Shevuot 46b — the Talmud in English

And he said:

the one taking them: “These utensils

were purchased by me,

because I bought them from him”—he is not deemed credible, even with an oath.

And we said this

that he is not deemed credible to say, “They were purchased by me,”

only

when—

a.

It is speaking of a homeowner who is not accustomed to sell his utensils. But,

if

the homeowner is accustomed to sell

his

utensils—

he is deemed credible

to say, “They were purchased by me,” since presumably he bought them from the homeowner.

b.

And

even concerning a homeowner

who is not accustomed to sell his utensils, we likewise did not say

that he is not

deemed credible

to say, “They were purchased by me,”

except

when he took

items whose manner it is not

of these items

to conceal

them beneath the folds of the garment.

And since he concealed them, it is evident that he took them unlawfully, and for that reason he hides these objects.

And therefore, when these two deficiencies are combined in the one taking them: a. that he took them from a homeowner who is not accustomed to sell, b. that he took items which it is not customary to conceal—the one taking them is not deemed credible!

But,

if he took

items whose manner it is to conceal

beneath the folds of the garment—

he is deemed credible.

Since he acted in the manner in which people act, and it is not recognizable from his actions that he took them unlawfully.

c.

And

utensils

whose manner it is not to conceal, [

and it was explained above that if he concealed them he is not deemed credible]

we likewise did not say

that he is not deemed credible because he concealed them, except when the one taking them is

a person who is not reserved,

that is, whose manner it is to walk in the marketplace with objects exposed in his hands, and he does not act to conceal them. And here, when he concealed the objects he took, it is evident that he took them unlawfully, and for that reason he concealed them.

But,

when the one taking them is

a reserved person,

and it is his manner to conceal his objects, he is deemed credible to say, “They were purchased by me.” Since

that is his manner

—this is his manner of holding his objects when they are concealed with him. And if so, one cannot see in his concealing them that he took the utensils unlawfully.

d.

And we did not say

that the one taking them is not deemed credible [even when the homeowner is not accustomed to sell his utensils, and even when it is not the manner of the objects to be concealed, and even when he himself is not accustomed to conceal objects],

except

when

this one,

the homeowner,

says that they are lent

to the one taking them—that he did not sell them to him, but rather lent them to him.

And this one,

the one taking them,

says that they were purchased

by me, and not lent.

But in

the event that the homeowner claims that they are

stolen,

that you stole them from me,

he has no standing to make this claim;

the homeowner is not deemed credible. Because

“to establish a person as a thief,”

to establish the man as a thief—

we do not establish him as such!

e.

And we did not say

that the one taking them is not deemed credible to say in all these cases, “They were purchased by me,”

except with objects customarily lent or rented.

And the homeowner claims that he lent them to him and did not sell them to him. And in this manner he is not deemed credible, since it is evident that these utensils are lent to him, and not sold.

But,

if the one taking them is holding

objects not customarily lent or rented, the one taking them is deemed credible

even though they are concealed, and even though he is a person who is not reserved.

And the homeowner cannot claim against him, “I lent them to him.”

And Rav Yehuda brings proof for his words:

for Rav Huna bar Avin sent word:

One who is holding in his possession

objects customarily lent or rented,

and the claimant who wishes to take those utensils from him claims that he lent them to him, while he, the one holding them,

said: “They were purchased by me,”—

he is not deemed credible!

For this is like Rava taking a pair of clothing-shearers [Rava took clothing-shearers],

and a book of Aggada

[and books of Aggada] —

from orphans.

Because the claimant claimed that he had lent these utensils to their father, and he also brought witnesses that they had belonged to him. And Rava took them from the orphans because these objects were

objects customarily lent or rented.

And it is evident from this that the father of the orphans was not deemed credible to claim, “They were purchased by me,” even with an oath. For if he had been deemed credible, we would have made the claim on behalf of the orphans that the objects had been purchased by their father, and we would have exempted them.

And it is evident that with objects customarily lent or rented, the person holding them is not deemed credible to claim, “They were purchased by me.”

Rava said:

The law we learned above, that the robbed person takes with an oath, does not apply specifically to the robbed person, such that only he can swear and take.

Rather,

even a watchman

of the house who saw the robbery

swears

about it, and the watchman’s oath is sufficient in order to take the objects from the robber.

And likewise,

even the wife of a watchman swears!

Rav Pappa raised a question: His hired worker,

a permanent worker employed by the homeowner,

and

likewise

his seasonal worker,

who is a temporary worker, and both of them reside in the homeowner’s house, but they are not responsible for his objects.

