Mesorat%20hashas for Shevuot 96:19

אמר רב הונא

A Tanna taught: THE SON OF THE HOUSE who was mentioned [in the Mishnah as liable to take an oath] does not mean that he walks in and walks out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is merely a member of the household.');">²⁵</span> but he brings in labourers and takes out labourers, brings in produce and takes out produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He attends to the business.');">²⁶</span> And wherein are these different?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should these have to take an oath for a doubtful accusation?');">²⁷</span> - Because they allow themselves permission in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are engaged in the management of the property, they permit themselves certain liberties, and appropriate some of the funds for themselves.');">²⁸</span> R'Joseph B'Minyomi said that R'Nahman said: But only when the claim between them is [at least] two silver [ma'ahs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One partner says: 'I believe you may have appropriated two ma'ahs for yourself,' and the other admits a portion; he must take an oath to refute the rest of the claim. If the accusation is for an amount less than two ma'ahs there is no oath.');">²⁹</span> In accordance with whose view? - Samuel's?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 39b.');">³⁰</span> But R'Hiyya taught in support of Rab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the denial in the claim must be at least two ma'ahs; supra 40a.');">³¹</span> - Say, the denial of the claim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman meant the denial must be two ma'ahs.');">³²</span> as Rab holds. IF THE PARTNERS OR TENANTS HAD DIVIDED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their property, i.e., dissolved partnership; one of the partners cannot afterwards make the other swear to refute a doubtful accusation. If, however, he has to take an oath in connection with another dispute, this oath too is at the same time included; supra 45a.');">³³</span> [AN OATH CANNOT BE IMPOSED]. They enquired: Can this oath be superimposed on a Rabbinic oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the partner was liable only for a Rabbinic oath (e.g., consuetudinary oath) in the other dispute, can an oath be imposed upon him in this case too where, after their separation, the other partner accuses him of misappropriation of their joint funds? Or is this oath included only if the ,menc vsun other oath (which is definitely imposed upon him) is a Biblical oath (e.g.,) ?');">³⁴</span> - Come and hear: If he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year he became a partner with him, or a tenant, we do not impose on him [any previous oath together with the present oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for example, he denied completely the loan which he borrowed on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and now, having become a partner on the termination of the Sabbatical year, an oath is imposed upon him because of his partner's accusation against him of misappropriation, the court does not include in the present oath any reference to his denial of the loan, for the Sabbatical year has cancelled the loan.');">³⁵</span> The reason is because he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, so that when the Sabbatical year came, it cancelled it; but in any other of the seven years, we do impose on him [a previous oath]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference is that if he had borrowed in any other year (the Sabbatical year not intervening) , and later became a partner, the oath which he is liable for denying the whole loan would have been included in the present oath imposed on him by his partner. Hence, though the present oath is only a Rabbinic regulation, it has the power to include in it another oath. The oath for denying the whole loan, it is here assumed, can only be included in some other oath, for as yet, in the mishnaic period, the consuetudinary oath had not been instituted; it was instituted much later by R. Nahman (supra 40b) .');">³⁶</span> - Do not infer that in any of the other seven years we do impose on him [a previous oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it may be that since the oath imposed by the partner is only Rabbinic, it has not the power to include another oath with it.');">³⁷</span> but infer thus: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they dissolved partnership, and then on the termination of the Sabbatical year one partner borrowed from the other, and later admitted a portion of the loan, but denied the rest (for which he is liable a Biblical oath) , we impose on him also the previous oath which his partner makes him take by accusing him, after the dissolution, of a previous fraudulence. Hence, it is because he is liable to take a Biblical oath (being a ,menc vsun) that we include also the previous Rabbinic oath. This Baraitha wishes to teach us also that the Sabbatical year does not cancel the partner's oath; it cancels only oaths attached to loans as well as the loans themselves.');">³⁸</span> But this is already stated clearly: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is already expressly stated, why should we assume that this is what the first clause desires us to deduce by inference?');">³⁹</span> - Therefore, we deduce that we superimpose the oath on a Rabbinic oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we inferred from the first clause at the beginning.');">⁴⁰</span> It is proven. R'Huna said:

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Shevuot 96:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.