if the owner said to the unpaid bailee: Where is my ox? And the unpaid bailee said to him: It was stolen, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the unpaid bailee said: Amen, and then witnesses testify that the bailee stole it, he pays double the principal. If he admitted of his own accord that he stole it, then he is exempt from double payment for theft, but pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and brings a guilt-offering to achieve atonement.

讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 砖讙谞讘转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讙谞讘讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 专讗讛 注讚讬诐 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讗诪专 讙谞讘转讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讘讞转讬 讜诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉

If the owner of an ox said to someone in the marketplace, i.e., a stranger who was not a bailee: Where is my ox that you stole? And the accused says: I did not steal it, and then witnesses testify that the accused did steal it, he pays the double payment. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. If the accused saw witnesses that were approaching to testify against him, and at that point he said: I admit that I stole the animal but I did not slaughter or sell it, he pays only the principal.

讗诪专 诇砖讜讗诇 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜

If the owner said to a borrower: Where is my ox? And the borrower said to him:

诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or lost; or if he responded: It was lost, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen, in any of the above cases, if the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing an offering for his false oath, since the oath did not render him exempt from liability to pay. He would have been liable to pay in any case.

讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 谞讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讞讬讬讘

But if the owner said to the borrower: Where is my ox? And the borrower said to him: I do not know what you are talking about, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering, as he took an oath that would render him exempt from liability to pay.

讗诪专 诇谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转 讜讛讜讗 砖谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 谞砖讘专 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讘讚 讗讘讚 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙谞讘 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If an owner said to a paid bailee or a renter: Where is my ox? And the latter said to him: It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured; or if he said: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured; or if he said: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured; or if he said: It was stolen, but the truth was that it was lost; or if he said: It was lost, but the truth was that it was stolen, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讗讘讚 讗讜 谞讙谞讘 讜讛讜讗 砖诪转 讗讜 谞砖讘专 讗讜 谞砖讘讛 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 驻讟讜专

If the paid bailee or renter said: It died or was injured or captured, but the truth was that it was stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the paid bailee or renter said: It was lost or stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪讞讜讘讛 诇讞讜讘讛 讜诪驻讟讜专 诇驻讟讜专 讜诪驻讟讜专 诇讞讜讘讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞讜讘讛 诇驻讟讜专 讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛谞砖讘注 诇讛拽诇 注诇 注爪诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专

This is the principle: Anyone who changes from one claim of liability to another claim of liability or from one claim of exemption to another claim of exemption or from a claim of exemption to a claim of liability is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering. If he changes from a claim of liability to a claim of exemption, he is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who takes an oath to be lenient with himself is liable; if he takes an oath to be stringent with himself, he is exempt.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that there are four types of bailees? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And is there a tanna who does not accept that there are four types of bailees, as the question and your answer indicate? Rav Na岣an said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Who is the tanna who says that a renter has the same halakhic status as a paid bailee? With regard to this question, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬

The Gemara challenges: But we have heard that Rabbi Meir said the opposite, as it is taught in a baraita: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says: He pays like an unpaid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: He pays like a paid bailee. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar Avuh taught this baraita while reversing the opinions, stating that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that a renter is like a paid bailee; therefore, he said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讛谞讬 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讜 砖诇砖讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讚讬谞讬讛谉 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara asks: Are these in fact four types of bailees? There are actually only three, as the halakhot relating to a paid bailee and a renter are identical. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There are indeed four types of bailees with regard to the manner in which they accepted the deposit, but only three halakhot that apply to them.

讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讻讜壮 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇砖讜诪专 讻讜壮 讛讬讻谉 砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬

搂 The following cases were stated in the mishna: If the owner of an ox said to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox; or if the owner of an ox said to someone in the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole; or if he said to a bailee: Where is my ox, and the other person said to him: I do not know what you are talking about. With regard to all of these situations referred to in the mishna, Rav says: All of them are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for falsely taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance. And Shmuel says: They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance as well.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪驻诇讙讬 砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讬转讗 讘诇讛讘讗 讜专讘 住讘专 讗讬转讬讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉

With regard to what principle do they disagree? Shmuel holds that he is exempt from bringing an offering because there is no possibility of taking that oath with regard to an event that may occur in the future, i.e., that the deposited animal will die or be stolen or be lost, and Shmuel holds that one is not liable for taking an oath on an utterance in the case of any oath that one cannot take with reference to the future. And Rav holds that there is an obligation to bring a sin-offering because it is possible to take both a negative oath and a positive one. One of the conditions necessary in order for one to incur liability for an oath on an utterance is that the oath can be formulated as both a negative and a positive statement. This oath meets that criterion as one can formulate the oath in the negative, e.g., the deposit was not stolen, as well as in the positive, e.g., it was stolen.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讝专拽 驻诇讜谞讬 爪专讜专 诇讬诐 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讝专拽 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讗讬转讗 讘诇讗讜 讜讛谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚诇讬转讗 讘诇讛讘讗

The Gemara challenges: But they already disputed this question on another occasion (see 25a), as it was stated: With regard to one who says: On my oath so-and-so threw a stone into the sea, or: On my oath he did not throw it, Rav says: If it was later discovered that his statement was false, he is liable to bring an offering for his oath. And Shmuel says: He is exempt. Rav says that he is liable, as the oath can be positive or negative. And Shmuel says he is exempt because this oath cannot be stated with regard to the future, since he cannot control what so-and-so does.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诪谞驻砖讬讛 拽诪讬砖转讘注 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪砖讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state the dispute in the case of a bailee as well, as if they would teach it to us only in the case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, it may have been understood that it is only in this case that Rav says that the person taking the oath is exempt, since he is taking a false oath of his own accord, but in the case in the mishna here, where it is the court that is administering the oath to him, say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that he is exempt, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the dispute had been stated only in this case, i.e., the case of the bailee to whom the court administers the oath, one might have said: It is in this case that Shmuel says that he is exempt, in accordance with Rabbi Ami鈥檚 statement, but in a case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 砖讘讜注讛 砖讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 诪砖讘讬注讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 谞驻砖 讻讬 转砖讘注 诇讘讟讗 讘砖驻转讬诐 诪注爪诪讜 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 诪砖转诪砖 讘讗专讘注 诇砖讜谞讜转 讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讚讛讗

Having mentioned Rabbi Ami鈥檚 ruling, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable for falsely taking an oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淥r if [ki] anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him鈥nd the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:4鈥6). Only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable, as the verse can be understood in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The term ki has four distinct meanings: If, perhaps, rather, and as. According to Rabbi Ami, its meaning in the above verse is: If, indicating that only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讘讜注转 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讗转讛 住讞 讚砖讜讗诇 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜砖讘砖讜讻专 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 讻驻专讜 诪诪讜谉

Rabbi Elazar says: All of them, i.e., all those listed in the mishna as exempt, are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for taking an oath on an utterance, except for a borrower who says: I do not know what you are talking about, and a paid bailee or a renter who claims that the deposit was stolen or lost. In these cases, the bailee is liable for taking an oath of the bailees, as he denied a monetary claim, meaning that he wanted to render himself exempt from liability to pay. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
This chapter explained that a bailee who makes a false claim and takes an oath to that effect is not always liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees. The principle with regard to this matter was stated at the end of the mishna: Any bailee who makes a false claim that would in any case not render him exempt from liability to pay, and takes an oath to that effect, is not liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 砖讘讜注讜转

 

Scroll To Top