What

is the law? Can they too swear against the robber and take from him?

And the Gemara concludes:

Let it stand unresolved!

Rav Yemar said to Rav Ashi: If the homeowner claimed

against the robber

with

the claim: “You took from me

a silver cup,”

a silver cup of great value.

What

is the law? With such expensive utensils as well, is the claimant deemed credible to take through an oath?

Rav Ashi answered him:

I see: if

the homeowner

is a wealthy person, or

if he is

a trustworthy person,

and since this is so,

people deposit things with him,

people deposit expensive utensils with him and rely on him because of his trustworthiness, then

he swears and takes. But if not—

if he is neither wealthy nor trustworthy and entrusted with the property of others—

no!

We learned in our Mishna:

“A wounded person—how so?”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: We learned this only

that the wounded person must swear in order to take the money for his injury from the one who injured him—

but

if it was

in a place

on his body

where he could injure himself.

And for this reason, it is possible that he injured himself. And therefore he takes the money for the injury only through an oath.

But,

if the injury was

in a place where he could not injure himself, he takes without an oath!

The Gemara asks:

And

even if the injury was in a place where he could not injure himself, why does he take without an oath?

Let us suspect that perhaps he rubbed against a wall,

and was injured through this, and not by the one who injured him?

And the answer:

Rabbi Hiyya taught,

our Mishna is speaking of a case in which the injury was as follows:

They were testifying concerning him that he entered his house whole and emerged injured, such as

that a bite appeared on his back, and between

[or between]

the joints of

[elbows of]

his arms.

And it is impossible to attribute this injury to rubbing against a wall. And in such a case he takes without an oath!

And the Gemara objects:

But perhaps another person did this to him

this injury, and not the person who is making the claim?

And the answer:

There is no other person

but him! We learned in our Mishna:

“And when the one opposite him is suspected

of an oath,

even of a vain oath.”

And the Gemara asks:

What does “even a vain oath” mean?

And the answer:

It states the “needless to say” formulation. It is needless to say

those who are suspected concerning

these,

these oaths mentioned in the Mishna, the oath of testimony and the oath concerning a deposit —

which involve denial of money,

for one who swears these oaths, besides swearing a false oath, is denying money. For one who denies in an oath of testimony,

that is, he swears to his fellow that he does not know testimony that he could give for him, and through this he causes his fellow to lose money. And likewise one who denies a deposit—that is, his fellow claims from him money that had been deposited with him, and he denies it and swears concerning it, thereby causing him to lose money—-

It follows that not only one who swears falsely with these oaths is suspected and will not swear a second time,

but even

one who is suspected regarding

that

regarding vain oaths [such as one who swears that a stone is gold; this is a vain oath]—

also

he is disqualified for an oath. Despite the fact that

it is merely a denial of words,

and he did not cause monetary damage but merely swore without qualification, again

he is not trustworthy,

one who is suspected on account of this oath.

And if so, the Gemara asks:

let it also teach,

that even one who is suspected regarding an oath of expression is disqualified for an oath [such as one who swore that he would eat, or one who swore that he would not eat and violated this oath].

And the Gemara answers:

when it teaches

in the Mishna one who is suspected regarding an oath, that means

an oath

of such a kind

that when he swears,

at the time that he swears, it is known to the one swearing that -

he is swearing falsely [

such as an oath of testimony, for at the time that he swears he knows that he is able to testify, and nevertheless he swears that he does not know testimony.

And in an oath of deposit, he knows that the deposit is with him, and nevertheless he swears that it is not with him. And likewise, in a vain oath, he knows that he is swearing falsely].

But regarding an oath of expression, where it may be said

that at the time that he swore

that

indeed

truly

he

was swearing,

and his intention was not to lie in his oath, for he was able to fulfill and do that which he swore. But only afterward did his inclination mislead him into violating his oath. And such an oath, which was not false from its beginning—

it does not teach

in the Mishna, and even if he violated it, he is still not suspected regarding an oath! But there is a difficulty:

this works

when he swore an oath of expression concerning the future. That is, he swore

“I will eat” and [

or]

“I will not eat”

for when he swore, it was possible that he had intended to fulfill his oath.

But when he swore regarding the past

“I ate” and [

or]

“I did not eat,”

for already at the time that he swore, he knew that he was swearing falsely—

what is there to say?

Why was it not mentioned in the Mishna that he becomes suspected through this oath?