Shevuot

and all that are similar to it.1 IF ONE OF THEM WAS A DICE-PLAYER. Wherefore is this necessary?2 — He [the tanna] mentions a Biblical disqualification, and he mentions a Rabbinic disqualification. 3 IF BOTH WERE SUSPECT, etc. Raba said to R. Nahman: ‘How did we learn in the Mishnah?’4 — He said to him: ‘I do not know.’ ‘What is the law?’ — He said to him: ‘I do not know.’ It was stated: R. Joseph b. Minyomi said that R. Nahman said: R. Jose says, They divide.5 And so did R. Zebid b. Oshaia learn: R. Jose says, They divide. Some say.6 R. Zebid learned: R. Oshaia said: R. Jose says, They divide. R. Joseph b. Minyomi said: R. Nahman decided a case thus: they divide. THE OATH RETURNS TO ITS PLACE. Whither does it return? — R. Ammi said: Our Masters of Babylon said, the oath returns to Sinai;7 our Masters of the Land of Israel said, the oath returns to him upon whom it devolves.8 R. Papa said: Our Masters of Babylon9 are Rab and Samuel; our Masters of the Land of Israel are R. Abba.10 ‘Our Masters of Babylon are Rab and Samuel,’ for we learnt: AND SO ALSO ORPHANS CANNOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT WITH AN OATH. And we discussed this: From whom? Shall we say, from the borrower?11 Their father would have received payment without an oath, and they require an oath!12 But it means: ‘And so also orphans from orphans cannot exact payment except with an oath.’13 And Rab and Samuel both said: They did not teach this,14 except if the lender died during the lifetime of the borrower;15 but if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the lender was already obliged to take an oath to the sons of the borrower;16 and a man cannot bequeath an oath to his sons.17 ‘Our Masters of the Land of Israel are R. Abba’; for there was a man who snatched a bar of silver from his neighbour; they came before R. Ammi, and R. Abba was sitting in his presence. He18 brought one witness that he had snatched it from him. The other said, ‘Yes, I snatched it; but it is mine that I snatched.’ Said R. Ammi: How shall judges settle this dispute? Shall we say to him, ‘Go and pay’?19 There are not two witnesses.20 Shall we exempt him?21 There is one witness [that he snatched].22 Shall we say to him, ‘Go and swear’?23 Since he says. ‘I snatched it,’ he is like a robber!24 — R. Abba said to him: He is liable to take an oath, and he cannot take the oath; and everyone who is liable to take an oath, and cannot take the oath, must pay. 25 Raba said: It is reasonable to agree with R. Abba, for R. Ammi learned: The oath of the Lord shall be between them both26 — but not between the heirs. How is this [to be understood]? Shall we say, that he said to him: ‘Your father owed my father a hundred zuz,’ and the other replied to him: ‘Fifty he owed him, but not the other fifty’; what is the difference between him and his father?27 But then, [it must mean] he said to him: ‘Your father owed my father a hundred zuz,’ and the other replied to him: ‘Fifty I know, but the other fifty I do not know.’28 disqualifying the offender is concerned) in the category of VAIN OATH. the oath. force but with the other's consent, is disqualified merely by the Rabbis. tradition was. was R. Jose who holds the view that the plaintiff and defendant divide. to Sinai (its place of origin), for it cannot be applied. The result is, the case cannot be tried by the court, and the matter is left alone until evidence is produced by either of the two. the whole claim. unless they take an oath (mentioned in the Mishnah, supra 45a) that their father did not tell them before he died that the document had been settled? sons must take an oath, for the lender himself could not have exacted payment from the borrower's sons without an oath; for payment cannot be exacted from orphans except on oath. dies, the lender's sons can exact payment from the borrower's sons only with an oath. would have to take an oath to the sons of the borrower that he had not yet been paid by their father. When he dies, he cannot transmit this oath to his sons, for their oath (if they were to take one) would have to be, ‘We swear that our father did not inform us that the debt had been paid.’ (v. Mishnah). Since the father had already become liable to take an oath, and the same oath cannot be transmitted to his sons, they cannot take an oath at all. The sons of the borrower also cannot take an oath that their father had already paid. Hence, Rab and Samuel hold that since neither can take an oath, there is neither oath nor payment; i.e., the oath returns to Sinai. forward that excuse. he snatched it, but maintains that it is his. witness. pays. would have taken it? and from payment.