שבועות 46:2 — Soncino English Talmud

and said, ‘I bought them,’ he is not believed. And we do not say this, except in the case of a householder who does not usually sell his [household] articles; but in the case of a householder who sometimes sells his articles, he is believed. And [in the case of a householder] who does not usually sell his household articles we also do not say [that the intruder is not believed] except [with regard to] articles it is not usual to hide, but [with regard to] articles which it is usual to hide, he is believed. And [with regard to articles] which it is not usual to hide we also do not say [that he is not believed] except if he is a man who is not decorous, but [in the case of] a decorous man, that is his way. And we do not say [that he is not believed] except when the householder says he lent them, and the other says he bought them, but [if the householder says the other] stole them, it is not at all in the householder's power [to say so], for we do not assuredly presume a man to be a robber. And we do not say [that the intruder is not believed] except in the case of articles which it is customary to lend or hire out, but in the case of articles which it is not customary to lend or hire out, he is believed; for R. Huna b. Abin sent [his decision that] in the case of articles which it is customary to lend or hire out, and [the intruder] said, ‘I bought them,’ he is not believed; as in the case where Raba removed a pair of scissors for [cutting] cloth and a book of Aggada from orphans — things which it is customary to lend and hire out. Raba said: Even the caretaker may take the oath; and even the caretaker's wife may take the oath. R. Papa inquired: In the case of his hired labourer or retainer, what is the ruling? — Let it stand. R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: if he claimed from him a silver goblet, what is the ruling? — [He replied:] We see, if he is a man reputed to be wealthy, or a man who is trustworthy so that people deposit [articles] with him, he takes an oath and recovers [the goblet], but if not, he does not. ‘HE WHO WAS WOUNDED,’ — HOW? Rab Judah said that Samuel said: They did not teach it, except [if the wound were] in a spot where he could have inflicted it himself, but if it is in a spot where he could not have inflicted it himself, he receives [compensation] without an oath. But let us take into consideration that perhaps he rubbed himself against a wall! — R. Hiyya taught [that the Mishnah deals with a case] where a bite appeared on his back or between his arm-pits. But perhaps someone else did it to him? — There was no other. ‘AND HE WHOSE OPPONENT IS SUSPECTED OF SWEARING FALSELY. . . AND EVEN A VAIN OATH.’ What is meant by EVEN A VAIN OATH?’ — He states a case of ‘not only’: not only [if he is guilty] in these where there is a denial of money, but even in this also which is merely a denial of words, he is no longer believed [on oath]. Let him mention also the oath of utterance. — He mentions only such an oath that at the time of swearing he swears falsely; but the oath of utterance, where it is possible to say that he is swearing the truth, he does not mention. Granted, in the case of ‘I shall eat,’ or, ‘I shall not eat’; but in the case of ‘I have eaten,’ or, ‘I have not eaten,’ what shall we say? — He mentions vain oath^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^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:And the householder said he lent them to him.
^ᵇnote:The intruder is not believed, even if he desires to take an oath; but the householder takes a consuetudinary oath that he did not sell them or give them to him, and recovers the articles; v. Maim., Yad, To'en we-Nite'am, IX, 4.
^ᶜnote:The intruder is believed (with a consuetudinary oath) that he bought them.
^ᵈnote:Articles which one is not ashamed to carry openly in the street. This person hid them, apparently because he was ashamed to have to borrow them; if he had really bought them, as he states, he would not have been ashamed to carry them openly.
^ᵉnote:That he bought them; and though this householder does not usually sell his household goods, he may have been in need of money on this occasion.
^ᶠnote:And he is believed that he bought them, though he carries them hidden under his cloak (and they are articles which other men would carry openly).
^ᵍnote:And the intruder is believed that he bought them, even if he is not a decorous man who always carries articles hidden under his cloak.
^ʰnote:When he says he bought them.
^ⁱnote:From Palestine, v. B.B. 52b.
^ʲnote:Containing legendary matter and homiletic literature.
^ᵏnote:The claimant brought witnesses who testified that the articles were his; and he maintained that he had lent them to the orphans’ father. Raba decided in favour of the claimant (who, naturally, must take an oath that he did not give them or sell them to their father). Since Raba decided thus, it is obvious that he holds that if the father had been alive and said he had bought them, he would not have been believed (for these are articles which it is customary to lend), for had the father been believed, it would have been the duty of the Court, in his absence, to put forward the same plea on behalf of the orphans. The book, which the claimant said he had lent the father, happened to be Aggada, but the same rule applies to all books (v. Tosaf. ad loc.; but Rashi differs).
^ˡnote:This refers to the Mishnah that if witnesses testify that an intruder entered another man's house and seized a pledge which he hid under his cloak (so that they could not distinguish what it was) the householder takes an oath that the article is his, and recovers it. Raba says that if the householder was absent when the intruder entered, but the caretaker was there, he takes the oath.
^ᵐnote:Upon whom the duty of minding the house does not devolve.
^ⁿnote:Do they take the oath in the householder's absence?
^ᵒnote:It remains unsolved.
^ᵖnote:If the householder claimed from the intruder a valuable object, is he also believed on oath?
^ᵠnote:Who is known to have in his home similar objects of value.
^ʳnote:And he states that the silver goblet had been deposited with him by another person.
^ˢnote:In the Mishnah that the injured person takes an oath that the other had inflicted upon him the wound which he exhibits.
^ᵗnote:Therefore an oath is necessary that the other did it.
^ᵘnote:For witnesses testified that he entered the other's premises whole, and came out injured.
^ᵛnote:And injured himself; why should he receive compensation from the other without an oath?
^ʷnote:Or in the elbow joint, which could not have been caused by rubbing against a wall.
^ˣnote:Why should he obtain compensation, without an oath, from the householder? Perhaps another person in the house injured him.
^ʸnote:Why ‘EVEN’?
^ᶻnote:The Tanna of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵃnote:Having sworn falsely in a case involving an oath of testimony or of deposit.
^ᵃᵇnote:Taking a vain oath, e.g., swearing that a pillar of stone is gold.
^ᵃᶜnote:Denial (i.e., false statement) involving words only.
^ᵃᵈnote:E.g., he swears ‘I shall not eat this loaf’; at the moment of swearing he may intend to fulfil it; even if later he is overcome by temptation, and eats it, he should not thereby be accounted untrustworthy and debarred from taking an oath in a money claim.
^ᵃᵉnote:It is possible that at the moment of swearing he intends to fulfil them.
^ᵃᶠnote:Where, at the moment of swearing, he knew he was swearing falsely.
^ᵃᵍnote:Why should not the Mishnah mention that in such a case, too, he is no longer believed on oath, and his opponent is given the oath.