Shevuot 49b:1-16שבועות מ״ט ב:א׳-ט״ז
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 49b:1-16'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
49bמ״ט ב

מת והוא שנשבר או נשבה או נגנב או אבד נשבר והוא שמת או נשבה או נגנב או אבד נשבה והוא שמת או נשבר או נגנב או אבד נגנב והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או אבד אבד והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן פטור

It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured or stolen or lost; or if he responded: It was stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or lost; or if he responded: It was lost, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen, in any of the above cases, if the owner of the ox said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing an offering for his false oath, since the oath did not render him exempt from liability to pay. He would have been liable to pay in any case.

היכן שורי אמר לו איני יודע מה אתה סח והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או נגנב או נאבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן חייב

But if the owner said to the borrower: Where is my ox? And the borrower said to him: I do not know what you are talking about, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured or stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and the borrower said: Amen, the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering, as he took an oath that would render him exempt from liability to pay.

אמר לנושא שכר והשוכר היכן שורי א"ל מת והוא שנשבר או נשבה נשבר והוא שמת או נשבה נשבה והוא שמת או נשבר נגנב והוא שאבד אבד והוא שנגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן פטור

If an owner said to a paid bailee or a renter: Where is my ox? And the latter said to him: It died, but the truth was that it was injured or captured; or if he said: It was injured, but the truth was that it died or was captured; or if he said: It was captured, but the truth was that it died or was injured; or if he said: It was stolen, but the truth was that it was lost; or if he said: It was lost, but the truth was that it was stolen, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

מת או נשבר או נשבה והוא שנגנב או אבד משביעך אני ואמר אמן חייב אבד או נגנב והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה משביעך אני ואמר אמן פטור

If the paid bailee or renter said: It died or was injured or captured, but the truth was that it was stolen or lost, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, the paid bailee or renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the paid bailee or renter said: It was lost or stolen, but the truth was that it died or was injured or captured, and the owner said: I administer an oath to you concerning your claim, and he said: Amen, he is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering.

זה הכלל כל המשנה מחובה לחובה ומפטור לפטור ומפטור לחובה פטור מחובה לפטור חייב זה הכלל כל הנשבע להקל על עצמו חייב להחמיר על עצמו פטור:

This is the principle: Anyone who changes from one claim of liability to another claim of liability or from one claim of exemption to another claim of exemption or from a claim of exemption to a claim of liability is exempt from bringing a guilt-offering. If he changes from a claim of liability to a claim of exemption, he is liable. This is the principle: Anyone who takes an oath to be lenient with himself is liable; if he takes an oath to be stringent with himself, he is exempt.

גמ׳ מאן תנא ארבעה שומרין אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה ר' מאיר היא אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מי איכא תנא דלית ליה ארבעה שומרין אמר ליה הכי קאמינא לך מאן תנא דאמר שוכר כנושא שכר דמי (אמר רב נחמן) אמר רבה בר אבוה רבי מאיר היא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that there are four types of bailees? Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And is there a tanna who does not accept that there are four types of bailees, as the question and your answer indicate? Rav Naḥman said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Who is the tanna who says that a renter has the same halakhic status as a paid bailee? With regard to this question, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir.

והא רבי מאיר איפכא שמעינן ליה דתנן שוכר כיצד משלם ר' מאיר אומר כשומר חנם ר' יהודה אומר כנושא שכר רבה בר אבוה איפכא תני

The Gemara challenges: But we have heard that Rabbi Meir said the opposite, as it is taught in a baraita: How does a renter pay? Rabbi Meir says: He pays like an unpaid bailee. Rabbi Yehuda says: He pays like a paid bailee. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar Avuh taught this baraita while reversing the opinions, stating that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that a renter is like a paid bailee; therefore, he said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

הני ארבעה הוו שלשה הוו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ארבעה שומרין ודיניהן שלשה:

The Gemara asks: Are these in fact four types of bailees? There are actually only three, as the halakhot relating to a paid bailee and a renter are identical. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There are indeed four types of bailees with regard to the manner in which they accepted the deposit, but only three halakhot that apply to them.

אמר לשומר חנם כו': היכן שורי כו': אמר לאחד בשוק כו': אמר לשומר כו': היכן שורי אמר לו איני יודע מה אתה סח כו': אמר רב וכולן פטורין משבועת שומרין וחייבין משום שבועת ביטוי ושמואל אמר אף פטורין משום שבועת ביטוי

§ The following cases were stated in the mishna: If the owner of an ox said to an unpaid bailee: Where is my ox; or if the owner of an ox said to someone in the marketplace: Where is my ox that you stole; or if he said to a bailee: Where is my ox, and the other person said to him: I do not know what you are talking about. With regard to all of these situations referred to in the mishna, Rav says: All of them are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for falsely taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance. And Shmuel says: They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance as well.

במאי קמפלגי שמואל סבר ליתא בלהבא ורב סבר איתיה בלאו והן

With regard to what principle do they disagree? Shmuel holds that he is exempt from bringing an offering because there is no possibility of taking that oath with regard to an event that may occur in the future, i.e., that the deposited animal will die or be stolen or be lost, and Shmuel holds that one is not liable for taking an oath on an utterance in the case of any oath that one cannot take with reference to the future. And Rav holds that there is an obligation to bring a sin-offering because it is possible to take both a negative oath and a positive one. One of the conditions necessary in order for one to incur liability for an oath on an utterance is that the oath can be formulated as both a negative and a positive statement. This oath meets that criterion as one can formulate the oath in the negative, e.g., the deposit was not stolen, as well as in the positive, e.g., it was stolen.

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא דאתמר שבועה שזרק פלוני צרור לים שבועה שלא זרק רב אמר חייב ושמואל אמר פטור רב אמר חייב דאיתא בלאו והן ושמואל אמר פטור דליתא בלהבא

The Gemara challenges: But they already disputed this question on another occasion (see 25a), as it was stated: With regard to one who says: On my oath so-and-so threw a stone into the sea, or: On my oath he did not throw it, Rav says: If it was later discovered that his statement was false, he is liable to bring an offering for his oath. And Shmuel says: He is exempt. Rav says that he is liable, as the oath can be positive or negative. And Shmuel says he is exempt because this oath cannot be stated with regard to the future, since he cannot control what so-and-so does.

צריכא דאי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר רב משום דמנפשיה קמישתבע אבל בהך דבי דינא משבעי ליה אימא מודי ליה לשמואל כדרבי אמי דאמר רבי אמי כל שבועה שהדיינים משביעין אותה אין חייבין עליה משום שבועת ביטוי

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state the dispute in the case of a bailee as well, as if they would teach it to us only in the case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, it may have been understood that it is only in this case that Rav says that the person taking the oath is exempt, since he is taking a false oath of his own accord, but in the case in the mishna here, where it is the court that is administering the oath to him, say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that he is exempt, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for falsely taking an oath on an utterance.

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר שמואל אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא

And conversely, if the dispute had been stated only in this case, i.e., the case of the bailee to whom the court administers the oath, one might have said: It is in this case that Shmuel says that he is exempt, in accordance with Rabbi Ami’s statement, but in a case where one took an oath that so-and-so threw a stone, say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.

גופא אמר ר' אמי כל שבועה שהדיינין משביעין אותה אין בה משום שבועת ביטוי שנאמר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים מעצמו כדר"ל דאמר ר"ל כי משתמש בארבע לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא

Having mentioned Rabbi Ami’s ruling, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Ami says: In the case of any oath that is administered by the judges, one is not liable for falsely taking an oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the verse: “Or if [ki] anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him…and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin” (Leviticus 5:4–6). Only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable, as the verse can be understood in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The term ki has four distinct meanings: If, perhaps, rather, and as. According to Rabbi Ami, its meaning in the above verse is: If, indicating that only if one takes the oath of his own accord is he liable.

ר"א אומר כולן פטורין משבועת שומרין וחייבין משום שבועת ביטוי חוץ מאיני יודע מה אתה סח דשואל וגניבה ואבידה דנושא שכר ושבשוכר שהוא חייב שהרי כפרו ממון:

Rabbi Elazar says: All of them, i.e., all those listed in the mishna as exempt, are exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for taking an oath of the bailees, but they are liable to bring a sin-offering for taking an oath on an utterance, except for a borrower who says: I do not know what you are talking about, and a paid bailee or a renter who claims that the deposit was stolen or lost. In these cases, the bailee is liable for taking an oath of the bailees, as he denied a monetary claim, meaning that he wanted to render himself exempt from liability to pay. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
This chapter explained that a bailee who makes a false claim and takes an oath to that effect is not always liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees. The principle with regard to this matter was stated at the end of the mishna: Any bailee who makes a false claim that would in any case not render him exempt from liability to pay, and takes an oath to that effect, is not liable for falsely taking an oath of the bailees.



הדרן עלך ארבעה שומרין וסליקא לה מסכת שבועות