Shevuot

Both the first and second clauses are concerned with proof:1 the proof which necessitates payment he mentions;2 the proof which necessitates [merely] an oath he does not mention.3 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: The School of Rab sent to Samuel [the request]: Let our Master teach us: If an artisan says [to his employer]: ‘Two [zuz] have you stipulated to pay me,’ and the other says: ‘I stipulated to pay you only one,’ who takes the oath? — He replied to them: In this case the householder takes the oath, and the artisan loses, for the amount stipulated people certainly remember.4 But this is not so? For did not Rabbah b. Samuel learn: ‘[In the case of dispute about the amount] stipulated, he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof’5 — [thus implying that] if he does not bring proof, it is cancelled!6 But why? Let the householder take an oath, and the artisan lose!7 — R. Nahman said: Both alternatives are meant: Either [the artisan] brings proof, and receives [his claim], or the householder takes an oath, and the artisan loses. 8 An objection was raised: If one gave his cloak to an artisan [to mend], and the artisan says. ‘You did stipulate to pay me two [zuz],’ and the other says, ‘I stipulated to pay you only one,’ as long as the cloak is in the hands of the artisan, the householder must bring proof;9 but if he had already given it him, then [if he claims] within his time limit,10 he takes an oath, and receives [his claim]; but if his time has passed, he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof.11 [Now it states] after all: ‘[If he claims] within his time limit, he takes an oath and receives [his claim]’! Why? Let the householder take an oath, and the artisan lose!12 — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This is in accordance with the view of R. Judah13 who says whenever the oath inclines towards the householder, the hired person takes the oath and receives [his claim].14 Which R. Judah? Shall we say. R. Judah of our Mishnah? [Surely] he is more stringent, for we learnt: R. JUDAH SAYS: [THERE IS NO OATH] UNLESS THERE IS PARTIAL ADMISSION.15 — But it is R. Judah of the Baraitha; for it was taught: A hired labourer, as long as his time limit has not expired,16 takes an oath, and receives [his claim]; but if not,17 he does not take an oath, and receive [his claim]. And R. Judah said: When [does he take an oath]? Only if he says to him, ‘Give me my wages fifty denarii which you owe me, and the other says. ‘You have already received of it a gold denar’,18 or, if he says to him. ‘Two did you stipulate to pay me,’ and the other says. ‘I stipulated to pay you only one.’19 But if he says to him, ‘I never hired you at all,’ or, if he says to him, ‘I hired you, and paid you your wages,’ then he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof.20 To this R. Shisha the son of R. Idi demurred: Well then, [in the case where the dispute is about the amount] stipulated [is this ruling]21 the view of R. Judah, and not that of the Rabbis. Now since where R. Judah is more stringent,22 the Rabbis are more lenient;23 where R. Judah is more lenient,24 will the Rabbis be more stringent!25 — But then, [will] the Rabbis [also agree]?26 Then, that which Rabbah b. Samuel learnt that [where the amount] stipulated [is in dispute] he who desires to exact from his neighbour must bring proof27 — whose view would it be? It cannot be the view of R. Judah, nor that of the Rabbis! — But, said Rabbah, in this they disagree: R. Judah holds in [an oath imposed by] the Torah28 an enactment was instituted in favour of the hired labourer,29 but in [an oath imposed by] the Rabbis,30 which is itself an enactment — we do not impose one enactment upon another enactment.31 And the Rabbis hold even in [an oath imposed by] the Rabbis we also institute an enactment in favour of the hired labourer; but [in the case of a dispute about] the amount stipulated, this the employer remembers.32 ‘HE WHO WAS ROBBED,’ — HOW? IF THEY TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM THAT HE ENTERED HIS HOUSE TO SEIZE HIS PLEDGE, etc. But perhaps he did not seize his pledge.33 Did not R. Nahman say: If one held an axe in his hand, and said, ‘I am going to cut down the palm-tree of So-and-so,’ and it was found cut and cast [on the ground], we do not say that he cut it down?34 Hence, a man often boasts, but does not fulfil; here also [perhaps] he boasted, and did not fulfil! — Read:35 ‘And seized his pledge.’ — Then let us see what pledge he seized!36 — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan said: He claimed from him vessels which may be taken under his garments.37 Rab Judah said: If they saw him hiding articles under his garments,38 and he came out, cannot be exacted) the tanna mentions. witnesses are necessary), for these witnesses merely give the labourer power to take an oath. and that therefore the oath should devolve on the labourer; but the employer takes the oath like every one who admits part of the claim. automatically exempt; if he does not bring proof, the employer must take an oath that he stipulated only one. cloak for only one zuz). witnesses, he loses his claim. householder takes an oath, and is exempt. here, the oath is transferred from him to the employee, because the employer cannot remember so well (even in a dispute about the amount stipulated), for he is busy with his labourers. allow him. Therefore in the case where the amount stipulated is in dispute, how can you say that it is R. Judah who allows the labourer to take an oath and receive his claim, since others hold that in such a case the labourer is not allowed to take an oath, but the householder takes the oath, and is exempt? oath. stringent, and does not allow the labourer to take an oath. transferred to the labourer. Hence, it is in fact true that R. Judah is sometimes more stringent (even when the Sages are more lenient, as in the case where there is no partial admission), and sometimes the Sages are more stringent (even where R. Judah is more lenient, as in the case where the dispute is about the amount stipulated): the reason is because these cases depend upon different principles. Thus the ruling that the labourer takes the oath in the case of dispute about the amount is R. Judah's view, and not that of the Sages; and Rabbah b. Samuel agrees with the Sages. should the householder he permitted to take an oath, and claim the vessels? damage. was. What need, then, is there for the householder to take an oath? though the witnesses saw that he took something, they could not see exactly what it was; therefore the householder takes an oath.