Shevuot 47b — the Talmud in English

If you say, granted

if

his father,

when he would make a claim

of this sort

that “I know concerning fifty, but concerning fifty I do not know” —

he is obligated

to take an oath, and since he is unable to take an oath, he pays —

it is well that

a verse was needed to exempt the heirs.

And to teach that although their father would have paid, they are exempt.

But if you say

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

his father would make a claim of this sort,

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

also

he would be exempt, since one who is obligated to take an oath but is unable to take an oath is exempt and does not pay,

if so,

the verse concerning the heirs

to exempt them,

why do I need it?

For their father, too, would have been exempt in this manner. Surely the heirs would be exempt like him!?

Rather, it is proven from this in accordance with the words of Rabbi Abba, that one who is obligated to take an oath but is unable to take an oath pays!

And for this reason a special verse is needed to teach us that heirs who are obligated to take an oath but are unable to pay are exempt.

And from now one should ask:

And Rav and Shmuel,

who hold that one who is obligated to take an oath but is unable to take an oath—the oath returns to Sinai, and he neither takes an oath nor pays,

this verse,

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

from which we proved that one who is obligated to take an oath but does not take an oath pays,

what do they expound from it

Rav and Shmuel?

And the Gemara answers: This verse

is needed by them

for Rav and Shmuel,

as it was taught:

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

between them”—

this teaches that the oath applies to both of them!

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 particular to entrust his money to a trustworthy person, and through his lack of care he caused the profanation of the Name resulting from the borrower’s false oath.

Following this beraita, the Gemara brings additional statements of Shimon ben Tarfon.

Shimon ben Tarfon says: A warning concerning one who assists the adulterer

[who looks after the adulterer, and supplies and accustoms women to him for adultery].

From where?

The verse states: “You shall not commit adultery”—

and its meaning also includes

“You shall not cause adultery!”

That is, you shall not cause others to commit adultery.

It is written:

“And you slandered in your tents”

[after the Children of Israel heard the words of the spies who spoke slanderously of the Land, it says: “You would not go up, and you rebelled against the command of the Lord your God. And you slandered in your tents,” and so forth].

Shimon ben Tarfon says: You spied out

the Land

and you reviled the Place in the tent of the Place,

for He caused His tent to dwell among you—there you reviled Him.

It is written:

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

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

And this matter is a metaphor for the Euphrates River. For the Euphrates River is smaller than the other great rivers mentioned at the beginning of the Book of Genesis. Nevertheless, here it is called “the great river.” And all this is because of its proximity to the important Land of Israel!

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

[this moral that Shimon ben Tarfon taught us, but in a different form]:

Honor is accorded to

a king’s servant as a king,

because of his proximity and relationship to the king!

We learned in our Mishna:

“And the storekeeper concerning his ledger…”

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

It was taught: Rabbi said—

Why this burden of an oath?

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

Now, in Rabbi’s question it was not made explicit whether he holds that indeed both would collect from the employer without an oath, like Ben Nanas, or whether only the laborers collect with an oath from the storekeeper.

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi: We have already learned,

you taught and stated without qualification in the Mishna:

Both of them,

the laborers and the storekeeper,

take an oath and collect from the employer?!

And if so, according to your opinion there is a place for this oath with both of them,

And the Gemara discusses:

Did Rabbi accept it from him,

and retract his question and hold as it is written in our Mishna,

or did he not accept it from him?

Come and hear: For it was taught—

Rabbi says: The laborers take an oath to the storekeeper

that he did not give it to them. That is, the laborers collect with an oath from the storekeeper, and the loser is the storekeeper, who does not collect with an oath from the employer, but merely pays the laborers.

And if it is so,

and if Rabbi indeed accepted it from Rabbi Hiyya, retracted the implication of his question, and holds in accordance with the Mishna, that both take an oath and collect from the employer—why did Rabbi say in the beraita that the laborers take an oath to the storekeeper?

The laborers take an oath

to the employer was what he should have said

[this is what should have been said], and not that they take an oath to the storekeeper?!

And the answer:

Rava said,

indeed Rabbi accepted it from Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbi holds that both take an oath and collect from the employer. And this is what Rabbi said:

The laborers take an oath to the employer—

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

[in order to embarrass them, if indeed they received it from him].

It was stated: Two groups of witnesses that contradict one another,

such as two witnesses say that a certain man killed a certain man, and two witnesses say that he did not kill him.

And these two groups of witnesses contradict one another. Certainly one of them testifies falsely, and is therefore disqualified. However, we do not know which of them is the valid group and which is the disqualified group.

Rav Huna said:

This group

is

valid and

comes by itself and testifies, and

so too

this

second group, is valid and

comes by itself and testifies.

Since we establish each group separately with a presumption of validity.

Rav Chisda said: Why do I need false witnesses?

Is it not that since it is certain to us that one of them testified falsely and is disqualified, and we do not know which one it is, we must be stringent and disqualify both of them as a doubt, rather than establish them with a presumption of validity?

And the Gemara establishes several cases in which two groups contradict one another:

A. If there were

two lenders and two borrowers,

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

—that 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 were

one lender

and

one borrower, and two documents

of debt were between them, and the two documents were signed by the two groups that contradicted one another,

the law is that

the hand of the holder of the document is on the lower level,

and he does not collect the two debts, because certainly one of the groups is lying. Rather, he collects the lower sum between the two documents.

C. There were

two lenders and one borrower

who borrowed from both of them.

And

for the two loans there were

two documents

signed by the groups that contradicted one another

—this is our Mishna!

And just as we learned in our Mishna that both the shopkeeper and the workers swear and collect from the householder, and we do not concern ourselves with the fact that there is a clear loss to the householder, so too here, both lenders collect their debt from the borrower, despite the fact that it is clear that one document is invalid.

And this law is obvious only according to Rav Huna. However, according to Rav Hisda, who holds that both are invalid to testify, they do not collect on the basis of either of the documents.

D. But if there were

two borrowers and one lender and two documents

upon which the two groups that contradicted one another had signed,

—what [is the law]?

Does Rav Huna also say here that this lender can collect from each one separately, or perhaps here too we say that certainly one of the documents is invalid?

And if so, each of the borrowers can reject the lender who comes to collect by means of these documents, and say to him that it is possible that the document by virtue of which he is claiming against him is invalid. And the lender will lose his two debts entirely.

And the conclusion is

—teyku!

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection:

Two witnesses came to testify about the month.