שבועות 39:2 — Soncino English Talmud

There [they are punished], because it was in their power to prevent [the sin], and they did not prevent it. What is the difference between the wicked of his 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 here and there, are free. In the case of a [false] oath, he and the wicked of his family are punished with his 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. ‘If he says, l shall not swear, he is dismissed immediately; but if he 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]? — As was taught: R. Simeon b. Tarfon said: The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,’ this teaches us that the oath rests on both. ‘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. 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; 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. ‘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; 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 keep — just as ‘vessels’ implies two, so ‘silver’ implies two; just as ‘silver’ is a thing of worth, so everything which is of worth [is included]; and Scripture says, This is it. — And Rab? — That we require for admission of a portion of the claim. And Samuel? — It is written, ‘it’, and it is written, ‘this’, [to teach us] that if he denied a portion, and admitted a portion, he is liable. 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. And Samuel? — [He may retort:] Can you not incidentally infer that the amount of the claim is lessened? — Well, then, Rab may tell you: ‘Silver’ when originally mentioned is with reference to the denial; 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; why did Scripture need to write ‘silver’? Since it is not required for the claim, apply it for the denial. And Samuel? — He may say to you: If Scripture had written ‘vessels’, and had not written ‘silver’, I might have said: Just as ‘vessels’ implies two, so everything must be two, but a thing of worth we do not require, therefore it teaches us [that we do]. We learnt: ‘TWO SILVER [MA'AHS] OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A PERUTAH,’ HE IS EXEMPT. What is the reason? 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]? It means literally [two ma'ahs]; 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, 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. 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; but if you say it means their value, why is he exempt? A litra is much! — Well then, since the latter clause is intended literally, the first clause is also intended literally; shall we say, then, that it will be a refutation of Rab's view! — [No!] Rab may tell you: The whole Mishnah deals with the value [of ma'ahs and perutah]; but [the case of] a litra of gold is different.35^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:[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.]
^ᵇnote:The sinner's.
^ᶜnote:Of his family.
^ᵈnote:Of the rest of the world.
^ᵉnote: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].
^ᶠnote:For the bystanders say, these wicked men, i.e,, both.
^ᵍnote:Ex. XXII. 10.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:V. supra 29a.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote: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.
^ˡnote:Ex. XXII, 6.
^ᵐnote:Two being the minimum of the plural ‘vessels’.
^ⁿnote:So that the claim must be for at least two silver pieces, i.e., ma'ahs.
^ᵒnote:[Var. lec., ‘vessels’, reading ohkf for kf; v. Rashi and Tosaf.; cf. infra p. 247, n. 6.]
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote:Scripture is against him!
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote:I.e., ‘it (a portion) I deny; this (a portion) I admit’. Hence, if the denial is only a perutah, he is liable.
^ᵗnote:I.e., ‘it (a portion of the claim) I admit; this (of this very kind) I admit’.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote:The word ‘silver’ (Ex. XXII, 6), which we say implies two ma'ahs, does not refer to the total claim, but to the denial.
^ʷnote:‘Silver’ included; hence I would have known that two ma'ahs are the minimum for the claim.
^ˣnote:That the denial must be at least two ma'ahs.
^ʸnote:It is not necessary that the two things claimed shall be valuable (for silver is not mentioned), and even two perutahs suffice for a claim.
^ᶻnote: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.
^ᵃᵃnote:One claimed two ma'ahs (silver), and the other admitted a perutah (copper); he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim.
^ᵃᵇnote:For he admits a portion of the claim: the same kind of goods.
^ᵃᶜnote: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.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because he claims gold, and the other admits silver.
^ᵃᵉnote:Goods to the value of a litra of gold, or silver.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sufficient for the minimum required for admission and denial.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote: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.
^ᵃⁱnote: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.