שבועות 47 — parallel

47:1

and all that are similar to it. IF ONE OF THEM WAS A DICE-PLAYER. Wherefore is this necessary? — He [the tanna] mentions a Biblical disqualification, and he mentions a Rabbinic disqualification. IF BOTH WERE SUSPECT, etc. Raba said to R. Nahman: ‘How did we learn in the Mishnah?’ — He said to him: ‘I do not know.’ ‘What is the law?’ — He said to him: ‘I do not know.’ It was stated: R. Joseph b. Minyomi said that R. Nahman said: R. Jose says, They divide. And so did R. Zebid b. Oshaia learn: R. Jose says, They divide. Some say. R. Zebid learned: R. Oshaia said: R. Jose says, They divide. R. Joseph b. Minyomi said: R. Nahman decided a case thus: they divide. THE OATH RETURNS TO ITS PLACE. Whither does it return? — R. Ammi said: Our Masters of Babylon said, the oath returns to Sinai; our Masters of the Land of Israel said, the oath returns to him upon whom it devolves. R. Papa said: Our Masters of Babylon are Rab and Samuel; our Masters of the Land of Israel are R. Abba. ‘Our Masters of Babylon are Rab and Samuel,’ for we learnt: AND SO ALSO ORPHANS CANNOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT WITH AN OATH. And we discussed this: From whom? Shall we say, from the borrower? Their father would have received payment without an oath, and they require an oath! But it means: ‘And so also orphans from orphans cannot exact payment except with an oath.’ And Rab and Samuel both said: They did not teach this, except if the lender died during the lifetime of the borrower; but if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the lender was already obliged to take an oath to the sons of the borrower; and a man cannot bequeath an oath to his sons. ‘Our Masters of the Land of Israel are R. Abba’; for there was a man who snatched a bar of silver from his neighbour; they came before R. Ammi, and R. Abba was sitting in his presence. He brought one witness that he had snatched it from him. The other said, ‘Yes, I snatched it; but it is mine that I snatched.’ Said R. Ammi: How shall judges settle this dispute? Shall we say to him, ‘Go and pay’? There are not two witnesses. Shall we exempt him? There is one witness [that he snatched]. Shall we say to him, ‘Go and swear’? Since he says. ‘I snatched it,’ he is like a robber! — R. Abba said to him: He is liable to take an oath, and he cannot take the oath; and everyone who is liable to take an oath, and cannot take the oath, must pay. Raba said: It is reasonable to agree with R. Abba, for R. Ammi learned: The oath of the Lord shall be between them both — but not between the heirs. How is this [to be understood]? Shall we say, that he said to him: ‘Your father owed my father a hundred zuz,’ and the other replied to him: ‘Fifty he owed him, but not the other fifty’; what is the difference between him and his father? But then, [it must mean] he said to him: ‘Your father owed my father a hundred zuz,’ and the other replied to him: ‘Fifty I know, but the other fifty I do not know.’28

—

47:2

Now granted, if you say, that his father in such circumstances, would have been liable [to take an oath], it is therefore necessary for Scripture to exempt the heirs; but if you say, that his father in such circumstances would also have been exempt, wherefore do we need Scripture [to exempt] the heirs! And Rab and Samuel, how do they expound this [verse]: ‘the oath of the Lord etc.’? — They require it for what was taught: Simeon b. Tarfon says: ‘The oath of the Lord shall be between them both’: this teaches that the oath falls upon both. Simeon b. Tarfon says: Whence do we know that there is a prohibition to the souteneur? Because It is said: Thou shalt not commit adultery: thou shalt not cause adultery to be committed. And ye murmured in your tents. Simeon b. Tarfon says: You spied out and put to shame the tent of the Omnipresent. As far as the great river, the river Euphrates. Simeon b. Tarfon says: Go near a fat man, and be fat. In the School of R. Ishmael it was taught: The servant of a King is like a King. AND THE SHOPKEEPER WITH HIS ACCOUNT BOOK, etc. It was taught: Rabbi said: What is the object of troubling with this oath? — R. Hiyya said to him: We have already learnt it: Both take an oath and receive [payment] from the householder. — Did he accept it from him, or did he not accept it from him? — Come and hear: It was taught: Rabbi says, ‘The workmen take an oath to the shopkeeper.’ Now if it were so, it should be to the householder [that they take the oath]. — Raba said: The workmen swear to the householder in the presence of the shopkeeper, so that they may be ashamed because of him. It was stated: If two sets of witnesses contradict each other, R. Huna said, this set may come by itself and bear testimony, and that set may come by itself and bear testimony; but R. Hisda said: What do we want with false witnesses! [Where there are] two lenders and two borrowers and two documents — is the point at issue between them. [In the case of] one lender and one borrower and two documents — the holder of the document is at a disadvantage. [Where there are] two lenders and one borrower and two documents — that is our Mishnah. [But in the case of] two borrowers and one lender and two documents — what [is R. Huna's ruling]? Let it stand. R. Huna b. Judah raised an objection.

—