שבועות ל״ט

שבועות ל״ט

שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ נִזְדַּעְזַע בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּסִינַי ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא״.

that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said at Mount Sinai: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless one who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנַקֵּה״, וְכָאן נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יְנַקֶּה״. וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָאן מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּתֵּן אֶת פִּיךָ לַחֲטִיא אֶת בְּשָׂרֶךָ״ – וְאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ אֶלָּא קְרוֹבוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִּתְעַלָּם״.

And be aware that with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty [venakkeh]” (Exodus 34:7); whereas here, with regard to taking a false oath, it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless [lo yenakkeh].” And be aware that with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted only from the transgressor, whereas here, punishment is exacted from him and from his family, as it is stated: “Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh into guilt” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). The verse indicates that one who sins with his mouth, by taking a false oath, causes his flesh to be punished as well; and one’s flesh is nothing other than his relative, as it is stated: “And that you not hide yourself from your own flesh” (Isaiah 58:7).

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָאן מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָלֹה וְכַחֵשׁ״.

And be aware that with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted only from the transgressor; whereas here, punishment is exacted from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing, and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break all bounds…Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes” (Hosea 4:2–3).

וְאֵימָא עַד דְּעָבֵיד לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דִּכְתִיב: ״מִפְּנֵי אָלָה אָבְלָה הָאָרֶץ״, וּכְתִיב: ״עַל כֵּן תֶּאֱבַל הָאָרֶץ וְאֻמְלַל כׇּל יוֹשֵׁב בָּהּ״.

The Gemara suggests: And why not say that punishment is not exacted from the entire world unless he commits all of the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that taking a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn. And it is similarly written in the verse in Hosea: “Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes.” Both verses employ a term of mourning.

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ זְכוּת, תּוֹלִין לוֹ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת; וְכָאן נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַלְתַּר – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹצֵאתִיהָ נְאֻם ה׳ צְבָאוֹת, וּבָאָה אֶל בֵּית הַגַּנָּב וְאֶל בֵּית הַנִּשְׁבָּע בִּשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר, וְלָנֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְכִלַּתּוּ וְאֶת עֵצָיו וְאֶת אֲבָנָיו״.

The baraita continues with the judges’ forewarning: And be aware that with regard to all the other transgressions in the Torah, if the transgressor has merit, God suspends his punishment for two or three generations, and only if his descendants follow in his ways are they punished. Whereas here, punishment is exacted from him immediately, as it is stated: “This is the curse that goes forth over the face of the whole land…I cause it to go forth, says the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of he who swears falsely by My name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones” (Zechariah 5:3–4).

״הוֹצֵאתִיהָ״ – לְאַלְתַּר. ״וּבָאָה אֶל בֵּית הַגַּנָּב״ – זֶה הַגּוֹנֵב דַּעַת הַבְּרִיּוֹת; שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָמוֹן אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְטוֹעֲנוֹ וּמַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. ״וְאֶל בֵּית הַנִּשְׁבָּע בִּשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. ״וְלָנֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְכִלַּתּוּ וְאֶת עֵצָיו וְאֶת אֲבָנָיו״ – הָא לָמַדְתָּ, דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין אֵשׁ וּמַיִם מְכַלִּין אוֹתָן, שְׁבוּעַת שֶׁקֶר מְכַלָּה אוֹתָן.

The baraita analyzes the verse: “I cause it to go forth” means immediately. “And it shall enter into the house of the thief”; this is referring to one who deceives people, e.g., one who has no money in the possession of another, but claims money from him and administers an oath to him in court, thereby causing an oath to be taken in vain. “And into the house of he who swears falsely by My name” is as it indicates, in accordance with its straightforward meaning. From the end of the verse: “And it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones,” you have therefore learned that a false oath consumes things that even fire and water do not consume, such as stones.

אִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – הָעוֹמְדִין שָׁם אוֹמְרִים זֶה לָזֶה: ״סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אׇהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה וְגוֹ׳״. וּכְשֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ, שֶׁלֹּא עַל דַּעְתְּךָ אָנוּ מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתְךָ, אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת הַמָּקוֹם וְעַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין.

