Shevuot 80

הודה במקצת קרקעות פטור במקצת כלים חייב

IF HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE LANDS, HE IS EXEMPT; A PORTION OF THE VESSELS, HE IS LIABLE. Now, the reason [he is exempt] in the case of vessels and lands is because for land no oath is imposed; but for vessels and vessels similar to vessels and lands he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he claimed two different vessels, and the other admitted one (which is similar to claiming vessels and lands, the other admitting one of them) , he is liable. Hence, it supports R. Nahman.');">¹</span>

טעמא דכלים וקרקעות דקרקע לאו בת שבועה היא הא כלים וכלים דומיא דכלים וקרקעות חייב

- [No!] The same rule applies: even in the case of vessels and vessels he is also exempt; and the reason it states vessels and lands is because it wishes to teach us that if he admits a portion of the vessels, he is liable also for the lands. Wh does he [intend to] teach us [thereby]?

הוא הדין דאפי' כלים וכלים נמי פטור והא דקתני כלים וקרקעות קמ"ל דכי הודה במקצת כלים חייב אף על הקרקעות

That they bind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the vessels 'bind' the lands, i.e., that because he has to take an oath for the vessels in any case, the lands are joined and included in the oath.');">²</span> We have already learnt it! They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Properties for which there is no security, i.e., movables.');">³</span>

מאי קמ"ל זוקקין תנינא זוקקין את הנכסים שיש להן אחריות לישבע עליהן

bind the properties for which there is security, to take an oath for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a.');">⁴</span> - Here is the chief place [for the enunciation of this law];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this treatise deals with the laws of oaths.');">⁵</span>

הא עיקר ההיא אגב גררא נסבה

there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kiddushin; v. B.M. 4b.');">⁶</span> he mentions it merely incidentally.

ור' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן טענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחת מהן פטור והאמר ר' יצחק יישר וכן אמר רבי יוחנן אמוראי נינהו אליבא דר' יוחנן

And R'Hiyya B'Abba said that R'Johanan said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and the other admitted to him one of them, he is exempt. - But did not R'Isaac say: 'Correct! and so said R'Johanan.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if he claimed wheat and barley, and the other admitted one, he is liable.');">⁷</span>

ת"ש טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין פטור ורבן גמליאל מחייב טעמא דטענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין הא חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן חייב

- They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Isaac and R. Hiyya b. Abba.');">⁸</span> are amoriam who disagree as to R'Johanan's view.

ה"ה דאפילו חטין ושעורין נמי פטור והאי דקתני הכי להודיעך כחו דרבן גמליאל

Come and hear: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM WHEAT, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED TO HIM BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT; AND R'GAMALIEL MAKES HIM LIABLE. - The reason [he is exempt] is because he claimed from him wheat, and he admitted barley; but [if he claimed from him] wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an argument against R. Hiyya b. Abba.');">⁹</span>

ת"ש טענו כלים וקרקעות והודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות בקרקעות וכפר בכלים פטור הודה במקצת קרקע פטור במקצת כלים חייב טעמא דכלים וקרקעות דקרקע לאו בת שבועה היא הא כלים וכלים דומיא דכלים וקרקעות חייב

- [No!] The same rule applies: even [if he claimed] wheat and barley, [and the other admitted one,] he is also exempt; and the reason it states it thus is to show you the power of R'Gamaliel. Come and hear: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM VESSELS AND LANDS, AND HE ADMITTED THE VESSELS, AND DENIED THE LANDS; OR [ADMITTED] THE LANDS, AND DENIED THE VESSELS, HE IS EXEMPT; IF HE ADMITTED A PORTION OF THE LANDS, HE IS EXEMPT; A PORTION OF THE VESSELS, HE IS LIABLE.

ה"ה דאפילו כלים וכלים נמי פטור והא קמשמע לן דהודה במקצת כלים חייב אף על הקרקעות מאי קמ"ל זוקקין תנינא זוקקין את הנכסים שיש להן אחריות לישבע עליהן הא עיקר ההיא אגב גררא נסבה

- The reason [he is exempt] in the case of vessels and lands is because for land no oath is imposed; but for vessels, and vessels similar to vessels, and lands he is liable! - [No!] The same rule applies: even in the case of vessels and vessels he is also exempt; but this he teaches us that if he admits a portion of the vessels, he is liable also for the lands. - What does he teach us?

איתיביה ר' אבא בר ממל לר' חייא בר אבא טענו שור והודה לו בשה שה והודה לו בשור פטור טענו בשור ושה והודה לו באחד מהן חייב

That they bind? We have already learnt it! They bind the properties for which there is security, to take an oath for them.

א"ל הא מני רבן גמליאל היא אי רבן גמליאל אפילו רישא נמי

- Here is its chief place; there he mentions it merely incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 245.');">¹⁰</span> R'Abba B'Mammal raised an objection against R'Hiyya B'Abba: If he claimed from him an ox, and he admitted to him a lamb; or [he claimed] a lamb, and he admitted an ox, he is exempt; If he claimed from him an ox and a lamb, and he admitted one of them, he is liable! - He said to him: This [Baraitha] is the view of R'Gamaliel.

אלא הא מני אדמון היא ולא דחויי מדחינא לך אלא תלמוד ערוך הוא בפיו של ר' יוחנן הא מני אדמון היא

If it is R'Gamaliel's view, even in the first clause [he should be liable]! - But it is the view o Admon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 38b. [Who though he requires the admission to be of the same kind as the claim, considers the claim of two objects of different species and the admission of one of them to be an admission in like kind to the claim, v. Keth. 108 (Rashi) .]');">¹¹</span> and I am not putting you off [with an incorrect answer], for it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of R'Johanan: it is the view of Admon.

