Shevuot 78

Chapter 78

א התם שיש בידם למחות ולא מיחו

1 There [they are punished], because it was in their power to prevent [the sin], and they did not prevent it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Whereas false swearing undermines the very foundations and structure of human society involving in a common destruction the wholly righteous as well as the wicked.]');">1 What is the difference between the wicked of his2

ב מאי איכא בין רשעים דמשפחתו לרשעים דעלמא בין צדיקים דמשפחתו לצדיקים דעלמא

2 family and the wicked of the [rest of the] world; and between the righteous of his family and the righteous of the [rest of the] world? - He himself, in the case of other transgressions, is punished by his own [appropriate] punishment, and the wicked of his family, by a severe punishment, and the wicked of the [rest of the] world, by a light punishment; the righteous, both here3 and there,4

ג הוא בשאר עבירות בדיניה ורשעים דמשפחה בדין חמור ורשעים דעלמא בדין הקל צדיקי דהכא והכא פטירי

3 are free. In the case of a [false] oath, he and the wicked of his family are punished with hi punishment, and the wicked of the [rest of the] world, with a severe punishment; and the righteous, both here and there, with a light punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole passage deals with people who were able to prevent the sin, and did not; righteous people are those who are righteous in other respects, but passive in not preventing sin; and wicked people are those who are wicked in other respects. Hence, in the case of a false oath, the righteous, both of the family and others, are punished by a light punishment, because they were able to prevent it, and did not; but in the case of other transgressions they are free, though they were able to prevent them, because other transgressions are not as serious as a false oath; and they were, in any case, merely passive. According to this, the statement of the Talmud (top of 39b) , that in the case of other transgressions they are punished if they were able to prevent the sin and did not (which implies, that in the case of an oath, they are punished even if they were not able to prevent it) , is, in the sequel, not accepted. This explanation of the passage is opposed to that of Maharsha who explains 'righteous' as those unable to prevent the sin. In that case, why should they, in the case of an oath, be punished? They did not commit the sin, and they were unable to prevent its commission. The view of the Maharsha seems to conflict with one's sense of justice, [V. however p. 238, n. 5].');">5

ד גבי שבועה הוא ורשעים דמשפחה כדיניה ורשעים דעלמא בדין חמור וצדיקי דהכא והכא בדין הקל:

4 'If he says, l shall not swear, he is dismissed immediately; but if h said, I shall swear, those who are standing there say to each other: Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men.' - Granted that he who swears is committing a wrong, but he who causes him to swear - why [should he be counted wicked]?6

ה אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו מיד ואם אמר הריני נשבע העומדים שם אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז, כו) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה: בשלמא ההוא דקא משתבע קאי באיסורא אלא ההוא דקא משבע ליה אמאי

5 - As was taught: R'Simeon B'Tarfon said: The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,'7 this teaches us that the oath rests on both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The claimant also merits rebuke, for if he had been careful to arrange for witnesses to be present when giving the debtor the money, or to have a signed document, there would have been no need for an oath.');">8

ו ההוא מיבעי ליה כדתניא ר"ש בן טרפון אומר (שמות כב, י) שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם מלמד שחלה שבועה על שניהם:

6 'And when they adjure him, they say to him, Know that not in accordance with your own mind, etc.' - Why should they say this to him? - Because of [the episode of] the cane of Raba.9

ז וכשמשביעין אותו אומרים לו הוי יודע שלא על דעתך וכו': למה לי למימרא ליה הכי משום קניא דרבא:

7 THE CLAIM [MUST BE AT LEAST] TWO MA'AHS. Rab said: The denial [in regard to] the claim must be [at least] two ma'ahs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'silver (pieces) '. The amount he denies must be at least two ma'ahs, and since the admission must be at least a perutah, the total amount claimed must be at least two ma'ahs and a perutah.');">10

ח הטענה שתי כסף: אמר רב כפירת טענה שתי כסף ושמואל אמר טענה עצמה שתי כסף אפי' לא כפר אלא בפרוטה ולא הודה אלא בפרוטה חייב

8 and Samuel said: The claim itself must be [at least] two [ma'ahs]; even if he denied only a perutah, or admitted only a perutah, he is liable. Raba said: Our Mishnah is evidence in support of Rab, and there are Scriptural verses in support of Samuel.'

ט אמר רבא דיקא מתניתין כותיה דרב וקראי כותיה דשמואל דיקא מתני' כותיה דרב דקתני הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה ואילו כפירת טענה פרוטה לא קתני ותנן נמי ההודאה בפרוטה ואילו כפירה בפרוטה לא קתני

9 Our Mishnah is evidence in support of Rab' - for it states: THE CLAIM [MUST BE AT LEAST] TWO MA'AHS, AND THE ADMISSION [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH. But it does not state that the denial of the claim may be a perutah; and we learnt also: Admission must be [at least] a perutah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 55a: There are five cases where the minimum is a perutah; admission of a perutah is mentioned, but not denial. Hence this Mishnah and our Mishnah agree with Rab.');">11

י וקראי כותיה דשמואל דכתיב (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים לשמור מה כלים שנים אף כסף שנים מה כסף דבר חשוב אף כל דבר חשוב וקאמר רחמנא (שמות כב, ח) כי הוא זה

10 but it does not state that the denial [must be at least] a perutah.' There are Scriptural verses in support of Samuel' - for it is written: If a man give unto his neighbour silver or vessels to keep12

יא ורב ההוא מיבעי ליה להודאה במקצת הטענה ושמואל כתיב הוא וכתיב זה דאי כפר במקצת ואודי במקצת חייב

11 - just as 'vessels' implies two,13 so 'silver' implies two;14

יב ורב חד להודאה במקצת הטענה וחד להודאה ממין הטענה ושמואל לאו ממילא שמעת מיניה דחסרה לה טענה

12 just as 'silver' is a thing of worth, so everything15 which is of worth [is included]; and Scripture says, This is it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8: for any claim about which the debtor says, 'I do not owe you the whole amount, but this is it', i.e., 'I admit owing you this portion only,' he takes an oath. Hence, the admission may be part of the two ma'ahs (leaving less than two ma'ahs for denial) . Scripture thus appears to support Samuel.');">16

יג אלא אמר לך רב כסף כי אתא מעיקרא לכפירה הוא דאתא דא"כ לכתוב רחמנא כי יתן איש אל רעהו כלים לשמור ואנא אמינא מה כלים שנים אף כל שנים כסף דכתב רחמנא למה לי אם אינו ענין לטענה תנהו ענין לכפירה

13 - And Rab?17 - That we require for admission of a portion of the claim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture writes 'this is it' to teach us that an oath is imposed only when a portion of the claim is admitted; but it does not necessarily refer to the claim of two ma'ahs mentioned in verse 6; there must always be a denial of two ma'ahs apart from the portion admitted.');">18

יד ושמואל אמר לך אי כתב רחמנא כלים ולא כתב כסף הוה אמינא מאי כלים שנים אף כל שנים אבל דבר חשוב לא בעינן קמ"ל

14 And Samuel? - It is written, 'it', and it is written, 'this', [to teach us] that if he denied a por and admitted a portion, he is liable.19 And Rab? - One [word is to teach us] that there must be admission of a portion of the claim, and one [word is to teach us] that there must be admission of the same kind as the claim.20

טו תנן שתי כסף יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה פטור מאי טעמא לאו משום דחסרה לה טענה ותיובתא דשמואל

15 And Samuel? - [He may retort:] Can you not incidentally infer that the amount of the claim is lessened?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assuming even, as you say, that the verse refers to admission only (that it must be a portion, and of the same kind) , it is still obvious that the denial is less than two ma'ahs, for the only claim mentioned by Scripture (verse 6) is two ma'ahs, and of this, Scripture says (verse 8) , he admits a portion - hence, he denies a portion (clearly less than two ma'ahs) . Thus Scripture appears to be opposed to Rab's view.');">21 - Well, then, Rab may tell you: 'Silver' when originally mentioned is with reference to the denial;22

טז אמר לך שמואל מי סברת שוה קתני דוקא קתני מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו

16 for, if it were not so, Scripture could have written: 'If a man give unto his neighbour vessels to keep'; and I would have said: Just as 'vessels' implies two, so everything must be two;23 why did Scripture need to write 'silver'?

