שבועות 40 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Know [that this is so], for it states in a later clause: ‘A GOLDEN DENAR OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A SILVER DENAR, OR A TRESIS, OR A PUNDION, OR A PERUTAH,’ HE IS LIABLE, FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE. Granted, if you say [the Mishnah deals with] values, therefore he is liable; but if you say it means them literally, why is he liable? — R. Eleazar said: [It means] he claimed from him a denar in coins; and he teaches us that a perutah is in the category of coin. This also is evidence [that the Mishnah means this], for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE. And Rab? — All coins are subject to the same law. Now, as to R. Eleazar: shall we say, that, since he expounds the latter clause in accordance with the view of Samuel, he agrees in the first clause also with Samuel? — No! The latter clause is definitely intended literally, for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE; but the first clause may be either in accordance with the view of Rab or Samuel. Come and hear: ‘A golden denar coin of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a silver denar,’ he is liable. Now the reason [he is liable] is because he said to him ‘a golden coin,’ but if he had said simply [‘a golden denar’], he would have implied its value! — R. Ashi said: Thus it means: If he says, a golden denar, it is as if he said, a golden denar coin. R. Hiyya taught in support of Rab: ‘A sela’ of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a sela’, less two ma'ahs,’ he is liable; ‘less one ma'ah’, he is exempt. R. Nahman b. Isaac said that Samuel said: They did not teach this except in the case of a claim of a creditor and admission [of a portion] on the part of the debtor; but in the case of a claim of a creditor and the testimony of one witness, even if he claimed only a perutah, he is liable. What is the reason? Because it is written, One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin; for any iniquity, or for any sin, he does not rise up, but he rises up for an oath; and it was taught: Wherever two [witnesses] make him liable for money, one witness makes him liable for an oath. And R. Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and the other admitted one of them, he is liable . Said R. Isaac to him: ‘Correct! And so said R. Johanan.’ Do we infer that Resh Lakish disagrees with him? — Some say, he was waiting and was silent; and some say, he was drinking and was silent. Shall we say this supports him: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM WHEAT, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT; BUT 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! — No! The same rule applies: even [if he claimed] wheat and barley, [and the other admitted one,] he is also exempt; and why they disagree in the case of wheat 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;^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

^ᵃnote:That the rest of the Mishnah deals with values.
^ᵇnote:[MS.M. rightly omits: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE.]
^ᶜnote:For he claims goods to the value of a golden denar, and the other admits goods to the value of a silver denar, or less.
^ᵈnote:He claims gold, and the other admits silver, or copper.
^ᵉnote:We need not necessarily infer that the Mishnah deals with goods to the value of a golden denar or silver denar; it means actual coins; and it teaches us that though the claim is for a gold coin and the admission is a silver or copper coin, he is liable, because they are all coins (and the admission is therefore of the same kind as the claim), and that even a perutah (the value of which is very small) is still counted a coin.
^ᶠnote:Who says the Mishnah means values, how will he explain the phrase, FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE?
^ᵍnote:The Mishnah means, all the coins (being the values of the goods claimed or admitted) are in the same category. Even the smallest (a perutah) is of sufficient value to be the amount of admission in a claim.
^ʰnote:That the Mishnah means actual coins.
^ⁱnote:That if he claimed two ma'ahs (weight in silver), and the other admitted a perutah (weight in copper), he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim; 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 two ma'ahs (and not two ma'ahs and a perutah), and, after admission, was less than two ma'ahs.
^ʲnote:That the Mishnah means values, and he is exempt because the denial is less than two ma'ahs.
^ᵏnote:Specifically mentioning ‘coin’; he is liable because the admission (a silver denar) is of the same kind (a coin) as the claim.
^ˡnote:Hence our Mishnah which states golden denar (not mentioning coin) means value, and since this clause in the Mishnah means value, the first clause also means value. Now, the first clause states that if one claims two ma'ahs (goods to that value), and the other admits a perutah (goods to that value), he is exempt — obviously, because the denial is less than two ma'ahs. This, therefore, supports Rab.
^ᵐnote:The Baraitha does not mean that he actually said a golden denar coin, but simply golden denar; but this is equivalent to mentioning coin. The claim is a coin, and the admission a coin, therefore he is liable. Hence, we cannot deduce that if he said golden denar (without coin) he meant value, and obtain from this (via the Mishnah) support for Rab.
^ⁿnote:Twenty-four ma'ahs.
^ᵒnote:Because the denial must be at least two ma'ahs; which is the view of Rab.
^ᵖnote:[MS.M. rightly omits ‘b. Isaac’; cf. the next dictum.]
^ᵠnote:That the claim must be at least two ma'ahs to make the debtor liable for an oath, if he admits a portion and denies the rest.
^ʳnote:If the debtor denies the whole claim, and one witness testifies that he owes the money, he must take an oath, even if the whole claim was only for a perutah; for if there had been two witnesses, the debtor would have had to pay; and wherever two witnesses impose payment, one witness imposes an oath.
^ˢnote:Deut. XIX, 15.
^ᵗnote:It is counted as admission of the same kind as the claim.
^ᵘnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵛnote:Resh Lakish always waited till R. Johanan completed his discourse, and then he would give his own view. In the present case, R. Isaac left the Academy before R. Johanan ended the lecture, and did not know whether later Resh Lakish disagreed with him or not.
^ʷnote:He does not require that the admission shall be of the same kind as the claim.
^ˣnote:Hence this supports R. Nahman.
^ʸnote:That even when the admission is not of the same kind as the claim he holds that he is liable.

²IF 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! — [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. What does he [intend to] teach us [thereby]? That they bind? We have already learnt it! They bind the properties for which there is security, to take an oath for them. — Here is the chief place [for the enunciation of this law]; there he mentions it merely incidentally. 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.’ — They are amoriam who disagree as to R. Johanan's view. 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! — [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. — 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? That they bind? We have already learnt it! They bind the properties for which there is security, to take an oath for them. — Here is its chief place; there he mentions it merely incidentally. 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. If it is R. Gamaliel's view, even in the first clause [he should be liable]! — But it is the view of Admon; 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. 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, then, if he appears to act with subtlety, he is liable, but if he merely intends [to reply to the claim], he is exempt. And R. ‘Anan said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him two needles, and he admitted one of them, he is liable; for therefore were ‘vessels’ expressly mentioned — whatever their value. 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. In one law he agrees with Rab, who holds that the denial in the claim must be two ma'ahs; 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. ‘A HUNDRED DENARII OF MINE YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE NOT OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION;’ HE IS EXEMPT. Said R. Nahman: But they impose upon him the consuetudinary oath. What is the reason? 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! — He is merely trying to slip away from him [for the moment], thinking, ‘when I will have money, I will pay him.’ Know [that this is so], for R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Hisda said: He who denies a loan, is fit for testimony; a deposit, is unfit for testimony. 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 will certainly apply it to the second clause;26^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᶻnote: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.
^ᵃᵃnote: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.
^ᵃᵇnote:Properties for which there is no security, i.e., movables.
^ᵃᶜnote:Kid. 26a.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because this treatise deals with the laws of oaths.
^ᵃᵉnote:In Kiddushin; v. B.M. 4b.
^ᵃᶠnote:That if he claimed wheat and barley, and the other admitted one, he is liable.
^ᵃᵍnote:R. Isaac and R. Hiyya b. Abba.
^ᵃʰnote:This is an argument against R. Hiyya b. Abba.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. supra p. 245.
^ᵃʲnote: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).]
^ᵃᵏnote:Before the claimant had mentioned barley.
^ᵃˡnote: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.
^ᵃᵐnote:For the claimant in fact demands both, and he admits one.
^ᵃⁿnote:The claimant having, as yet, only demanded wheat; and he replies, denying wheat, but admitting barley.
^ᵃᵒnote:Though they are worth less than two ma'ahs.
^ᵃᵖnote: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, and ‘vessels’ implies two. But Scripture could have said ‘silvers’ (ohpxf, instead of ;xf) 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. 39b s.v. vn]
^ᵃᵠnote:Therefore for the denial of a perutah he is exempt.
^ᵃʳnote: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).
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., ‘of inducement’, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 20, n. 4. Though, being a kfv rpuf, he is legally exempt from an oath, the Beth din, as a matter of equity, impose an oath.
^ᵃᵗnote:And since he does deny the whole claim, he must be speaking the truth; then why an oath?
^ᵃᵘnote: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.
^ᵃᵛnote: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.
^ᵃʷnote: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).
^ᵃˣnote:That even if he never admitted the claim at all he must take the consuetudinary oath.
^ᵃʸnote:For he has already admitted the claim, and therefore it is obvious at least that the claim is a valid one.