Shevuot 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said:

In every case, an oath may be extended!

By means of any oath, even a rabbinic oath, one may extend the oath to additional matters.

Except for

the oath of a

wage laborer

who swears and takes payment

; one may not extend

other oaths by means of it.

The reason is that the entire purpose of this oath is only to satisfy the employer, and the wage laborer is not obligated to take it by law. Therefore, one may not extend oaths either from it or to it.

Rav Hisda said: With regard to all

oaths,

one does not ease up, nor

refrain from extending additional oaths to them.

Except for

the oath of

a wage laborer, with regard to which one eases up

and does not extend additional oaths to it.

And one must ask:

What difference is there between them

between Rav Hisda and Rav Huna? After all, both hold that one does not impose other oaths through the oath of a wage laborer.

The answer is:

There is a difference between them;

the practical difference between the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Hisda concerns the other oaths: Do the court

open for him

the claimant

the possibility of extending an oath to the defendant, so that the claimant will then demand that he be made to take

additional oaths?

According to Rav Huna, who holds that an oath may be extended in every case, the court points out to him the possibility of extending the oath. And if he wishes, he may extend additional oaths to him.

But according to Rav Hisda, who holds that it is only with regard to the oath of a wage laborer that one eases up and does not extend an oath, whereas with regard to other oaths one does not ease up and does extend an oath, Rav Hisda's entire ruling is that one does not ease up. However, it does not follow from his words that the court initiates the suggestion from the outset.

Therefore, according to Rav Hisda, the court does not open this possibility for him and does not offer it initially. Only if he demands that additional oaths be imposed on him does one extend the oath.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the seventh year releases

the oath!

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived?

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: As the verse states, “And this is the matter of the release”—

even

a debt of

speech,

that is, the speech of an oath—

the seventh year releases

it!

We shall return to you, chapter “All Those Who Take Oaths.”

Chavruta - Shevuot — Chapter Eight - The Four Guardians" source: "https://www.toratemetfreeware.com/online/f02362.html#HtmpReportNum0007L5" chapteranchor: "HtmpReportNum0007L5" ---

We learned above, in the fifth chapter, the law of the oath concerning a deposit: if a person denied possessing money belonging to another that was in his hands—for example, he denied a deposit, a loan, a stolen item, or the like—and swore that he had nothing belonging to the other person, he is liable to make restitution and to bring the offering called the guilt-offering for the oath concerning a deposit.

The liability for payment and for the offering on account of this oath is derived from the verse written in the passage concerning the variable offering [Leviticus 5:21]: “When a person sins and commits a betrayal against the Lord, and denies to his fellow regarding a deposit.” The matters of the oath concerning a deposit and the circumstances in which one becomes liable for it are explained below there [verses 21–26]. The matters of this oath were explained above in the fifth chapter.

In the Mishnayot of the chapter before us, it will be explained when guardians become liable to bring an offering because of their false oath.

And a general principle is stated at the end of the Mishna: only when the guardian intended to exempt himself from payment through his oath is he liable for the offering for the oath concerning a deposit. But if he merely swore a false oath, he is exempt from the offering!

For example, a paid guardian, who is liable in cases of theft and loss, was asked by the owner, “Where is my ox?” The guardian replied: “The ox died!” In truth, however, the ox had been seized by force beyond the guardian’s control. Once his falsehood was subsequently revealed, the guardian is exempt from the offering. For he was a paid guardian, and he is not liable for payment when the ox was seized by force beyond his control, since a paid guardian is exempt from payment in a case beyond his control.

Mishna:

There are four types of

guardians

mentioned in the Torah:

An unpaid guardian,

one who guards an object deposited with him without payment, receiving no compensation at all for guarding it.

And a borrower

who borrows an object from another in order to use it, without paying for its use.

A paid guardian,

one who receives payment for guarding the object.

And a renter

who takes an object and uses it in exchange for payment.

The Mishna explains that if an event occurs to the object that makes it impossible to return it to its owner—for example, it disappeared or broke—the laws governing these guardians are as follows: If the event occurred while the object was in the possession of an

unpaid guardian—

and the depositor now brings a claim against him and the guardian wishes to exempt himself from the claim—

He swears concerning everything —

he swears that one of the events that can happen to the object indeed occurred, such as theft, loss, and the like, or that it broke.

And the guardian swears that he was not negligent in guarding the object, and through this oath he is exempt from payment.

And

if the event occurred while the object was in the possession of a borrower,

then

the borrower—

pays for everything,

even if the event occurred under circumstances beyond his control! He is not exempt through an oath.

And if the event occurred while the object was in the possession of

a paid guardian or a renter—

and they claim that the object broke, they

swear concerning

the claim of

breaking,

meaning that the animal broke under circumstances beyond their control,

And

likewise, if they claim that the animal deposited with them was seized, they swear

concerning

the claim of

seizure,

that the animal was seized by force beyond their control.

And

likewise,

concerning death,

that the animal died without their causing it, and through this oath they are exempt from payment.

And

if the renter and the paid guardian claim that the animal was stolen from them or lost,

they pay for the loss and the theft!

They are not exempt through an oath.

