Shevuot

IF 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!1 — [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?2 We have already learnt it! They3 bind the properties for which there is security, to take an oath for them.4 — Here is the chief place [for the enunciation of this law];5 there6 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.’7 — They8 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!9 — [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.10 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;11 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,12 then, if he appears to act with subtlety,13 he is liable,14 but if he merely intends [to reply to the claim], he is exempt.15 And R. ‘Anan said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him two needles,16 and he admitted one of them, he is liable; for therefore were ‘vessels’ expressly mentioned — whatever their value. 17 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;18 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.19 ‘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.20 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!21 — He is merely trying to slip away from him [for the moment], thinking, ‘when I will have money, I will pay him.’22 Know [that this is so], for R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Hisda said: He who denies a loan, is fit for testimony;23 a deposit, is unfit for testimony.24 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 clause25 will certainly apply it to the second clause;26 other admitting one of them), he is liable. Hence, it supports R. Nahman. joined and included in the oath. 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).] he admitted barley, and therefore he would be exempt from an oath. ‘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] the vessels need not be of the value of two ma'ahs, as has been explained). oath, the Beth din, as a matter of equity, impose an oath. must take an oath. 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. possession, he must be considered dishonest (v. B.M. 5b).