Shevuot

WHETHER IT BE THE OATH OF TESTIMONY,1 OR THE OATH OF DEPOSIT, OR EVEN A VAIN OATH;2 IF ONE [OF THE LITIGANTS] WAS A DICE-PLAYER,3 OR USURER, OR PIGEON-FLYER,4 OR DEALER IN THE PRODUCE OF THE SEVENTH YEAR,5 HIS OPPONENT TAKES THE OATH AND RECEIVES [HIS CLAIM].6 IF BOTH ARE SUSPECT, THE OATH RETURNS TO ITS PLACE:7 THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. JOSE. R. MEIR SAYS: THEY DIVIDE.8 ‘AND THE SHOPKEEPER WITH HIS ACCOUNT BOOK,’ — HOW? NOT THAT HE [E.G.,] SAYS TO HIM, ‘IT IS WRITTEN IN MY ACCOUNT BOOK THAT YOU OWE ME TWO HUNDRED ZUZ’;9 BUT HE10 SAYS TO HIM, ‘GIVE MY SON TWO SEAHS OF WHEAT,’11 OR, ‘GIVE MY LABOURER SMALL CHANGE TO THE VALUE OF A SELA;’12 I HE SAYS, ‘I HAVE GIVEN,’ AND THEY13 SAY, ‘WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED’; HE14 TAKES AN OATH, AND RECEIVES [HIS DUE].15 AND THEY TAKE AN OATH, AND RECEIVE [THEIR DUE].16 BEN NANNUS SAID: HOW CAN BOTH BE PERMITTED TO COME TO A VAIN OATH?17 BUT HE14 TAKES WITHOUT AN OATH, AND THEY13 TAKE WITHOUT AN OATH. — IF HE SAID TO A SHOPKEEPER, ‘GIVE ME FRUIT FOR A DENAR,’ AND HE GAVE HIM, THEN THE SHOPKEEPER SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE ME THE DENAR’; AND HE REPLIED TO HIM, ‘I GAVE IT TO YOU, AND YOU PLACED IT IN THE TILL,’ THE HOUSEHOLDER TAKES AN OATH.18 IF HE GAVE HIM THE DENAR, AND SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE ME THE FRUIT,’ AND THE SHOPKEEPER SAYS TO HIM, ‘I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU, AND YOU TOOK IT TO YOUR HOUSE,’ THE SHOPKEEPER TAKES AN OATH.19 R. JUDAH SAYS: HE WHO HAS THE FRUIT IN HIS POSSESSION. HIS HAND IS UPPERMOST.20 IF HE SAID TO A MONEY-CHANGER, ‘GIVE ME CHANGE FOR A DENAR,’ AND HE GAVE HIM; AND SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE ME THE DENAR,’ AND THE OTHER SAID, ‘I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU, AND YOU PLACED IT IN THE TILL,’ THE HOUSEHOLDER TAKES AN OATH. IF HE GAVE HIM THE DENAR, AND SAID TO HIM, ‘GIVE ME THE SMALL CHANGE,’ AND THE OTHER SAID TO HIM, ‘I HAVE GIVEN IT YOU, AND YOU THREW IT IN YOUR PURSE,’ THE MONEY-CHANGER TAKES AN OATH. R. JUDAH SAYS: IT IS NOT USUAL FOR A MONEY-CHANGER TO GIVE [EVEN] AN ISSAR UNTIL HE RECEIVES THE DENAR.21 — JUST AS THEY HAVE SAID THAT SHE WHO IMPAIRS HER KETHUBAH CANNOT RECEIVE PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH;22 AND THAT IF ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES AGAINST HER THAT IT HAS BEEN PAID [IN FULL], SHE CANNOT RECEIVE PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH; AND THAT FROM ASSIGNED PROPERTY23 OR ORPHANS’ PROPERTY SHE CANNOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH; AND THAT IF SHE CLAIMS NOT IN HIS PRESENCE,24 SHE CANNOT RECEIVE PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH; SO, TOO, ORPHANS CANNOT RECEIVE PAYMENT25 EXCEPT ON OATH [NAMELY]: ‘WE SWEAR THAT OUR FATHER DID NOT ENJOIN IN HIS TESTAMENT UPON US, NEITHER DID OUR FATHER SAY UNTO US, NOR DID WE FIND [WRITTEN] AMONG THE DOCUMENTS OF OUR FATHER THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS PAID.’26 R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA SAYS: EVEN IF THE SON WAS BORN AFTER HIS FATHER'S DEATH HE MAY TAKE AN OATH,27 AND RECEIVE HIS CLAIM. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT THE FATHER SAID AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT PAID, HE RECEIVES [HIS CLAIM] WITHOUT AN OATH, — AND THESE TAKE AN OATH THOUGH THERE IS NO [DEFINITE] CLAIM:28 PARTNERS,29 TENANTS,30 ADMINISTRATORS,31 THE WIFE WHO TRANSACTS THE AFFAIRS IN THE HOUSE,32 AND THE SON OF THE HOUSE.33 [IF] HE34 SAID TO HIM,35 ‘WHAT DO YOU CLAIM OF ME?’ [AND THE OTHER REPLIED.] ‘I DESIRE THAT YOU SWEAR TO ME’;36 HE MUST TAKE AN OATH. IF THE PARTNERS OR TENANTS HAD DIVIDED,37 HE CANNOT IMPOSE AN OATH UPON THEM.38 IF AN OATH WAS IMPOSED UPON HIM IN ANOTHER CASE, THEY IMPOSE UPON HIM THE WHOLE.39 AND THE SEVENTH YEAR CANCELS THE OATH.40 GEMARA. ALL WHO TAKE AN OATH [ENFORCED] IN SCRIPTURE, TAKE AN OATH, AND DO NOT PAY. Whence do we know this? — Because Scripture said: And the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not pay41 — he whose duty it is to pay: upon him devolves the oath. BUT THESE TAKE AN OATH, AND RECEIVE [PAYMENT], etc. In what way is the hired labourer different that the Rabbis have instituted for him [the privilege] that he should take the oath and receive [his wages]? — Rab Judah said that Samuel said: Great halachoth did they teach here. ‘Halachoth!’ Are these then halachoth?42 But say: Great enactments did they teach here. — ‘Great’! Hence there are also small [enactments]?43 — But, said R. Nahman that Samuel said: Fixed enactments did they teach here: our Rabbis removed the oath from the householder44 and imposed it upon the hired labourer for the sake of his livelihood. [But] for the sake of the labourer's livelihood do we fine the householder? — The householder himself is satisfied that the labourer should take the oath and receive [his wages], so that labourers may hire themselves out to him.45 On the contrary, the hired labourer is satisfied that the householder should take the oath, and be released [from payment], so that the householder should hire him?46 — The householder must of necessity employ [labourers].47 The labourer also must of necessity be employed!48 — Well, then, the householder is busy with his labourers.49 — Then, let him give him without an oath!50 — In order to appease the mind of the householder [an oath is imposed].51 — Well, let him pay him in the presence of witnesses?52 — That would be too troublesome for him.53 Then let him pay him at the beginning?54 — Both desire credit.55 sometimes a pigeon belonging to somebody may be ensnared, and he is thus guilty of theft; v. Sanh. 25a. sole possessor of the produce, and was not allowed to trade with it; v. Lev. XXV, 6, and Rashi a.l. claim, must take an oath; here, since he is suspect, he cannot take the oath, so he pays the full claim; v. infra 47a. (Rashi); but v. Tosaf. infra 48a s.v. gcab. [Though the oath serves here to exempt the purchaser from paying, it is nevertheless included among those taken in order to receive payment, as the oath enables the purchaser to retain the produce he bought (Hoffmann). For other interpretations, v. Alfasi on the passage and attendant commentaries.] Judah says he does not need to swear, for it is not usual for a shopkeeper who sells for cash to give the fruit before he receives the money, and since the householder already has the fruit, his hand is uppermost, and we assume that he has paid. ‘impairs her kethubah’ (i.e., weakens its validity, for the amount shown in the document is no longer correct, on her own admission), and if the husband, who is divorcing her, says he has paid her the whole amount, she cannot obtain payment of her claim unless she takes an oath that she has not been paid. satisfied; nor did we find that he had already written out a receipt ready to be dispatched to the debtor.’ take an oath to refute the charge; v. infra 48b. case, then the Court insert in the oath a statement having reference to the present claim, so that he takes the oath for both claims together; v. infra p. 301, n. 9. hand unto his neighbour's goods. The owner shall accept this oath, and the guardian (in whose care the animal had died) does not need to pay; hence the person whose duty it is to pay has the oath imposed upon him, and exempts himself from payment. allow the employer to take the oath (and not pay), so that he may employ him again. is imposed upon the labourer is because the employer prefers it thus, so that labourers may not be afraid of him, and may hire themselves out to him; they would in any case seek employment from him. paid this one too; but the labourer has only one employer to deal with, and he remembers whether he has received his wages; therefore the oath is imposed upon the labourer. oath. no need for an oath, for we would assume definitely that the wages had been paid in the morning, since the Rabbis had established that rule, and the labourer would not have commenced his work unless he had been paid first. the labourer desires to grant this credit, and does not want his money in the morning, in case he spends it.