The baraita continues: If the defendant says at this point: I will not take an oath, the court dismisses him immediately, and rules him liable to pay. And if he says: I will take an oath, the people standing there say to each other: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away in all their sins” (Numbers 16:26). And when the judges administer the oath to him, they say to him: Be aware that we administer an oath to you not according to your understanding of the oath, but according to the objective understanding of the Omnipresent and according to the understanding of the court, i.e., the judges’ intention.

שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, כְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָמַר לָהֶן: דְּעוּ, שֶׁלֹּא עַל דַּעְתְּכֶם אֲנִי מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֶתְכֶם, אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת הַמָּקוֹם וְעַל דַּעְתִּי; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא אִתְּכֶם לְבַדְּכֶם וְגוֹ׳״.

This is as we have found written with regard to Moses, our teacher. When he administered an oath to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab so that they would accept the Torah upon themselves, he said to them: Know that it is not according to your understanding that I administer an oath to you, but according to the understanding of the Omnipresent and according to my understanding. As it is stated: “Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath” (Deuteronomy 29:13), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: Not only according to your intention.

״כִּי אֶת אֲשֶׁר יֶשְׁנוֹ פֹּה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִין עַל הַר סִינַי; דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים וְגֵרִים הָעֲתִידִין לְהִתְגַּיֵּיר – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ״.

Having quoted a verse, the baraita tangentially interprets the subsequent verse. From the phrase: “But with he who stands here with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14), I have derived only that those who stood at Mount Sinai were included in this covenant. From where do I derive that the subsequent generations, and the converts who will convert in the future, were also included? The verse states: “And also with he who is not here with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14).

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִצְוָה שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מֵהַר סִינַי; מִצְוֹת הָעֲתִידוֹת לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ, כְּגוֹן מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ״ – קִיְּימוּ מַה שֶּׁקִּבְּלוּ כְּבָר.

And I have derived only that the mitzvot that the Jewish people accepted upon themselves at Mount Sinai were included in the oath. From where is it derived that mitzvot that were to be initiated in the future, for example, the reading of the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, on Purim, were also included? The verse states: “The Jews ordained and took upon themselves…that they would keep these two days” (Esther 9:27), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: They ordained, in the generation of Esther, mitzvot that they had already accepted upon themselves by oath in the plains of Moab.

מַאי ״אַף הִיא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ נֶאֶמְרָה״?

§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What is the precise meaning of the statement: An oath imposed by the judges may also be recited in its language?

כְּדִתְנַן: אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָרִין בְּכׇל לְשׁוֹן – פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה, וִידּוּי מַעֲשֵׂר, קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּתְפִלָּה, וּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, וּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן. וְקָאָמַר נָמֵי: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין – אַף הִיא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ נֶאֶמְרָה.

The Gemara answers: It is as we learned in a mishna (Sota 32a): These are recited in any language and it is not required that they be recited in Hebrew: The portion of the warning and the oath administered by the priest to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]; the declaration of tithes, which occurs after the third and the sixth year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately; the recitation of Shema; and the Amida prayer; and Grace after Meals; and the oath of testimony, where one takes an oath that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue; and the oath on a deposit, where one takes an oath that he does not have possession of another’s deposit. All these may be recited in any language. And the baraita also states, as an addendum to this halakha, that an oath imposed by the judges may also be recited in its language, i.e., in any language.

אָמַר מָר, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ נִזְדַּעְזַע בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא״. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִתְיְהֵב בְּסִינַי – עֶשֶׂר דִּבְּרוֹת נָמֵי אִתְיְהֵב!

§ The Master said in the baraita above that the judges say to him: Be aware that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” What is the reason that the entire world trembled? If we say it was because this prohibition was given at Mount Sinai, this is difficult, as when the entire world trembled, the rest of the Ten Commandments were also given at Mount Sinai. This quality is not unique to this specific prohibition.

וְאֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲמִירָא – וּמִי חֲמִירָא?! וְהָתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן קַלּוֹת – עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, חוּץ מִ״לֹּא תִשָּׂא״. חֲמוּרוֹת – זוֹ כָּרֵיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, וְ״לֹא תִשָּׂא״ עִמָּהֶן!

And if it is rather due to the fact that this prohibition is severe, is it more severe than all the other prohibitions? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: These are minor transgressions: Violation of an ordinary positive mitzva and an ordinary negative mitzva, except for: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” And these are major transgressions: Those for which one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] or a court-imposed death penalty; and “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” is also among them. Evidently, this transgression is no more severe than transgressions that incur karet or the death penalty.

