Parallel
שבועות 48:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for the son exacts payment either with an oath or without an oath, whereas the father exacts payment only with an oath. Now, in what circumstances? [Obviously] if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender; and yet it states that the son exacts payment either with an oath or without an oath: ‘with an oath’ — the oath of heirs; without an oath’ — as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says! — R. Joseph said: This is in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai who hold that a bond which is ready to be collected is counted as if it is already collected. R. Nahman happened to come to Sura. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna went in to him, and said to him: Come, sir, abrogate this ruling of Rab and Samuel. He replied to them: Have I taken the trouble to come all these parasangs in order to abrogate the ruling of Rab and Samuel? But grant, at least, that we do not add to it. As, for example? That which R. Papa said: He who impairs his bond, and died, his heirs swear the oath of heirs, and obtain payment. There was a man who died, and left a guarantor. R. Papa thought of saying in this case also [the principle] that ‘we should not add to it’ applies. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: Will not the guarantor go after the orphans? There was a certain man who died, and left a brother, Rami b. Hama thought of saying this is also a case where [the principle] ‘we should not add to it’ applies. Said Raba to him: What is the difference between ‘my father did not instruct me etc.’ and ‘my brother did not instruct me etc.’? R. Hama said: Now, since the law has not been stated either in accordance with the view of Rab and Samuel or in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar, if a judge decides as Rab and Samuel, it is legal; if he decides as R. Eleazar, it is also legal. R. Papa said: This document of orphans we do not tear up, and we do not exact payment on it. ‘We do not exact payment on it,’ — in case we agree with Rab and Samuel; and ‘we do not tear up,’ — for if a judge decides as R. Eleazar, it is legal. There was a judge who decided as R. Eleazar. There was a Rabbinic scholar in his town who said to him: I can bring a letter from the West that the law is not in accordance with R. Eleazar. He replied to him: When you bring it. He came before R. Hama. He said to him: If a judge decides as R. Eleazar, it is legal. AND THESE TAKE AN OATH [THOUGH NO CLAIM IS PREFERRED AGAINST THEM]. Are we discussing the case of idiots? — Thus he means: ‘And these take an oath not in a definite claim, but in a doubtful claim: partners, tenants, [etc.].’ A Tanna taught: THE SON OF THE HOUSE who was mentioned [in the Mishnah as liable to take an oath] does not mean that he walks in and walks out, but he brings in labourers and takes out labourers, brings in produce and takes out produce. And wherein are these different? — Because they allow themselves permission in it. R. Joseph b. Minyomi said that R. Nahman said: But only when the claim between them is [at least] two silver [ma'ahs]. In accordance with whose view? — Samuel's? But R. Hiyya taught in support of Rab! — Say, the denial of the claim, as Rab holds. IF THE PARTNERS OR TENANTS HAD DIVIDED, [AN OATH CANNOT BE IMPOSED]. They enquired: Can this oath be superimposed on a Rabbinic oath? — Come and hear: If he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year he became a partner with him, or a tenant, we do not impose on him [any previous oath together with the present oath]. The reason is because he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, so that when the Sabbatical year came, it cancelled it; but in any other of the seven years, we do impose on him [a previous oath]! — Do not infer that in any of the other seven years we do impose on him [a previous oath]. but infer thus: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath]. But this is already stated clearly: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath]! — Therefore, we deduce that we superimpose the oath on a Rabbinic oath. It is proven. R. Huna said:
—