Shevuot 84

Chapter 84

א כולהו נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו

1 But all [cases] are the claims of others and his own admission!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why does R. Eliezer say: Sometimes a man must take an oath etc.? And if an adult is claiming, why do the other Sages hold that the defendant need not take an oath, for he is 'a restorer of a lost object'? If an adult claims, the defendant is not accounted 'a restorer etc.'');">1 But [say] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer b. Jacob and the Sages disagree in a case where a minor claims (his father being dead) . R. Eliezer calls it 'his own (the defendant's) claim,' because a minor's claim is really of no consequence, and no oath is imposed elsewhere; but here, since it is on behalf of an adult (his father) , an oath is imposed, for the original 'giving' (of the deposit) was by a 'man'.');">2

ב אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולי' בעי דליכפריה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאינו מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו

2 disagree in Rabbah's dictum; for Rabbah said: Why did Scripture say that he who admits a portion of a claim must take an oath? Because it is a presumption that a man has not the effrontery to deny a claim in front of his creditor,3

ג ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט מיניה סבר עד דהוי לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ורחמנא אמר רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה

3 for this one may have wished to deny it all, but did not deny it, because he had not the effrontery [to do so] in front of his creditor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But since he does deny a portion, let us believe him, for since a man has not the effrontery to deny a valid claim, and this one does deny, he must be speaking the truth; then why should he take an oath? Because, continues the Talmud, to deny a portion does not necessitate effrontery');">4 and he really wished to admit it all, but he did not admit it all, because he tried to evade him [for the moment], thinking, 'When I will have money, I will pay him'; so Divine Law said: Impose an oath on him, so that he may admit it all.

ד ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו אינו מעיז והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בפניו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בפני בנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא

4 Now R'Eliezer B'Jacob holds: No matter whether against him or against his son, he has not the effrontery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore when the minor claims, it is as if the father is claiming, and the defendant, since he admits a half, takes an oath like any other person who admits part of a claim.');">5 and therefore he is not a restorer of a lost object.'

ה מי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא קתני רישא מנה לאבא בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר פטור מפני שמשיב אבידה הוא התם דלא אמר ברי לי הכא דאמר ברי לי

5 But the Rabbis hold: Again him himself he has not the effrontery, but against his son he has the effrontery;6 and since he is not evincing any effrontery, he is 'a restorer of a lost object' [and exempt].

ו שמואל אמר לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש

6 But how can you affirm the Mishnah to be in accordance with the view of R'Eliezer B'Jacob? Surely it states in the first clause: 'YOU HAVE A HUNDRED DENARII OF MY FATHER'S IN YOUR POSSESSION.'

ז לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן תנינא מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה תרתי למה לי

7 - 'I HAVE OF HIS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY FIFTY DENARII'; HE IS EXEMPT, FOR HE IS 'A RESTORER OF A LOST OBJECT'! - There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause, the minor did not say 'I am certain you owe my father 100 denarii,' but 'I think you do;' therefore the defendant in admitting a half is exempt, for he is a 'restorer of a lost object'.');">7 he did not say, 'I am certain'; here,8

ח הא קמשמע לן כדאביי קשישא דתני אביי קשישא יתומין שאמרו גדולים ואין צריך לומר קטנים בין לשבועה בין לזיבורית

8 he said, 'I am certain.' Samuel said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no inconsistency in the MISHNAH: An oath is not imposed for the claim of a minor; but when the Mishnah states later that an oath is imposed for a minor and the Temple, it means that when a claim is made against the estate of a minor or the Temple (and even when documentary evidence is produced) , the claimant must take an oath that it has not already been paid by the minor's father.');">9

ט להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש תנינא מנכסים משועבדים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ומה לי משועבדים להדיוט ומה לי משועבדים לגבוה

9 'AGAINST A MINOR' [means] to collect payment from the estate of a minor; 'AGAINST THE TEMPLE' - to collect payment from the estate of the Temple.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man dedicated some property to the Temple treasury, and a claimant (with a document) desires to exact payment for his debt from that dedicated property, he must take an oath that it has not yet been paid.');">10 - 'Against a minor' - to collect payment from the estate of a minor! But we have already learnt it, [viz. :] From the estate of orphans one cannot collect payment except with an oath.11

י איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הדיוט הוא דאדם עושה קנוניא על הדיוט אבל הקדש דאין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש קא משמע לן

10 Why do we require [this ruling] twice? - This he teaches us, as Abaye the Elder said, for Abaye the Elder stated: Orphans which are mentioned12 are adults,13

יא והאמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שהקדיש כל נכסיו ואמר מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן חזקה אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש אמרי ה"מ שכיב מרע דאין אדם חוטא ולא לו אבל גבי בריא ודאי חיישינן:

11 and there is no need to say [they include] minors, whether for oath, or for [exacting payment from] the lowest class of land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the oath is taken and payment demanded, it may be exacted only from the third grade of land (if the orphans possess best, medium, and third grade; v. B.K. 7a) . The law is therefore stated twice; in our Mishnah: an oath is imposed when a claim is made against the estate of an orphan who is a minor; and in the other Mishnah (infra 45a) that even when they are adults an oath must be taken in any claim against them.');">14 - 'AGAINST THE TEMPLE' - to collect payment from the estate of the Temple! But we have already learnt it, [viz. :] From assigned property they cannot collect except with an oath!15

יב <big>מתני׳</big> ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות אין בהן תשלומי כפל ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שומר חנם אינו נשבע נושא שכר אינו משלם