יז אי הכי אימא סיפא שתי כסף ופרוטה יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה חייב אי אמרת בשלמא שוה משום הכי חייב אלא אי אמרת דוקא אמאי חייב מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו

17 Since it is not required for the claim, apply it for the denial.24 And Samuel? - He may say to you: If Scripture had written 'vessels', and had not written 'silver', I might have said: Just as 'vessel implies two, so everything must be two, but a thing of worth we do not require,25

יח מידי הוא טעמא אלא לשמואל האמר ר"נ אמר שמואל טענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן חייב

18 therefore it teaches us [that we do]. We learnt: 'TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.'

יט ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני סיפא ליטרא זהב יש לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא ליטרא כסף פטור אי אמרת בשלמא דוקא קתני משום הכי פטור אלא אי אמרת שוה אמאי פטור ליטרא טובא הוי

19 - 'I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,' HE IS EXEMPT. What is the reason?

כ אלא מדסיפא דוקא רישא נמי דוקא

20 Is it not because the claim is now less [than two ma'ahs]? Hence it is a refutation of Samuel's view! - Samuel may tell you: Do you think the Mishnah means the value [of two ma'ahs]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods (the same kind) to the value of a perutah? If this were the case, he would be liable, though the claim is now less than two ma'ahs.');">26

כא לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב כולה מתני' שוה וליטרא זהב שאני

21 It means literally [two ma'ahs];27 that which he claimed, the other did not admit to him; and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him. If so, say the latter clause: 'TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] AND A PERUTAH OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.' 'I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,' HE IS LIABLE. Granted, if you say [the Mishnah means] the value [of two ma'ahs and a perutah], therefore he is liable,28 but if you say [the Mishnah means it] literally, why is he liable? That which he claimed, the other did not admit to him, and that which he admitted to him, he had not claimed from him! - Is this not an argument against Samuel? But surely R'Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and he admitted to him one of them, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel counts this as being admission of the same kind as the claim; similarly, if he claimed two ma'ahs (silver) and a perutah (copper) , and the other admitted a perutah (copper) , he is liable.');">29 This appears to be the more reasonable interpretation, for it states in a later clause: 'A LITRA OF GOLD OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.' - 'I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A LITRA OF SILVER,' HE IS EXEMPT. Granted, if you say the Mishnah means them literally, therefore he is exempt;30 but if you say it means their value,31 why is he exempt? A litra is much!32 - Well then, since the latter clause is intended literally, the first clause is also intended literally; shall w say, then, that it will be a refutation of Rab's view!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause states that if he claims two ma'ahs, and the other admits a perutah, he is exempt, because, presumably (taking the Mishnah literally) he claims silver, and the other admits copper; but if he claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods to the value of a perutah, he would be liable, though the claim was only originally two ma'ahs, and was, after the admission of a perutah, diminished from two ma'ahs.');">33 - [No!] Rab may tell you: The whole Mishnah deals with the value [of ma'ahs and perutah];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause he is therefore exempt, because, after the admission, the claim becomes less than two ma'ahs; and in the second clause, when the claim is two ma'ahs and a perutah, he is liable, because after the admission of a perutah, there is still denial of two ma'ahs.');">34 but [the case of] a litra of gold is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah obviously intends this literally, for one claims a certain weight (not coins) of gold, and the other admits the same weight of silver; therefore he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. If the Mishnah had said that one claimed a sum of money in gold, and the other admitted a sum of money in silver, we might have said, legitimately, that goods to the value of those sums were intended, and the man would have been liable; but since the Mishnah states the weight of the gold and silver, it means actually gold and silver; and therefore he is exempt.');">35

Previous Chapter Next Chapter