It was stated above in the introduction that we learned above, in the fifth chapter, that one who denied a deposit entrusted to him, swore concerning it, and was subsequently shown to have lied in his oath, is liable to bring a guilt-offering. He must likewise pay an additional fifth because of this oath.

He becomes liable for the offering for the oath concerning a deposit only if, through that denial under oath, he exempts himself from monetary payment.

But if he is exempt from payment in any event, even without lying, and could exempt himself even by swearing truthfully, but instead exempted himself specifically through a false oath, he is not liable for an offering!

Therefore, if the depositor said to an unpaid guardian:

Where is my ox? And he said

to him, the guardian:

It died!

But the truth was:

And it—[that is,

the truth was]—

that

this ox

broke, was seized, was stolen, or was lost!

Or if the guardian said that the ox

broke, and it [that is,

the truth was]

that

this ox

died, was seized, was stolen, or was lost!

Likewise, if he said that the ox

was seized,

the ox,

and it—

died, broke, was stolen, or was lost!

Likewise, if the guardian said that the ox

was stolen,

the ox.

And it had died, broken, been seized, or been lost.

Likewise, if the unpaid guardian said:

It was lost,

the ox.

And it had died, broken, been seized, or been stolen!

And regarding all these claims made by the guardian, the depositor said to him:

I administer an oath to you

that your statements are true,

and

the guardian said:

Amen!—

He is exempt

from the offering for the oath concerning a deposit, despite having lied, since he could have sworn a true oath and been exempt. It follows that he did not deny money through his oath, since he was exempt in any event.

If the depositor said to an unpaid guardian:

Where is my ox? He said to him

the guardian:

I do not know what you are talking about!

That is, he denies the depositor’s entire claim and asserts that he did not receive his ox for safekeeping.

But the truth was that he received his ox to guard it as an unpaid guardian, and the reason he is not returning his ox to him now—

was that it had died, broken, been seized, stolen, or lost.

And the depositor said to him:

I administer an oath to you

regarding your denial that you took the ox from me,

and

the guardian

said:

Amen—

he is exempt

from the offering. Since he did not deny money through his oath, as he could have stated the truth and sworn to it, and through that oath he would have been exempt.

The depositor said to the unpaid guardian:

Where is my ox

that I deposited with you?

He said to him,

the guardian:

It was lost!

Melekhet Shlomo was precise in asking why the tanna specifically chose “It was lost,” rather than “It died” or “It broke.” He wrote that the same law applies if he claimed “It died” or “It broke,” but the tanna chose “It was lost” to teach that the claim of loss differs from the claim of theft, since in the case of loss he pays double payment, even though with regard to a paid guardian the two claims are equivalent.

The depositor said to him:

I administer an oath to you

that the ox was indeed lost as you claim,

and

the guardian

said, “Amen,”

in response to the oath.

And

if

witnesses testify against him,

the guardian,

that he consumed it [that is,

the ox]—the guardian

pays the principal

alone.

But he does not bring an offering and does not pay an additional fifth, despite the fact that his oath involved a denial of money. For he did not confess his guilt on his own; rather, the witnesses testified against him.

But if

the guardian confessed

on his own

initiative

that he had consumed the ox, and that he had denied the depositor’s claim and sworn falsely, then he

pays the principal

and an additional fifth, and

brings a

guilt-offering.

This is the law of one who swears falsely with the oath concerning a deposit!

Likewise, if the depositor said to the unpaid guardian—

Where is my ox? And he said to him—

It was stolen!

The depositor said to him:

I administer an oath to you

that it was stolen as you claim,

and

the guardian

said, “Amen,”

And

if

witnesses testify against him that

he himself

stole it—

the guardian pays

the guardian

double payment.

Although he did not actually steal the ox from the owners—for the ox was in his possession because the owners had deposited it with him—but merely claimed that the ox had been stolen and swore concerning this claim, he is nevertheless considered as though he had stolen it and must pay double payment!

And if

he confessed,

the guardian who claimed that a thief had stolen the ox,

on his own initiative,

he is exempt from double payment, as is the law concerning one who admits to a fine.

And

he pays the principal, an additional fifth, and a guilt-offering—

as is the law of one who swears falsely with the oath concerning a deposit.

If

the depositor said

the depositor

to one

ordinary person

in the marketplace: “Where is my ox that you stole?”

He,

that person,

says: “I did not steal it,”

and witnesses testify against him that he stole it,

he

pays double payment [even if he did not swear falsely].

even if he did not swear falsely.

And if the witnesses testify that he also

slaughtered and sold it,

the law is that he

pays the fourfold and fivefold payment!

The thief saw

or the one who claimed that a thief had stolen it saw that

witnesses were approaching

to testify against him, and he preceded them and

said, “I stole it.”

And even though he continued to deny it by saying:

“But I did not slaughter it and

did not

sell it,”

and it turns out that he indeed slaughtered and sold it,

he pays only the principal!

Once he admitted, he was exempt from the double payment. And although he admitted because he was afraid that the witnesses might testify against him and he would become liable, nevertheless, since he does not pay the double payment, as he admitted to the theft, he does not pay fourfold or fivefold, but only the principal!

The lender

said

to the borrower: “Where is my ox

that I lent you?”

He said to him,

the borrower: