Shevuot 47a — the Talmud in English

And the answer is:

the tanna

in our Mishna

the oath of vainness ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

and everything similar to it!

And even an oath of expression that he swore concerning the past is also false like it. And one who swears it falsely is likewise among all those suspected of violating an oath, whom our Mishna enumerated.

We learned in our Mishna:

if one of them was gambling with dice—

the one opposite him swears and takes!

And the Gemara asks:

this too, why do I need it?

For we already learned that one who is disqualified for swearing falsely and one who lends with interest [are disqualified]?

And the answer is:

the tanna taught a disqualification by Torah law. And

for that reason he

teaches

also the disqualification of one who gambles with dice, whose disqualification is

a rabbinic disqualification.

But by Torah law this is not considered robbery.

We learned in our Mishna:

if both of them were suspected—

the oath returns to its place—the words of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: they divide!

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: How do we learn it?

How do you recite the words of the Mishna? Does Rabbi Yosei say “they divide,” or does Rabbi Meir say “they divide”?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

I do not know!

Rava asked him again:

What is the halakha?

He said to him: I do not know!

It was stated: Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Naḥman said—

Rabbi Yosei says: they divide! And so Rav Zevid bar Oshaya taught—

Rabbi Yosei says: they divide!

Some say: Rav Zevid taught in the name of Rabbi Oshaya—

Rabbi Yosei says: they divide! Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said: Rav Naḥman carried out a practical ruling—

they divide!

And Rav Naḥman carried out a ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and ruled that they divide!

We learned in our Mishna:

the oath returned to its place!

And the Gemara asks:

to where did it return,

the oath?

And it answers:

Rabbi Ami said:

Our teachers in Babylonia said: the oath returned to Sinai!

That is to say, the oath returned, and the court does not administer an oath to him, nor do they collect money from him. Rather, he is sworn by the oath of Mount Sinai with which the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel concerning “you shall not rob.” And he will exact payment from the one who denies money owed to his fellow!

Our teachers in the Land of Israel said: the oath returned to the one obligated by it—

to the defendant who admitted to part [of the claim], and since he cannot swear, he pays!

Rav Pappa said: Our teachers in Babylonia

are

Rav and Shmuel.

Our teachers in the Land of Israel

are

Rabbi Abba.

And the proof that our teachers in Babylonia are Rav and Shmuel is from this:

as we learned—

and likewise orphans

who come to collect their father’s debt

may not collect

from the liable defendant

except by an oath!

And we deliberated concerning it: from whom

will they collect by an oath?

If you say

that they collect

from the borrower,

and collect money that their father lent to this borrower, by means of the promissory note in their possession, and concerning this it was said that they must swear the Mishna’s oath that their father did not inform them and did not tell them that this debt had been repaid—this is astonishing: why must they swear? After all,

their father,

the orphans’ father, if he had been alive, would have

taken

his debt

without an oath. And they,

the orphans, should we obligate them to take only

by an oath?

Rather, this is what it means: and likewise the orphans,

the orphans of the lender who come to collect

from the orphans

of the borrower—

they may not collect except by an oath.

And Rav and Shmuel both said: they taught this law

that orphans collect from orphans by an oath—

only

in a situation

where the

lender

died during the lifetime of the

borrower

.

And when his sons inherited the debt, their father had not yet become obligated by an oath, since the borrower was still alive.

But,

if

the borrower died during the lifetime of the

lender,

the lender had already become obligated to the borrower’s sons by an oath,

for anyone who comes to collect from orphans’ property collects only by an oath.

And

the law is that

a person may not bequeath

money concerning which he is obligated by

an oath to his sons.

And the borrower’s sons are exempt from an oath and from payment.

And we have learned from this that anyone obligated by an oath who cannot swear, neither he nor the one opposite him being able to swear, does not swear and no one collects. Rather, the oath returns to Sinai, and the heirs of the lender lose.

And the same is true when both of them are suspected concerning the oath: since the claimant and the defendant cannot swear, the claimant loses!

And it is explained that the view of Rav and Shmuel is that one obligated by an oath who cannot swear is exempt. And the oath returns to Sinai.

And

our teachers in the Land of Israel,

who hold that one obligated by an oath who cannot swear—the oath returns to the one obligated by it, and since he cannot swear, he pays—this refers to

Rabbi Abba!

And the proof of this is the incident

of a certain man who snatched a silver ingot from his fellow [

a person snatched a piece of silver from his fellow ]

The victim came

before

Rav Ami,

and at that time

Rabbi Abba was sitting before him,

Rabbi Abba was sitting before Rav Ami.

He brought,

the victim brought

one witness,

a single witness who testified

that he had snatched it

the piece of silver

from him.

And the victim demanded that he return the stolen object.

The snatcher said to him,

the snatcher said:

Yes, I snatched it,

indeed, I admit that I snatched this object that you are claiming from you. But

I snatched my own.

The piece of silver is mine, and I snatched my own!

Rabbi Ami said: How shall the judges judge this case? [

how shall the judges judge this case, which is difficult to judge, as will be explained below ] Perhaps

we should say to him,

to the snatcher:

go, pay,

since he himself admitted that he snatched it, and if there had been two witnesses to the snatching, he would no longer have been believed to say, “I snatched my own.” For anyone who snatches an object from another’s hand is presumed to be a robber until he brings proof that the object is indeed his.

And therefore, even now, when he admits to the snatching, he is not believed to say that he snatched his own. And seemingly the law should be that he returns it—for

there are not two witnesses

that he snatched it.

And because of this, we should believe him by a migo, since he could have claimed, “I did not snatch it,” and would have been believed with that claim. Therefore, it is impossible to tell him to pay.

And if so—

let us exempt him,

since he has a migo: had he said, “I did not snatch it,” he would have been exempt. And if so, he should be believed to say, “I snatched my own,” and be exempt,

However, this too is impossible, since

there is one witness

that he snatched it, and consequently he does not have the migo that he could say, “I did not snatch it.” For had he said this, the one witness would have contradicted him, and he would have been obligated by an oath to contradict the witness.

And if so, seemingly

we should say to him,

to the snatcher,

go, swear

against the words of the witness, since the witness obligates him to swear.

However, this too is impossible. For

since he said

and admitted that

I did snatch it—

he confirms the words of the witness, that he indeed snatched it. And he cannot swear against him the oath that the witness obligates him to swear—that is, that he did not snatch it. And because of this,

it turns out that

this snatcher is

like a robber,

who is prepared to swear but cannot swear because he is disqualified from taking an oath.

And likewise this snatcher too was prepared to swear against the witness. But he cannot swear, since he admits to the snatching itself. He merely claims that he snatched what was his.

Rabbi Abba said to him,

to Rav Ami: his law is as follows—

The snatcher was

the snatcher

obligated by an oath and unable

to swear, and anyone obligated by an oath who cannot swear—

pays.

And according to Rabbi Abba, it can be said that even where both the claimant and the defendant were both suspected concerning the oath, since he is unable to swear, he pays.

And this is what they said: “Our Rabbis in Eretz Israel”—Rabbi Abba. The oath returns to the one obligated by it, and since he is unable to swear, he pays.

Rava said: In accordance with Rabbi Abba

who said that one obligated by an oath but unable to swear pays—

is reasonable.

For Rabbi Ami taught: “The oath of Hashem shall be between them,”

between the two litigants, when they are present before us—

and not between heirs!

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

of the oath obligation between the heirs that we excluded through the aforementioned verse? And the Gemara discusses:

If you say

that the exclusion refers to a case

where he said to him,

the heir of the creditor to the heir of the debtor:

A maneh

there was

with my father

and they gave it

into your father’s hand,

and he said to him,

the heir of the debtor:

Fifty [

half a maneh] I know that

he has,

which he received from your father as a loan,

and fifty

I know that he

does not have,

for he received from him only the fifty about which I admitted to you; and concerning this case the exclusion was stated, that the heir does not swear—

this matter is astonishing, since

what difference is it whether it is he or whether it is his father,

for since he admits to half the loan and claims with certainty that he does not owe the other half, he is one who admits to part of the claim. And why is he exempt from an oath?

Rather, is it not so?

Certainly the son should swear in this case. And the exclusion was stated concerning another case—

and it is

where he said to him,

the heir of the creditor:

A maneh

there is

with my father in your father’s possession. He said to him,

the heir of the debtor:

Fifty

of this maneh

I know [

I know that my father borrowed from your father],

and fifty I do not know [

it is not known to me whether he borrowed it or not]. And in this manner the heir should be exempt from an oath and from paying the remaining fifty that he claims from him, because he is not familiar with the affairs of his father.

And now, one must infer from the words of Rabbi Ami in accordance with the words of Rabbi Abba: One obligated by an oath but unable to swear pays: