Shevuot

for the son exacts payment either with an oath or without an oath,1 whereas the father exacts payment only with an oath.2 Now, in what circumstances? [Obviously] if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender;3 and yet it states that the son exacts payment either with an oath or without an oath: ‘with an oath’ — the oath of heirs; without an oath’ — as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says!4 — R. Joseph said: This is in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai who hold that a bond which is ready to be collected is counted as if it is already collected.5 R. Nahman happened to come to Sura. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna went in to him, and said to him: Come, sir, abrogate this ruling of Rab and Samuel.6 He replied to them: Have I taken the trouble to come all these parasangs7 in order to abrogate the ruling of Rab and Samuel? But grant, at least, that we do not add to it.8 As, for example? That which R. Papa said: He who impairs his bond, and died, his heirs swear the oath of heirs, and obtain payment.9 There was a man who died, and left a guarantor.10 R. Papa thought of saying in this case also [the principle] that ‘we should not add to it’ applies.11 Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: Will not the guarantor go after the orphans?12 There was a certain man who died, and left a brother,13 Rami b. Hama thought of saying this is also a case where [the principle] ‘we should not add to it’ applies.14 Said Raba to him: What is the difference between ‘my father did not instruct me etc.’ and ‘my brother did not instruct me etc.’?15 R. Hama said: Now, since the law has not been stated either in accordance with the view of Rab and Samuel or in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar,16 if a judge decides as Rab and Samuel, it is legal; if he decides as R. Eleazar, it is also legal. R. Papa said: This document of orphans17 we do not tear up, and we do not exact payment on it. ‘We do not exact payment on it,’ — in case we agree with Rab and Samuel;18 and ‘we do not tear up,’ — for if a judge decides as R. Eleazar, it is legal. 19 There was a judge who decided as R. Eleazar. There was a Rabbinic scholar in his town who said to him: I can bring a letter from the West20 that the law is not in accordance with R. Eleazar. He replied to him: When you bring it.21 He came before R. Hama. He22 said to him: If a judge decides as R. Eleazar, it is legal. AND THESE TAKE AN OATH [THOUGH NO CLAIM IS PREFERRED AGAINST THEM]. Are we discussing the case of idiots?23 — Thus he means: ‘And these take an oath not in a definite claim, but in a doubtful claim: partners, tenants, [etc.].’24 A Tanna taught: THE SON OF THE HOUSE who was mentioned [in the Mishnah as liable to take an oath] does not mean that he walks in and walks out,25 but he brings in labourers and takes out labourers, brings in produce and takes out produce.26 And wherein are these different?27 — Because they allow themselves permission in it.28 R. Joseph b. Minyomi said that R. Nahman said: But only when the claim between them is [at least] two silver [ma'ahs].29 In accordance with whose view? — Samuel's?30 But R. Hiyya taught in support of Rab!31 — Say, the denial of the claim,32 as Rab holds. IF THE PARTNERS OR TENANTS HAD DIVIDED,33 [AN OATH CANNOT BE IMPOSED]. They enquired: Can this oath be superimposed on a Rabbinic oath?34 — Come and hear: If he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year he became a partner with him, or a tenant, we do not impose on him [any previous oath together with the present oath].35 The reason is because he borrowed from him on the eve of the Sabbatical year, so that when the Sabbatical year came, it cancelled it; but in any other of the seven years, we do impose on him [a previous oath]!36 — Do not infer that in any of the other seven years we do impose on him [a previous oath].37 but infer thus: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath].38 But this is already stated clearly: If he became a partner with him, or a tenant, on the eve of the Sabbatical year, and on the termination of the Sabbatical year, he borrowed from him, we impose on him [a previous oath]!39 — Therefore, we deduce that we superimpose the oath on a Rabbinic oath.40 It is proven. R. Huna said: not yet paid), or without an oath, if there were witnesses that the father had said before he died that the debt was unpaid (supra 45a). dead, and the father (i.e., the lender) is claiming from the heirs, for if the borrower is alive the lender does not need to take an oath (for he produces a document). heir obtains payment of the debt without an oath. However, the Baraitha states that the son exacts payment with an oath from the heirs, where the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender. This is opposed to the view of Rab and Samuel. waters’ (Num. V, 11-31), she does not need to undergo the ordeal, and obtains payment of her kethubah; and though it is possible that she did, in fact, commit adultery, yet, since she has the document (ketubah) setting forth her husband's indebtedness to her, it is as if her husband's property were assigned to her and in her possession; and it is the husband's heirs who would require to bring proof that she was unfaithful, if they desired to deprive her of the kethubah; and if no proof is forthcoming, she obtains payment of the kethubah. This is the view of Beth Shammai, who hold that the money in the document is reckoned as if it is already collected and in the possession of the holder of the document. Here also, if the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, the money is counted as if it is already in the possession of the lender (since he produces a document), though the Sages made a regulation that the lender must take an oath to the borrower's heirs. Hence, the lender is not bequeathing an oath to his sons, but a definite money asset (though the sons, when claiming from the borrower's heirs, must also take an oath, according to Rabbinic regulation). Rab and Samuel, however, agree with Beth Hillel that the money in the document is not counted as if it is already collected; Sot. 25b. cases. his heirs swear the oath of heirs, and obtain payment; and we do not, in this case, apply the ruling of Rab and Samuel that a man cannot bequeath an oath to his heirs. (so that the lender became liable for an oath), then the lender died; and his heirs claimed from the surety. and obtain their money. from the guarantor, will ultimately be depriving the borrower's heirs because of this oath; and to such a case the ruling of Rab and Samuel applies. lender's brother now claims from the borrower's children. Samuel said only the children of the lender could not take the oath in such circumstances. Let us not add the reservation also in regard to the brother of the lender, have to say, ‘My brother did not instruct me, etc.’ There is no difference; and since Rab and Samuel ruled that the lender could not bequeath the oath to his sons, they hold similarly that he cannot bequeath it to his brother. holdings to his own use, the accused must take an oath to refute the accusation. appropriate some of the funds for themselves. must take an oath to refute the rest of the claim. If the accusation is for an amount less than two ma'ahs there is no oath. doubtful accusation. If, however, he has to take an oath in connection with another dispute, this oath too is at the same time included; supra 45a. imposed upon him in this case too where, after their separation, the other partner accuses him of misappropriation of their joint funds? Or is this oath included only if the other oath (which is definitely imposed upon him) is a Biblical oath (e.g., ,menc vsun)? having become a partner on the termination of the Sabbatical year, an oath is imposed upon him because of his partner's accusation against him of misappropriation, the court does not include in the present oath any reference to his denial of the loan, for the Sabbatical year has cancelled the loan. partner, the oath which he is liable for denying the whole loan would have been included in the present oath imposed on him by his partner. Hence, though the present oath is only a Rabbinic regulation, it has the power to include in it another oath. The oath for denying the whole loan, it is here assumed, can only be included in some other oath, for as yet, in the mishnaic period, the consuetudinary oath had not been instituted; it was instituted much later by R. Nahman (supra 40b). oath with it. other, and later admitted a portion of the loan, but denied the rest (for which he is liable a Biblical oath), we impose on him also the previous oath which his partner makes him take by accusing him, after the dissolution, of a previous fraudulence. Hence, it is because he is liable to take a Biblical oath (being a ,menc vsun) that we include also the previous Rabbinic oath. This Baraitha wishes to teach us also that the Sabbatical year does not cancel the partner's oath; it cancels only oaths attached to loans as well as the loans themselves. inference?