Bava Metzia 10

Chapter 10

א ותקנתא לתקנתא לא עבדינן

1 and we do not add one provision to another provision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbinical provision that when the defendant is likely to commit perjury the plaintiff swears and receives payment, cannot be added to the provision which imposes a Rabbinical 'oath of inducement' (where no Biblical oath is due). The 'oath of inducement' can only be given in cases where in ordinary circumstances a Biblical oath would be imposed. ');">1

ב ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה רועה ואמר רב יהודה סתם רועה פסול

2 But why not consider the fact simply that he is a shepherd, and Rab Judah says that a shepherd [generally speaking] is unfit [to take an oath]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because usually a shepherd allows his flock to graze on other people's fields, and thus commits robbery, and why need Abaye seek to disqualify him on the ground that he is actually proved to be a robber? ');">2

ג לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דעלמא דאי לא תימא הכי אנן חיותא לרועה היכי מסרינן והא כתיב (ויקרא יט, יד) לפני עור לא תתן מכשול אלא חזקה אין אדם חוטא ולא לו:

3 — This presents no difficulty: That case [referred to by Rab Judah,] is one of [a shepherd who feeds] his own flock [and is therefore tempted to let them trespass], but this case [regarding which Abaye asks his question,] is one of [a hired shepherd who keeps] other people's flocks [and has no occasion to trespass]. For if this were not so, how could we entrust cattle to any shepherd? Is it not written, Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind?3

ד זה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה [וכו']: על דאית ליה משתבע או על דלית ליה משתבע אמר רב הונא דאמר שבועה שיש לי בה ואין לי בה פחות מחציה

4 But the presumption is that a man will not commit a sin unless he stands to profit by it himself.4

ה ונימא שבועה שכולה שלי ומי יהבינן ליה כולה

5 HE SHALL THEN SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN HALF, etc. Does he swear regarding the part which is his, or regarding the part which is not his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication is that the terms of the oath are ambiguous. By swearing that his share in it is lot 'less than half', the claimant might mean that it is not even a third or a fourth (which is 'less than half'), and the negative way of putting it would justify such an interpretation. He could therefore take this oath even if he knew that he had no share in the garment at all, while he would be swearing falsely if he really had a share in the garment that is less than half, however small that share might be. ');">5

ו ונימא שבועה שחציה שלי מרע ליה לדיבוריה

6 — R. Huna answers: He has to say, 'I swear that I have a share in it, and that it is not less than half.'6

ז השתא נמי מרע ליה לדיבוריה דאמר כולה שלי ולדבריכם שבועה שיש לי בה ואין לי בה פחות מחציה

7 But let him say, 'I swear that it is all mine!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus corroborate his claim; and, although one of the claimants would then be bound to swear falsely, the oath could still be given, according to the majority of the Rabbis, who differ from Ben Nannus (Tosaf.; cf. supra 2b). ');">7

ח וכי מאחר שזה תפוס ועומד וזה תפוס ועומד שבועה זו למה אמר ר' יוחנן שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ותוקף בטליתו של חבירו ואומר שלי הוא

8 — Do we give him all of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would appear inconsistent on the part of the Court, and to its discredit, to let a claimant swear that he owns the whole garment when he can be awarded only half of it. ');">8

ט ונימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא

9 Then let him say, 'I swear that half of it is mine!'-He would impair his own words.9

י לא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא דאי לא תימא הכי האי דאמר רחמנא מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

10 But does he not now also impair his own words?10

יא התם אשתמוטי קא משתמיט ליה כדרבה

11 — [No!] He says, 'It is all mine,' [and he adheres to his claim]. But [he adds]. 'According to you, [who do not accept my contention,] I swear that I have a share in it, and that it is not less than half.' But [it is again asked]: Since each one stands [before the Court] holding [the garment], what need is there for this oath? R. Johanan answered: This oath is an institution of the Sages, intended to prevent people from going out and seizing their fellow's garment, declaring it to be their own.11

יב תדע דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב חסדא הכופר במלוה כשר לעדות בפקדון פסול לעדות

12 But should we not say that, since he is suspected of fraud in money matters, he ought also to be suspected of swearing falsely?12

יג אלא הא דתני רמי בר חמא ארבעה שומרין צריכין כפירה במקצת והודאה במקצת שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

13 — We do not say that one who is suspected of fraud in money matters must also be suspected of swearing falsely.13

יד התם נמי אשתמוטי קא משתמיט סבר משכחנא לגנב ותפיסנא ליה א"נ משכחנא ליה באגם ומייתינא ליה

14 For if you do not concede this, how could the Divine Law lay it down that one who admits part of a claim shall swear [regarding the rest]? We ought to say that, since he is suspected of fraud in money matters, he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? — There he just tries to put the claimant off for a time, according to the view of Rabbah.14

טו אי הכי הכופר בפקדון אמאי פסול לעדות נימא אשתמוטי קא משתמיט סבר עד דבחשנא ומשכחנא ליה

15 You may infer this15

טז כי אמרינן הכופר בפקדון פסול לעדות כגון דאתו סהדי ואסהידו ביה דההיא שעתא איתיה לפקדון בביתיה והוה ידע א"נ דהוה נקיט ליה בידיה

16 from what R. Idi b. Abin says in the name of R. Hisda:16

יז אלא הא דאמר רב הונא משביעין אותו שבועה שאינה ברשותו נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

17 He who denies a loan17

יח התם נמי מורה ואמר דמי קא יהבנא ליה

18 can still be accepted as a witness,18

יט אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא והא קא עבר על לאו (שמות כ, יג) דלא תחמוד

19 but he who denies a deposit cannot be accepted as a witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it could not be said that he only intended to put the claimant off, as a deposit must not be spent, and must be produced intact when claimed, while borrowed money can be spent, and returned when due. If the deposit has been lost, he has only to put this forward as a plea and he is free. His denial therefore renders him unfit as a witness (in accordance with the implication of Ex. XXIII. 1). ');">19

כ לא תחמוד לאינשי בלא דמי משמע להו

20 But there is [the law] which Rami b. Hama taught: Four kinds of bailees require to put forward a partial denial and a partial admission [in order to be liable to an oath]: the gratuitous bailee, the borrower, the paid bailee, and the hirer.20 Why do we not say that, since he21 is suspected of fraud in money matters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the animal which he denies having received, and which must be regarded in the same light as a deposit — so that it cannot be said that he merely wishes to delay the return. ');">22 he must also be suspected of swearing falsely?23 — There also he merely tries to put off the claimant,24 for he thinks: 'I shall find the thief and have him arrested,' or, 'I shall find [the animal] in the field and bring it to him.' But if this is so, why is one who denies a deposit unfit to be a witness? Let us say that he is only putting off the claimant, thinking to himself, 'I shall put him off until I may look for it and find it'? — We say that he who denies a deposit is unfit to be a witness only [if it is a case] where witnesses come and testify against him, saying that at that time the deposit was in the house, and that he knew it, or [if it is a case] where he is holding it in his hand. But in the case in which R. Huna says, 'We make him swear that [the article] is not in his possession,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a bailee who offers to pay compensation for a lost bailment, rather than swear that it has been lost. As it is possible that he wishes to appropriate the article by paying for it, R. Huna says that he must swear that he has not got it. (V. infra 34b). ');">25 why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? — There also he may permit himself [to keep the article] by saying [to himself], 'I am willing to pay him for it.' Then R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Would he not even so transgress the commandment, Thou shalt not covet?26 — 'Thou shalt not covet' is understood by people to apply only to that for which one is not prepared to pay.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter