שבועות 43:1 — Soncino English Talmud

If a man give unto his neighbour — is a generalisation; silver or vessels — are specifications; to keep — is another generalisation: where there is generalisation, specification, and generalisation, you may include only those things which are similar to the specification: just as the specification is clearly a thing which is movable and intrinsically worth money, so everything which is movable, and intrinsically worth money [may be included], but exclude lands, which are not movable, exclude slaves, which are likened to land, and exclude bonds which, though they are movable, are not intrinsically worth money. As for dedicated things, it is written, his neighbour. A PAID GUARDIAN DOES NOT PAY. Whence do we know this? — Our Rabbis taught: If a man give unto his neighbour — is a generalisation; an ass, or an ox, or a sheep — are specifications; or any beast, to keep — is another generalisation: where there is generalisation, specification, and generalisation, etc. till: as for dedicated things, it is written, his neighbour. R. MEIR SAID: THERE ARE THINGS WHICH ARE [ATTACHED] TO LAND, BUT ARE NOT LIKE LAND, ETC. Hence, R. Meir holds that which is attached to land is not counted like land? — Then why do they disagree about laden [vines], let them disagree about fruitless [trees]! — R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: Here they disagree about grapes which are ready to be cut, R. Meir holding they are as if they are already cut; whereas the Rabbis hold they are not as if they are already cut. AN OATH IS IMPOSED ONLY FOR A THING [DEFINED] BY SIZE, WEIGHT, etc. Abaye said: They did not teach [that an oath is not imposed] except when he said to him: ‘A HOUSE’ merely; but if he said to him: ‘This house full etc.’ his claim is known. — Said Raba to him: If so, why does he teach in the later clause: THIS ONE SAID: ‘[I GAVE YOU PRODUCE REACHING] UP TO THE MOULDING [ABOVE THE WINDOW],’ AND THE OTHER SAID: ‘ONLY UP TO THE WINDOW,’ HE IS LIABLE. Let him make a distinction in teaching this [first] clause itself — [thus:] When is it stated [that an oath is not imposed] — only if he says: ‘A full house,’ but if he says: ‘This full house,’ he is liable! — But said Raba: He is never liable unless he claims from him a thing [that is defined] by size, weight, or number; and he admits to him a thing [that is defined] by size, weight, or number. It was taught in support of Raba: [If a man says,] ‘A kor of grain of mine you have in your possession’; and the other says: ‘I have not of yours in my possession,’ he is exempt. ‘A large candlestick of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a small candlestick,’ he is exempt. ‘A large girdle of mine you have in your possession.’ — I have of yours in my possession only a small girdle,’ he is exempt. But if he said to him: ‘A kor of grain of mine you have in your possession,’ and the other said: ‘I have of yours in my possession only a lethek [of grain],’ he is liable. ‘A candlestick of [the weight of] ten litras you have of mine in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession [a candlestick of the weight of] only five litras,’ he is liable. The principle of the matter is: He is never liable unless he claims from him a thing [that is defined] by size, weight, or number; and he admits to him a thing [that is defined] by size, weight, or number. Now, ‘The principle of the matter’: what does this include? Does it not include [the case where he says]: ‘This house full etc.’? Now, what is the difference? [In the case of] ‘large candlestick and small candlestick,’ [he is exempt because] what he claimed from him, he did not admit to him; and what he admitted to him, he did not claim from him; if so, [in the case of] ‘ten litras and five litras [weight]’ he should also be exempt, because what he claimed from him, he did not admit to him; and what he admitted to him, he did not claim from him! — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said: Here we are discussing a candlestick of sections, of which he admits a portion. — If so, [in the case of] girdle also let him teach [a similar law], and explain it as referring to pieces sewn together! But [you must conclude that] he [the Tanna] does not state [the case of a girdle made up of] pieces sewn together. Here also [then], he would not state [the case of a candlestick made up of] separate sections! — But said R. Abba b. Mammal: A candlestick is different, because he can scrape it and reduce it to five litras. MISHNAH. IF A MAN LENDS [MONEY] TO HIS NEIGHBOUR ON A PLEDGE, AND THE PLEDGE WAS LOST, AND HE SAID TO HIM: ‘I LENT YOU A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH A SHEKEL,’ AND THE OTHER SAYS: ‘NO! YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH A SELA’,’ HE IS EXEMPT. ‘I LENT YOU A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH A SHEKEL,’ AND THE OTHER SAYS: ‘NO! YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH THREE DENARII,’ HE IS LIABLE. ‘YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH TWO,’ AND THE OTHER SAYS: ‘NO! I LENT YOU A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH A SELA’,’ HE IS EXEMPT. ‘YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH TWO,’ AND THE OTHER SAYS: ‘NO! I LENT YOU A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH FIVE DENARII,’ HE IS LIABLE. AND WHO TAKES THE OATH? HE WHO HAD THE DEPOSIT, LEST, IF THE OTHER TAKE THE OATH, THIS ONE MAY BRING OUT THE DEPOSIT.29^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

^ᵃnote:Ex. XXII, 6; this verse deals with an unpaid guardian (v. B.M. 94b), who takes an oath that he has not been wilfully neglectful, and is exempt from making restitution.
^ᵇnote:Ibid.
^ᶜnote:Ex. XXII, 9; this verse deals with a paid guardian (v. B.M. 94b) who normally pays for loss or theft.
^ᵈnote:Ibid.; the whole argument as above.
^ᵉnote:Since he says that in a claim for 10 vines (the other admitting 5) an oath is imposed.
^ᶠnote:Why mention in the illustration that the trees are laden with grapes? That is surely immaterial!
^ᵍnote:R. Meir holds that which is joined to the land is counted like land, but here, in the case of vines, he holds that an oath is imposed, because the grapes were ready for cutting, and therefore he accounts them as equivalent to having been cut, and therefore imposes an oath.
^ʰnote:‘A house full of produce I delivered to you.’
^ⁱnote:For if he says: ‘This house full of produce,’ he is defining his claim exactly, for the amount of produce it will contain may be ascertained; and if the other returns the house to him half empty, he is liable to take an oath.
^ʲnote:Why then should the Mishnah insert an extra clause (that one claims ‘to the moulding’ and the other admits ‘to the window’)? Obviously, therefore, there is no difference between ‘a house full’ and ‘this house full’.
^ᵏnote:But if he says: ‘This house full etc.’ though the amount it holds may be ascertained, the defendant is not liable; for he too must mention specifically the exact amount (size, weight, or number) he is admitting; v. Tosaf.
^ˡnote:[MS.M. preserves a preferable reading, adding: ‘but pulse’. V. next note].
^ᵐnote:Because he denies it all (kfv rpuf). [According to MS.M. (n. 5): Because the admission is not in like kind of the claim, cf. next note.]
^ⁿnote:Because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim; he does not admit a portion of what the other claims, but something else.
^ᵒnote:Because he admits a portion: 1 kor = 2 lethek.
^ᵖnote:The reason is explained below.
^ᵠnote:The principle may be inferred from the examples mentioned. Why is the principle stated? Obviously, to include something that may not be deduced from the examples.
^ʳnote:That the defendant is here also exempt, because neither the claim nor the admission is defined exactly as to size, weight, or number. Hence this Baraitha supports Raba.
^ˢnote:The candlestick of ten litras is built up of separate sections which can be taken apart, and the defendant admits that certain sections, amounting to five litras, belong to the claimant, but not the rest. He is therefore liable, because he admits a portion of this very candlestick.
^ᵗnote:If one claims a girdle of the length of ten cubits, and the other admits owing him a girdle five cubits long, he is liable, if the girdle consists of separate pieces (each, for example, one cubit long) sewn together, and he admits that five of the pieces of the girdle belong to the claimant.
^ᵘnote:Since he does not mention the case of a girdle of separate pieces, we cannot say, in the case of a candlestick, that the reason he is liable is because it is composed of sections (some of which he admits). What, then, is the reason for liability in the case of a candlestick of ten litras (the defendant admitting owing a candlestick of five litras)?
^ᵛnote:If one claims a candlestick of ten litras, and the other admits one of five litras, he is liable for an oath, because he may have scraped the metal, or planed the wood, (if it is made of wood) of this very candlestick, so that its weight is now only five litras. He therefore admits a portion of the actual claim, and is liable. If, however, one claims a large candlestick (i.e., tall) and the other admits a small candlestick (i.e., short), he is not liable, because he is admitting something which was not claimed, for we cannot say that he shortened the very same candlestick that was claimed, by cutting off top or bottom, because that would spoil it. In the case of a large girdle (i.e., long) and small girdle (i.e., short), the defendant is exempt, because we cannot say he is admitting a portion of the same girdle (which he has cut down and shortened) for the cut ends would be noticeable. Hence, both in the case of candlestick (tall and short) and girdle (long and short), the defendant is exempt, because he is admitting something else (not a portion of that which was claimed).
^ʷnote:Two denarii, so you still owe me two denarii.
^ˣnote:Because he denies the whole; therefore he does not take an oath.
^ʸnote:Because he admits owing one denar; and he takes an oath.
^ᶻnote:Therefore you, the lender, have to pay me a sela’.
^ᵃᵃnote:How much the pledge was worth.
^ᵃᵇnote:The lender with whom the pledge was deposited.
^ᵃᶜnote:If the borrower takes the oath, the lender (who may not have lost the deposit at all) may bring out the deposit, and show that the borrower has sworn falsely as to its value.