12 [For] what is the difference whether they are assigned to a layman or assigned to the Most High? - It is necessary,16 for I might have thought [in the case of property assigned to] a layman [an oath is necessary],17

יג ר' שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן נשבעין עליהן ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין נשבעין עליהן

13 because a man may make a conspiracy to defraud a layman;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The borrower may already have paid his debt; and now, having sold his land, he conspires with the creditor to defraud the purchaser, by saying he still owes the money, so that the creditor takes the land, and they divide it. Therefore the creditor must take an oath that the debt is still unpaid.');">18 but in the case of the Temple [an oath is not necessary], for a man will not make a conspiracy to defraud the Temple, therefore he teaches us [that it is necessary].19

יד רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהן בקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש רבי מאיר מחייב שבועה וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע

14 But did not R'Huna say: A dying man who dedicated all his property to the Temple, and said: 'I have a hundred denarii of So-and-so in my possession,' he is believed,20 because it is a presumption that a man does not make a conspiracy to defraud the Temple.

טו אין נשבעין אלא על דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין כיצד בית מלא מסרתי לך וכיס מלא מסרתי לך והלה אומר איני יודע אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור זה אומר עד הזיז וזה אומר עד החלון חייב:

15 - I will tell you: that is only in the case of a dying man, for a man will not sin without benefit to himself;21 but in the case of a healthy man we certainly fear [for conspiracy].

טז <big>גמ׳</big> תשלומי כפל מנלן דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור ועל חמור ועל שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבדה חזר וכלל

16 <big>MISHNAH: </big>AND THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH NO OATH IS IMPOSED: SLAVES, BONDS, LANDS, AND DEDICATED OBJECTS.22 [THE LAW OF] PAYING DOUBLE,23

יז כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

17 OR FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE VALUE, DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. AN UNPAID GUARDIAN DOES NOT TAKE AN OATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Normally, an unpaid guardian takes an oath that he did not wilfully cause the loss of the deposit, and he is free from payment (v. infra 49a) , but in the case of slaves etc. no oath is imposed.');">24

יח יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שהן מטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדש רעהו כתיב:

18 AND A PAID GUARDIAN DOES NOT PAY,25 R'SIMEON SAID: FOR DEDICATED OBJECTS FOR WHICH HE IS RESPONSIBLE AN OATH IS IMPOSED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man vowed to bring a burnt offering, and assigned a certain animal for that purpose, and gave it into the keeping of a neighbour for a time, and on claiming it, the bailee denies having it; he must take an oath, for this will cause a loss to the depositor (who will have to offer another animal) , and not to the Temple.');">26

יט (ולא תשלומי כפל) ולא ארבעה וחמשה: מ"ט תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אמר רחמנא ולא תשלומי שלשה וארבעה:

19 AND FOR WHICH HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AN OATH IS NOT IMPOSED. R'MEIR SAID: THERE ARE THINGS WHICH ARE [ATTACHED] TO LAND, BUT ARE NOT LIKE LAND.

כ שומר חנם אינו נשבע: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן

20 BUT THE SAGES DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM. HOW? [IF A MAN SAYS,] 'TEN VINES LADEN WITH FRUIT I DELIVERED TO YOU.' - AND THE OTHER SAYS: 'THERE WERE ONLY FIVE'; R'MEIR MAKES HIM TAKE AN OATH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the vines are fixed to the ground they are not accounted as land to exempt him from an oath, because the grapes were ripe and ready for picking, and it is for the grapes that he is claiming; v. infra 43a.');">27 BUT THE SAGES SAY: ALL THAT IS ATTACHED TO LAND IS LIKE LAND. AN OATH IS IMPOSED ONLY FOR A THING [DEFINED] BY SIZE, WEIGHT, OR NUMBER'HOW? [IF A MAN SAYS,] 'A HOUSEFUL [OF PRODUCE] I DELIVERED TO YOU,' OR 'A PURSEFUL [OF MONEY] I DELIVERED TO YOU'; AND THE OTHER SAYS: 'I DO NOT KNOW; BUT WHAT YOU LEFT YOU MAY TAKE,' HE IS EXEMPT.28 IF ONE SAYS: '[I GAVE YOU PRODUCE REACHING] UP TO THE MOULDING [ABOVE THE WINDOW],' AND THE OTHER SAYS: 'ONLY UP TO THE WINDOW,' HE IS LIABLE.29 <big>GEMARA: </big>That [THE LAW OF] PAYING DOUBLE [DOES NOT APPLY] how do we know? - Our Rabbis taught: For every matter of trespass30 - is a generalisation; for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment - are specifications; for any lost thing - is another generalisation: where there is generalisation, specification and generalisation, you may include only those things which are similar to the specification: just as the specification is clearly a thing which is movable, and intrinsically worth money, so everything which is movable and intrinsically worth money [may be included], but exclude lands, which are not movable, exclude slaves, which are likened to land, and exclude bonds which, though they are movable, are not intrinsically worth money. As for dedicated things, it is written: his neighbour.31 AND NOT FOUR OR FIVE TIMES THE VALUE. What is the reason? - The payment of four or five times the value, said Scripture, and not the payment of three or four times the value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the payment of double does not apply for theft, there would only be three or four times the value for killing or selling (three for a lamb and four for an ox) , which Scripture does not enjoin; Ex. XXI, 37.');">32 AN UNPAID GUARDIAN DOES NOT TAKE AN OATH. Whence do we know this? - Our Rabbis taught:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter