Talmud for Shevuot 80:7

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written⁹⁰Ex. 22:6. The verse is the introduction to the judicial oath prescribed in v. 8 (cf. Note 78) and establishes the parameters of judicial intervention. The arguments in this paragraph are to some extent paralleled in Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 199.: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”⁹¹Lev. 5:26. One of the topics treated in Lev. 5:20–26 is the guilt of the person swearing falsely the oath required in Ex. 22:8. For the translation of the verbal root אשם as “to incur liability”, cf. J. Milgram, Leviticus1–16, Anchor Bible 1991, pp. 339–345 (the author does not refer to the rabbinic texts.) Since restitution is possible only by payment, anything worth less than the smallest coin cannot be restituted: There can be no oath for a residual claim not worth a peruṭah (Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 23, end.)? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?)⁹²This text is an intrusion from the parallel discussion in the preceding paragraph; it is correctly missing in Šebuot. From there, that it should be more than silver⁹³The argument seems to be that nobody will give a worthless thing to be watched over. If the verse emphasizes “silver” or “money”, it must mean more than the minimum.. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin.. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two⁹⁴An indeterminate plural always means its minimum, 2. Cf. Niddah 2:5, Note 90., also “money” is two⁹⁵Babli 11b, Šebuot 39b.. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels⁹⁶This argument can only be understood by reference to Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai (Note 90). There it is argued that since silver is mined from the earth, also “vessels” should be restricted to those made from terrestrial material, to exclude anything coming from the sea (either from seaweed or fish skin). R. Jehudah reads כֵּלִים as כְּלֵי יַם “objects from the sea” (explanation of J. N. Epstein). E. Z. Melamed also reports there that J. N. Epstein, in his personal copy of the Yerushalmi, emended the parallel reading in Šebuot, כלי חרס “clay vessels”, into כלי חרם “fisherman’s netting”, which might have been made from material grown in the sea. (The reading כלי חרס makes no sense, since clay vessels are always understood if “vessel” is used without qualifier in biblical texts and do not need to be defined through additions. In the Babli, Zebaḥim 22a, anything grown in water is considered water.) “All kinds of vessels” includes vessels made from marine material.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty⁹⁷The Babli, Šebuot 40b, points out that Samuel must hold that the “vessels” quoted in the verse refer to any vessels, irrespective of their value.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth⁹⁸Since otherwise the court could not take cognizance of the case, Note 91 (quoted in Tosephot Šebuot 39b, s. v.מה).. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.