Commentary for Shevuot 62:4

אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא מי מצית אמרת דלאו בדון מינה ומינה פליגי והתנן גבי פקדון שבועת הפקדון נוהגת באנשים ובנשים ברחוקין ובקרובין בכשרין ובפסולין בפני ב"ד ושלא בפני ב"ד מפי עצמו ומפי אחרים אינו חייב עד שיכפור בו בב"ד דברי ר"מ וחכ"א בין מפי עצמו ובין מפי אחרים כיון שכפר בו חייב

Hence, you must infer from this that they disagree on [the principle of] 'deduce from it, and [entirely] from it'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they bold that, in the case of deposit, even where adjured by others, he is liable even outside the Beth Din, obviously they deduce liability for adjuration by others from the case of testimony, though they do not make the case of deposit entirely like the case of testimony; for in the latter they hold the denial must always be before the Beth Din; whereas in the case of deposit, once they have deduced that there is liability for adjuration by others, they say, 'establish it in its own place', i.e., make the law of adjuration by others equal to the law of swearing of his own accord, which (in the case of a deposit) does not need to be before the Beth Din.');">⁷</span> - [R'Papa replied:] From this, yes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We certainly infer that the Sages hold 'deduce from it, and establish it in its own place'; but from our Mishnah it is not possible to draw this inference, for it may be that the Sages deduce their ruling by inference from minor to major, as explained above.');">⁸</span> but from the other it is not possible to infer it.

Explore commentary for Shevuot 62:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.