Shevuot

If a man give unto his neighbour1 — 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. 2 A PAID GUARDIAN DOES NOT PAY. Whence do we know this? — Our Rabbis taught: If a man give unto his neighbour3 — 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. 4 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?5 — Then why do they disagree about laden [vines], let them disagree about fruitless [trees]!6 — 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.7 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;8 but if he said to him: ‘This house full etc.’ his claim is known.9 — 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!10 — 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.11 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,’12 he is exempt.13 ‘A large candlestick of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a small candlestick,’ he is exempt.14 ‘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.15 ‘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.16 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?17 Does it not include [the case where he says]: ‘This house full etc.’?18 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.19 — If so, [in the case of] girdle also let him teach [a similar law], and explain it as referring to pieces sewn together!20 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!21 — But said R. Abba b. Mammal: A candlestick is different, because he can scrape it and reduce it to five litras.22 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,’23 AND THE OTHER SAYS: ‘NO! YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH A SELA’,’ HE IS EXEMPT.24 ‘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.25 ‘YOU LENT ME A SELA’ ON IT, AND IT WAS WORTH TWO,’26 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?27 HE WHO HAD THE DEPOSIT,28 LEST, IF THE OTHER TAKE THE OATH, THIS ONE MAY BRING OUT THE DEPOSIT.29 neglectful, and is exempt from making restitution. 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. may be ascertained; and if the other returns the house to him half empty, he is liable to take an oath. window’)? Obviously, therefore, there is no difference between ‘a house full’ and ‘this house full’. he too must mention specifically the exact amount (size, weight, or number) he is admitting; v. Tosaf. the claim, cf. next note.] something else. something that may not be deduced from the examples. weight, or number. Hence this Baraitha supports Raba. 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. 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. 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)? 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). show that the borrower has sworn falsely as to its value.