אֶלָּא כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא – וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״וְנַקֵּה״, וְכָאן נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יְנַקֶּה״.

Rather, the reason the world trembled particularly when this prohibition was given is as it is taught subsequently in the baraita: And with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty,” whereas here, it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless.”

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״לֹא יְנַקֶּה״?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה״!

The Gemara asks: And is it not stated with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah that God “will not hold guiltless [lo yenakkeh]” one who transgresses? But isn’t it written: “And Who will by no means clear the guilty [venakkeh lo yenakkeh]” (Exodus 34:7)?

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״וְנַקֵּה״ – שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יְנַקֶּה״; אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״לֹא יְנַקֶּה״ – שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְנַקֵּה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְנַקֶּה הוּא לַשָּׁבִים, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַקֶּה לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁבִים.

The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for that which is derived through the homiletic interpretation of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: It is not possible to say: And will clear the guilty [venakkeh], about all transgressions, since: Will not clear the guilty [lo yenakkeh], is already stated. And it is not possible to say: Will not clear the guilty [lo yenakkeh], since: And will clear the guilty [venakkeh], is already stated. How can these texts be reconciled? The Holy One, Blessed be He, clears those guilty ones who repent and does not clear those who do not repent.

כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָאן מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ לָא?!

§ It is stated in the baraita that with regard to all of the transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted only from the transgressor, whereas here, punishment is exacted from him and from his family. The Gemara asks: And is punishment not exacted from the transgressor’s family with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah?

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ״; וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הוּא חָטָא, מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ מָה חָטָאת? לוֹמַר לְךָ: אֵין לְךָ מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מוֹכֵס – שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ מוֹכְסִין; וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ לִסְטִים – שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ לִסְטִים; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּחַפִּין עָלָיו!

But isn’t it written in the Torah with regard to one who worships Molech: “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will cut him off” (Leviticus 20:5)? And it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: If he sinned, how did his family sin? Why are they punished? This serves to tell you that there is no family that has an unauthorized tax collector among them in which all of the family members are not regarded as unauthorized tax collectors, and similarly, there is no family that has a bandit [listim] among them in which all of the family members are not regarded as bandits. This is because they cover for him. Evidently, punishment is exacted from the transgressor’s family with regard to transgressions other than taking a false oath.

הָתָם בְּדִינָא אַחֲרִינָא, הָכָא בְּדִינָא דִּידֵיהּ; כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִכְרַתִּי אוֹתוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה כּוּלָּהּ בְּהִיכָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ – אוֹתוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת, וְלֹא כׇּל הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה כּוּלָּהּ בְּהִיכָּרֵת.

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to other transgressions, the transgressor’s family is punished with another punishment, less severe than the one the transgressor receives, whereas here, with regard to a false oath, the transgressor’s family is punished with his punishment. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Why must the verse state with regard to one who worships Molech: “And I will cut him off”? Since it is stated earlier in the verse: “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family,” one might have thought that the entire family is liable to be punished with karet. Therefore, the verse states: “And I will cut him off,” indicating that only he is liable to be punished with karet, whereas his entire family is not liable to be punished with karet.

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָאן מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָלֹה וְכַחֵשׁ״, וּכְתִיב: ״עַל כֵּן תֶּאֱבַל הָאָרֶץ״. וְאֵימָא עַד דְּעָבֵיד לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִפְּנֵי אָלָה אָבְלָה הָאָרֶץ״.

§ The baraita teaches: And with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted only from him, whereas here, punishment is exacted from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery,” and it is written: “Therefore, the land mourns.” The Gemara suggests: And why not say that punishment is not exacted from the entire world unless he commits all the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn.

וְכׇל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – מִכׇּל הָעוֹלָם לָא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכָשְׁלוּ אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו״ – אִישׁ בַּעֲוֹן אָחִיו; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲרֵבִים זֶה בָּזֶה!

The Gemara asks: And with regard to all of the other transgressions in the Torah, is punishment not exacted from the entire world? But isn’t it written: “And they shall stumble one upon another” (Leviticus 26:37)? This verse is homiletically interpreted to mean that they shall stumble spiritually, one due to the iniquity of another, which teaches that the entire Jewish people are considered guarantors for one another. Apparently, any transgression makes the entire world liable to be punished.

הָתָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדָם לְמַחוֹת, וְלֹא מִיחוּ.

The Gemara answers: There, in that verse, the reference is to a case where the others had the ability to protest the transgression, and nevertheless, they did not protest. By contrast, when one takes a false oath, the entire world is punished, even those who were not able to protest.

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רְשָׁעִים דְּמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ לָרְשָׁעִים דְּעָלְמָא; בֵּין צַדִּיקִים דְּמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ לְצַדִּיקִים דְּעָלְמָא?

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the punishment of the wicked people in a transgressor’s family and the punishment of the other wicked people of the world, and between the punishment of the righteous people in his family and the punishment of the other righteous people of the world?

הוּא בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת – בְּדִינֵיהּ; וּרְשָׁעִים דְּמִשְׁפָּחָה – בְּדִין חָמוּר; וּרְשָׁעִים דְּעָלְמָא – בְּדִין הַקַּל; צַדִּיקֵי דְּהָכָא וְהָכָא – פְּטִירִי.

The Gemara answers: With regard to other transgressions, the transgressor himself is punished with his own punishment, i.e., that which is written in the Torah for that transgression. And the wicked people of his family, who covered for him, are punished with another severe punishment, and the wicked people of the rest of the world, who refrained from protesting his action, are punished with a light punishment. The righteous people both here and here, i.e., both his family members who did not cover for him, and others who were not able to protest his action, are exempt from punishment.

גַּבֵּי שְׁבוּעָה, הוּא וּרְשָׁעִים דְּמִשְׁפָּחָה – כְּדִינֵיהּ; וּרְשָׁעִים דְּעָלְמָא – בְּדִין חָמוּר; וְצַדִּיקֵי דְּהָכָא וְהָכָא – בְּדִין הַקַּל.

With regard to one who takes a false oath, by contrast, he and the wicked people of his family are all punished with his punishment, i.e., they receive the same punishment he does. And the wicked people of the rest of the world, who refrained from protesting his action, are punished with a severe punishment, and the righteous people both here, in his family, and here, in the rest of the world, are punished with a light punishment, even though they did not behave inappropriately. Accordingly, the consequences of taking a false oath are more severe than those of other transgressions.

אִם אָמַר ״אֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד, וְאִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נִשְׁבָּע״ – הָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם אוֹמְרִים זֶה לָזֶה: ״סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אׇהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה״. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָהוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּבַע – קָאֵי בְּאִיסּוּרָא; אֶלָּא הָהוּא דְּקָא מַשְׁבַּע לֵיהּ – אַמַּאי?

§ The baraita states: If the defendant says: I will not take an oath, the court dismisses him immediately, and rules him liable to pay. And if he says: I will take an oath, the people standing there say to each other: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men.” The Gemara asks: Granted that one who is taking the oath stands to transgress the prohibition against taking a false oath; but why is the one administering the oath to him, i.e., the claimant, considered a wicked man?

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁבֻעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחָלָה שְׁבוּעָה עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם.

The Gemara answers: That designation is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Tarfon says that the verse: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both” (Exodus 22:10), teaches that the punishment for a false oath applies to both the one who took the oath and the one who administered it to him.

וּכְשֶׁמַּשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁלֹּא עַל דַּעְתְּךָ וְכוּ׳. לְמָה לִי לְמֵימְרָא לֵיהּ הָכִי? מִשּׁוּם קַנְיָא דְּרָבָא.

§ The baraita states: And when the judges administer the oath to him, they say to him: Be aware that we administer an oath to you not according to your understanding, but according to the understanding of the Omnipresent and according to the understanding of the court. The Gemara explains: Why does the court need to say this to him? It is due to deceptions like that of the reed in Rava’s court, where the defendant secretly inserted into a hollow reed the money he owed and gave it to the claimant to hold for him, whereupon he took an oath that he had already given him the money. He then took back the reed, as the claimant was unaware of its contents. In this way, he was able to state an oath that was technically true, although he was guilty of deception. To prevent this, the court stipulates that the oath must be true according to the court’s understanding.

הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. אָמַר רַב: כְּפִירַת טַעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: טַעֲנָה עַצְמָהּ שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף; אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּפַר אֶלָּא בִּפְרוּטָה, וְלֹא הוֹדָה אֶלָּא בִּפְרוּטָה – חַיָּיב.

§ The mishna teaches that the court administers an oath to one who admits to part of a claim only when the claim is for at least the value of two silver ma’a. Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the exact meaning of this statement. Rav says that the denial of the claim must be at least the value of two silver ma’a. And Shmuel says that the claim itself must be at least the value of two silver ma’a; i.e., even if the defendant denied only one peruta of the claim, or conversely, if he admitted to only one peruta of the two-ma’a claim, he is liable to take an oath.

אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב, וּקְרָאֵי כְּוָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. דַּיְקָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב – דְּקָתָנֵי הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף וְהַהוֹדָאָה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְאִילּוּ כְּפִירַת טַעֲנָה פְּרוּטָה לָא קָתָנֵי. וּתְנַן נָמֵי הַהוֹדָאָה בִּפְרוּטָה, וְאִילּוּ כְּפִירָה בִּפְרוּטָה לָא קָתָנֵי.

Rava said: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the biblical verses are precise in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it teaches: The claim must be for at least the value of two silver ma’a and the admission must be at least the value of one peruta, whereas it does not teach that the minimum denial of the claim is one peruta, indicating that it must be more. And also, we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 55a) that the minimum admission to part of a claim that renders one liable to take an oath is the value of one peruta, whereas that mishna does not teach that the minimum denial is the value of one peruta.

וּקְרָאֵי כְּוָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמוֹר״ – מָה ״כֵּלִים״ שְׁנַיִם, אַף ״כֶּסֶף״ שְׁנַיִם; מָה כֶּסֶף דָּבָר חָשׁוּב, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר חָשׁוּב; וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי הוּא זֶה״.

And the verses are precise in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as it is written with regard to the case where an oath is administered due to admission to part of a claim: “If a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard” (Exodus 22:6). It is derived from the juxtaposition of silver and vessels that just as “vessels,” in the plural, is referring to at least two, so too, “silver” is referring to at least two ma’a of silver. It is derived further that just as silver is an item of substantial value, so too, any item of substantial value is included. And the Merciful One states in the subsequent verses that an oath is administered in a case “where one says: This is it” (Exodus 22:8), i.e., where the defendant admits to only part of the claim of “silver or vessels” and denies the rest of the claim. Evidently, the denial can be for an amount less than two silver ma’a.

וְרַב – הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל – כְּתִיב ״הוּא״ וּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, דְּאִי כְּפַר בְּמִקְצָת וְאוֹדִי בְּמִקְצָת – חַיָּיב.

And Rav would respond that the phrase “this is it” is necessary to indicate admission to a part of the claim, but it does not indicate the value being denied, which must be at least two silver ma’a. The Gemara asks: And how does Shmuel derive both halakhot from the verse, namely, that admission to part of a claim is necessary for an oath to be administered, and that the denial can be less than the value of two ma’a? The Gemara answers: It is written: “This is,” and it is written: “It.” The repetition of these similar terms is homiletically interpreted to indicate that if the defendant denied part of the two-ma’a claim and admitted to the other part, he is liable to take an oath.

וְרַב – חַד לְהוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, וְחַד לְהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל – לָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּחָסְרָה לַהּ טַעֲנָה?

And Rav would respond that the repetition should be interpreted differently: One of the two terms is stated to indicate admission of a part of the claim, and the other one is stated to indicate admission of the same type of item as the claim. And Shmuel would respond: Even if you do not accept the derivation from the repetitious words, don’t you derive from this halakha by itself that the denial may be less than two ma’a, since the admission reduces the value of the claim? If the claim was for two ma’a, as derived from the verse, and the defendant admitted to a part of the claim, then the value of denial was clearly less than two ma’a.

אֶלָּא אָמַר לְךָ רַב: ״כֶּסֶף״ כִּי אֲתָא מֵעִיקָּרָא – לִכְפִירָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא; דְּאִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֵּלִים לִשְׁמוֹר״ – וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: מָה כֵּלִים שְׁנַיִם, אַף כֹּל שְׁנַיִם; ״כֶּסֶף״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְטַעֲנָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִכְפִירָה.

Rather, Rav could have said to you that when the word “silver” came initially, it came as a source for the value of the denial, not the claim; as if this were not so, if it were meant to refer to the value of the claim, let the Merciful One write in the verse: If a man delivers to his neighbor vessels to safeguard, without mentioning silver, and I would say that just as vessels are at least two, so too, the claim must be for at least two of any item, including coins of silver. Accordingly, why do I need the word “silver” that the Merciful One wrote? Rather, if it is not needed for the matter of the claim, apply it to the matter of the denial, and derive from it that the denial must be at least the value of two silver ma’a.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָךְ: אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כֵּלִים״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״כֶּסֶף״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי כֵּלִים שְׁנַיִם, אַף כֹּל שְׁנַיִם – אֲבָל דָּבָר חָשׁוּב לָא בָּעֵינַן; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And Shmuel could have said to you that if the Merciful One had written the word “vessels” and had not written the word “silver” I would say that just as vessels are at least two, so too, the claim must be for at least two of any item; but we do not need it to be an item of substantial value. Therefore, the word “silver” teaches us that it must be an item of substantial value, like silver.

תְּנַן: ״שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה״ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחָסְרָה לָהּ טַעֲנָה – וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל?

The Gemara attempts to prove Rav’s opinion from the mishna. We learned in the mishna that if the claimant said to the defendant: I have two silver ma’a in your possession, and the latter responded: You have only one copper peruta in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath. What is the reason? Is it not because the amount of the claim that was denied by the defendant was lacking, i.e., was less than, the minimum value of two ma’a? And accordingly, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: מִי סָבְרַתְּ שָׁוֶה קָתָנֵי?! דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי – מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Do you maintain that the case that is taught is one where the claim was for the value of two ma’a? The claim in the case that is taught was specifically for two silver ma’a. The defendant is exempt because the claim was for silver and he admitted to owing one peruta of copper; that which he claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, he had not claimed from him.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף וּפְרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה״ – חַיָּיב. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שָׁוֶה – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי חַיָּיב; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דַּוְקָא – אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמָה שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ!

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause: If the claimant said: I have two silver ma’a and one peruta in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only one peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath. Granted, if you say that the claim was for the value of two ma’a, due to that reason he is liable in this case; unlike the previous case, here the defendant denied a debt of two full ma’a. But if you say the claim was specifically for two silver ma’a and one copper peruta, why is he liable to take an oath? In this case too, that which he claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which he admitted to, he had not claimed from him.

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא – אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל; הָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן – חַיָּיב.

The Gemara answers: Isn’t this discussion only according to Shmuel? The proof was presented in order to attempt to refute the opinion of Shmuel, and doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel says that if one claimed that another owes him both wheat and barley, and the defendant admitted to owing him one of them, he is liable to take an oath? Here too, the claim was for two types of items, silver and copper, and the defendant admitted to owing one of the types, one peruta of copper. Therefore, according to Shmuel he is liable to take an oath.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶּסֶף״ – פָּטוּר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי פָּטוּר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שָׁוֶה – אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? לִיטְרָא טוּבָא הָוֵי!

This, too, stands to reason, from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches that if the claimant said: I have a litra of gold in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a litra of silver in my possession, he is exempt. Granted, if you say that the mishna is teaching a case where the claim was specifically for gold, it is due to that reason that he is exempt, as the admission was of a different item from the claim. But if you say the claim was for the value of a litra of gold, why is he exempt? A litra is a large amount, and certainly both the claim and the denial are each worth more than two ma’a.

אֶלָּא מִדְּסֵיפָא דַּוְקָא, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי דַּוְקָא.

Rather, it is clearly a case where the claim was specifically for two silver ma’a, and from the fact that in the latter clause, the claim was specifically for gold, it should be derived that also in the former clause, the claim was specifically for two ma’a.

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב? אָמַר לְךָ רַב: כּוּלַּהּ מַתְנִיתִין – שָׁוֶה, וְלִיטְרָא זָהָב שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: No, Rav could have said to you that the entire mishna is referring to claims in terms of the value of silver, not actual silver, but the case where the claim was for a litra of gold is different. All of the other cases in the mishna are referring to a certain monetary value, but this case is referring to actual gold, as a litra is not a coin or a monetary unit, but a measurement of weight.