Shevuot 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

Granted, if you say

if it was

his father,

when he would make a claim

of this kind,

saying, “I know that there were fifty, but I do not know about the other fifty,”

he would be liable

to take an oath, and since he cannot take the oath, he must pay—

that is well;

a verse was needed to exempt the heirs.

It teaches that although their father would have had to pay, they are exempt.

But if you say

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Abba, and the law would be that if

his father would make a claim of this kind

concerning the remainder of the claim and say that he does not know,

also

he would be exempt, since one who is liable to take an oath but cannot take it is exempt and does not pay,

if so,

the verse concerning the heirs

to exempt them,

why do I need it?

After all, their father would also have been exempt in this situation, and surely the heirs would be exempt just as he was!?

Rather, it is proved from this that the statement of Rabbi Abba is correct: one who is liable to take an oath but cannot take it must pay!

And for this reason, a special verse is necessary to teach us that heirs who are liable to take an oath but cannot take it are exempt.

The Gemara now asks:

And Rav and Shmuel,

who maintain that when one is liable to take an oath but cannot take it, the oath reverts to Sinai, and he neither takes an oath nor pays,

what do they derive from this verse,

“The oath of the Lord shall be between the two of them,”

from which we proved that one who is liable to take an oath but does not take it must pay?

What do Rav and Shmuel derive from it?

Rav and Shmuel?

And the Gemara answers: This verse

is needed

for Rav and Shmuel

for that which was taught:

Shimon ben Tarfon says: “The oath of the Lord shall be

between the two of them”—

this teaches that the oath applies to them both!

And both of them—the borrower and the lender—are punished on account of it. The borrower is punished because he swore falsely, and the lender is punished because he was not careful to entrust his money to a trustworthy person; through his negligence, he caused the desecration of God’s Name resulting from the borrower’s false oath. [

Following this beraita, the Gemara cites additional statements of Shimon ben Tarfon ]

Shimon ben Tarfon says: There is a prohibition against one who facilitates the adulterer

[who is concerned for the adulterer and arranges and habituates women for him for adultery].

From where

is this derived?

It is stated:

“You shall not commit adultery”—and its meaning also includes:

You shall not cause adultery!

That is, you may not cause others to commit adultery. It is written:

“And you murmured in your tents,”

[after the Israelites heard the words of the spies who slandered the Land, it is stated: “You would not ascend, and you rebelled against the command of the Lord your God. And you murmured in your tents,” etc.]

Shimon ben Tarfon says: You explored

the Land

and denigrated the Omnipresent in the tent of the Omnipresent,

who caused His tent to dwell among you—there you denigrated Him.

It is written:

“As far as the great river, the Euphrates.” Shimon ben Tarfon says: Draw close to one who is anointed with oil, and you too will become anointed!

[Draw close to one who is anointed with oil, and through your proximity to him, you too will become anointed].

This matter is an analogy concerning the Euphrates. The Euphrates is smaller than the other great rivers mentioned at the beginning of Genesis. Nevertheless, here it is called “the great river.” This is entirely because of its proximity to the important Land of Israel!

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

[this same moral taught by Shimon ben Tarfon, but in a different form]:

Honor is accorded to

a king’s servant as to a king,

because of his proximity and connection to the king!

We learned in our Mishna:

“And the storekeeper on the basis of his ledger…”

he takes an oath and collects, and they take an oath and collect!

It was taught: Rabbi said—

Why is this oath necessary?

Why did the Sages institute that both of them should come and swear, when it is clear that one of them will swear falsely?

Now, Rabbi’s question does not make clear whether he maintains that both of them should collect from the householder without an oath, in accordance with the view of Ben Nannas, or whether only the workers collect from the storekeeper by taking an oath.

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi: We have already learned this,

you taught it and stated it without qualification in the Mishna:

Both of them,

the workers and the storekeeper,

take an oath and collect from the householder?!

If so, according to your own view, there is a place for this oath with regard to both of them,

And the Gemara discusses the matter:

Did he accept it from him

did Rabbi accept Rabbi Hiyya’s answer and retract his question, adopting the view stated in our Mishna?

Or did he not accept it from him?

Come and hear, as it was taught:

Rabbi says: The workers take an oath to the storekeeper

that he did not give them their wages. That is, the workers collect from the storekeeper by taking an oath, and the storekeeper is the one who loses, since he does not collect from the householder by taking an oath; he merely pays the workers.

And if it is so,

if Rabbi did in fact accept Rabbi Hiyya’s answer, retract his question’s implication, and maintain in accordance with the Mishna that both of them take an oath and collect from the householder, then why did Rabbi say in the beraita that the workers take an oath to the storekeeper?

The workers

should have taken an oath to the householder

[that is what should have been stated], and not taken an oath to the storekeeper?!

The answer is:

Rava said:

Rabbi did indeed accept Rabbi Hiyya’s answer. Rabbi maintains that both of them take an oath and collect from the householder, and this is what Rabbi said:

The workers take an oath to the householder—

in the presence of the storekeeper, so that they will be embarrassed before him!

[This is in order to embarrass them if in fact they received the money from him].

It was stated: When two sets of witnesses contradict one another,

for example, two witnesses say that a certain person killed another person, and two witnesses say that he did not kill him.

These two sets of witnesses contradict one another, and certainly one of them is testifying falsely. Therefore, that set is disqualified. However, we do not know which of them is the valid set and which is the disqualified set.

Rav Huna said:

This

one

is valid and

comes forward on its own and testifies, and

so too

this

second set is valid and

comes forward on its own and testifies.

Since we establish each set independently on its presumption of validity.

Rav Hisda said: What use have I for false witnesses?

Since it is certain to us that one of the sets testified falsely and is disqualified, but we do not know which one it is, we must be stringent and disqualify both sets because of the uncertainty, rather than establish them on a presumption of validity.

The Gemara presents several cases in which two sets of witnesses contradict one another:

A. If there were

two lenders and two borrowers,

and they had two documents bearing the signatures of the two groups who contradicted one another—

this is their dispute!

This is the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Hisda. According to Rav Huna, these documents are valid, whereas according to Rav Hisda, they are invalid.

B. If there was

one lender

and

one borrower, and there were two documents

of debt between them, and the two groups who contradicted one another had signed both documents,

the law is that

the bearer of a document has the lower hand,

and he cannot collect both debts, since it is certain that one of the groups is lying. Rather, he collects the lesser of the two amounts stated in the documents.

C. If there were

two lenders and one borrower

who borrowed from both of them,

and

the two loans had

two documents

signed by the groups who contradicted one another—

this is the case of our Mishna!

Just as we learned in our Mishna that both the shopkeeper and the workers take an oath and collect from the homeowner, and we are not concerned by the fact that this clearly causes the homeowner a loss, so too here both lenders collect their debts from the borrower, despite the fact that it is clear that one document is invalid.

This law is straightforward only according to Rav Huna. However, according to Rav Hisda, who maintains that both are invalid to testify, neither document can be used for collection.

D. But if there were

two borrowers, one lender, and two documents

signed by the two groups who contradicted one another—

what?

The question is whether here too Rav Huna said that the lender may collect from each borrower separately, or whether here too we say that one of the documents is certainly invalid.

If so, each of the borrowers can reject the lender who comes to collect by means of these documents, saying to him that it is possible that the document by virtue of which he is bringing his claim against him is invalid. The lender would then lose both debts entirely.

And the conclusion is—

the question remains unresolved.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection:

Two witnesses came to testify concerning the new moon.