אמר רב ענן אמר שמואל טענו חטין וקדם והודה לו בשעורין אם כמערים חייב אם במתכוין פטור

R''Anan said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat [and was about to claim barley also]; and the other quickly came forward, and admitted to him barley,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the claimant had mentioned barley.');">¹²</span> then, if he appears to act with subtlety,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Admitting barley quickly before the claimant mentions it, so that it appears that the claimant demanded wheat, and he admitted barley, and therefore he would be exempt from an oath.');">¹³</span>

ואמר רב ענן אמר שמואל טענו שתי מחטין והודה לו באחת מהן חייב לפיכך יצאו כלים למה שהן

he is liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the claimant in fact demands both, and he admits one.');">¹⁴</span> but if he merely intends [to reply to the claim], he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The claimant having, as yet, only demanded wheat; and he replies, denying wheat, but admitting barley.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא טענו כלים ופרוטה והודה בכלים וכפר בפרוטה פטור הודה בפרוטה וכפר בכלים חייב

And R''Anan said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him two needles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they are worth less than two ma'ahs.');">¹⁶</span> and he admitted one of them, he is liable; for therefore were 'vessels' expressly mentioned - whatever their value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse (Ex. XXII, 6) states: If a man give unto his neighbour silver or vessels to keep; and we deduce that 'silver' implies a thing of value, ohpxf ;xf and 'vessels' implies two. But Scripture could have said 'silvers' ( , instead of) and we could have deduced both laws (that the claim must be for two things of value) . Hence, since Scripture specifically mentions 'vessels' separately, we infer that vessels need not be of value. [Whether the minimum of a perutah is required with vessels, depends on the reading 'everything' or 'vessels'; v. supra p. 240, n. 4 and Tosaf. vn ');">¹⁷</span>

חדא כרב וחדא כשמואל חדא כרב דאמר כפירת טענה שתי כסף חדא כשמואל דאמר טענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחת מהן חייב:

R'Papa said: If he claimed from him vessels and a perutah, and he admitted the vessels, and denied the perutah, he is exempt; if he admitted the perutah, and denied the vessels, he is liable. In one law he agrees with Rab, and in the other with Samuel.

מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי פטור: אמר רב נחמן ומשביעין אותו שבועת היסת מאי טעמא חזקה אין אדם תובע אלא אם כן יש לו עליו

In one law he agrees with Rab, who holds that the denial in the claim must be two ma'ahs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore for the denial of a perutah he is exempt.');">¹⁸</span> and in the other he agrees with Samuel, who holds that if he claimed from him wheat and barley and he admitted one of them, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore if he claimed a perutah and vessels, and he admitted the perutah but denied the vessels, he is liable (and the vessels need not be of the value of two ma'ahs, as has been explained) . kfv rpuf');">¹⁹</span>

אדרבה חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו אשתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט ליה סבר עד דהוה לי ופרענא ליה

'A HUNDRED DENARII OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.' - 'I HAVE NOT OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION;' HE IS EXEMPT.

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

Said R'Nahman: But they impose upon him the consuetudinary oath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of inducement', v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 20, n. 4. Though, being a , he is legally exempt from an oath, the Beth din, as a matter of equity, impose an oath.');">²⁰</span> What is the reason?

רב חביבא מתני אסיפא מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן למחר אמר לו תנהו לי נתתיו לך פטור ואמר רב נחמן משביעין אותו שבועת היסת

Because it is a presumption that a man will not claim [from another] unless he has a claim upon him. - On the contrary, it is a presumption that a man will not have the effrontery [to deny] before his creditor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he does deny the whole claim, he must be speaking the truth; then why an oath?');">²¹</span>

מאן דמתני ארישא כל שכן אסיפא

- He is merely trying to slip away from him [for the moment], thinking, 'when I will have money, I will pay him.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The denial is therefore not effrontery, but an excuse to gain time; hence, he may not be speaking the truth, and he must take an oath.');">²²</span> Know [that this is so], for R'Idi B'Abin said that R'Hisda said: He who denies a loan, is fit for testimony;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, since it is a loan, he may have spent the money, and, in order to gain time, he denies it; but he is not really dishonest; and though witnesses testify that he owes he money (and he had denied it, but not on oath) , we still assume that he merely wishes to gain time, and will pay later, and he is therefore still qualified to be accepted as a witness in a case.');">²³</span> a deposit, is unfit for testimony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a deposit is not intended to be spent; and where witnesses testified that at the time of denial it was in his possession, he must be considered dishonest (v. B.M. 5b) .');">²⁴</span> R'Habiba taught [R'Nahman's law] as applicable to the later clause: 'A HUNDRED DENARII OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION;' HE SAID TO HIM, 'YES'. ON THE MORROW HE SAID TO HIM: 'GIVE THEM TO ME'; [AND THE OTHER REPLIED,] 'I HAVE GIVEN THEM TO YOU;' HE IS EXEMPT. - And R'Nahman said: But they impose upon him the consuetudinary oath. - He who applies [R'Nahman's law] to the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even if he never admitted the claim at all he must take the consuetudinary oath.');">²⁵</span> will certainly apply it to the second clause;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he has already admitted the claim, and therefore it is obvious at least that the claim is a valid one.');">²⁶</span>