## Shevuot Daf 38b

###### Shevuot 38b:1
[Shevuot 38b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:1)

אוֹ דִלְמָא אַכׇּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps he is liable for** his oath concerning **each and every** claim made by each claimant.


###### Shevuot 38b:2
[Shevuot 38b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הֲרֵי כָּאן עֶשְׂרִים חַטָּאוֹת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּפָרֵישׁ – רַבִּי חִיָּיא מִנְיָנָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פְּרָטָא הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from **that** which **Rabbi Ḥiyya taught** in a *baraita*: **There are twenty sin-offerings here** that the defendant must bring. The Gemara elaborates: **What are the circumstances** of the *baraita*? **If** the defendant **specified** each claim of each of the claimants in his oath, does **Rabbi Ḥiyya come to teach us a number?** Obviously, the defendant is liable to bring twenty offerings. **Rather, is it not** that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he did not specify** an oath to each claimant, but he specified it to the first claimant and said: And neither are yours, to each of the remaining claimants? **And** therefore, **conclude from** the *baraita* that such a denial **is** considered **specific.**


###### Shevuot 38b:3
[Shevuot 38b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:3)

אָנַסְתָּ וּפִתִּיתָ אֶת בִּתִּי כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? הוֹאִיל וְעִיקַּר קְנָס הוּא תּוֹבֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one accuses another: **You raped or you seduced my daughter,** and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce your daughter, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, the defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if it is a false oath, and Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from liability for a false oath on a deposit. The reason is that the payment for rape or seduction is a fine, and one does not pay a fine based on his own admission; therefore, he is also exempt from bringing a guilt-offering for having taken a false oath. The Rabbis hold that he is liable since he would have been liable to pay compensation for humiliation and degradation resulting from her being raped or seduced, which are monetary claims. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon?** Rabbi Shimon holds that **since** the father **is primarily claiming the fine** and his claim to the other payments is secondary, the defendant is exempt from liability.


###### Shevuot 38b:4
[Shevuot 38b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי חִטִּין״; וְאִשְׁתְּכַח דְּחִטִּין הוּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ, הָא שְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין אִית לֵיהּ – דְּפָטוּר; דְּכִי אִשְׁתְּבַע אַחִטִּין – אַקּוּשְׁטָא מִשְׁתְּבַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: To what** case is this explanation of the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon compared?** It is compared **to** a case **where a person said to another: Give me** back **my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession,** and the other **said to him:** On my **oath your wheat** is **not in my possession; and it was** then **discovered that it** was only **wheat that he did not have, but he did have** the claimant’s **barley and spelt.** In that case, the *halakha* is **that he is exempt** from liability for an oath on a deposit, **as when he took an oath with regard to the wheat, he took a truthful oath.**


###### Shevuot 38b:5
[Shevuot 38b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם – בְּחִטִּין קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ, בִּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין לָא קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ. הָכָא – בְּכוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא הוּא דְּקָא כָפַר לֵיהּ! הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלָל״; וְאִשְׁתְּכַח חִטִּין הוּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ, הָא שְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְּמִין אִית לֵיהּ – דְּמִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **Are** the two cases **comparable? There,** in the case of the grain, the defendant **denies** only the other’s claim of **wheat,** but he **does not deny his** claim of **barley and spelt. Here,** the defendant **denies the entire matter,** as he claims that he never raped or seduced the man’s daughter. Rather, **this** explanation **is comparable only to** a case where one **said to another: Give me** back **my wheat and barley and spelt that are in your possession,** and the defendant said to him: On my **oath nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession at all, and it was** then **discovered** that it was only **wheat that he did not have, but he did have** the claimant’s **barley and spelt.** In that case, the *halakha* is **that he is liable** for an oath on a deposit. This, then, cannot be the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, as he exempts the defendant from liability.


###### Shevuot 38b:6
[Shevuot 38b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:6)

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן – קְנָס הוּא תּוֹבֵעַ, וְלֹא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם; לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים – אַף בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם הוּא תּוֹבֵעַ. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ מִידֵּי דְּקִיץ, וְתָבַע מִידֵּי דְּלָא קִיץ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא שָׁבֵיק מִידֵּי דְּכִי מוֹדֵה בֵּיהּ לָא מִיפְּטַר, וְתָבַע מִידֵּי דְּכִי מוֹדֵה בֵּיהּ מִיפְּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** According **to the statement of Rabban Shimon,** the father **is claiming** only the **fine and not** the compensation for **humiliation and degradation** resulting from his daughter’s having been raped or seduced. According **to the statement of the Rabbis, he is also claiming** payment for **humiliation and degradation** resulting from her having been raped or seduced. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds: A person does not forgo** a claim to **something with a fixed** value, such as a fine, **and claim something whose** value is **not fixed** and requires an appraisal, such as humiliation and degradation resulting from being raped or seduced. **And the Rabbis hold** that one does **not forgo** a claim to **something that** the defendant **is not exempt** from paying **if he admits** his guilt, **and claim something that** the defendant **is exempt** from paying **if he admits** his guilt, such as a fine.


###### Shevuot 38b:7
[Shevuot 38b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:7)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן**


###### Shevuot 38b:8
[Shevuot 38b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:8)

מַתְנִי׳ **שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין** – הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** By Torah law, the **oath** imposed **by the judges** upon one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when **the claim is** for the value of at least **two silver** *ma’a*, **and the** defendant’s **admission is** for **the value of** at least **one *peruta*. And** furthermore, **if the admission is not of** the same **type** as **the claim,** i.e., the defendant admitted to a debt that the claimant did not claim, the defendant is **exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Shevuot 38b:9
[Shevuot 38b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:9)

כֵּיצַד? ״שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה״ – פָּטוּר. ״שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** If the claimant said to the defendant: **I have two silver** *ma’a* **in your possession,** and the latter responded: **You have only one *peruta*,** a coin made from copper, **in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath (see 39b). But if the claimant said: **I have two silver** *ma’a* **and one *peruta* in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only one *peruta* in my possession,** he is **liable** to take an oath.


###### Shevuot 38b:10
[Shevuot 38b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:10)

״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – פָּטוּר. ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the claimant said: **I have one hundred dinars in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **Nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession,** he is **exempt,** as he denies the entire claim. But if the claimant said: **I have one hundred dinars in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only fifty dinars in my possession,** he is **liable** to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim.


###### Shevuot 38b:11
[Shevuot 38b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:11)

״מָנָה לְאַבָּא בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִישִּׁים דִּינָר״ – פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the claimant said: My late **father had one hundred dinars in your possession,** and I am now claiming them, and the defendant responded: **You have only fifty dinars in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath, **as he is like one returning a lost item,** since he could have easily denied the entire claim.


###### Shevuot 38b:12
[Shevuot 38b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:12)

״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ ״הֵן״; לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי״, ״נְתַתִּיו לָךְ״ – פָּטוּר. ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna discusses other cases where the defendant denies an entire claim. In a case where one said to another: **I have one hundred dinars in your possession,** and the latter **said to him: Yes,** I acknowledge that claim; and **the next day** the claimant **said to him: Give** the money **to me,** and the defendant responded: **I** already **gave it to you,** he is **exempt.** But if he responded: **Nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession,** i.e., he denies that a debt ever existed, he is **liable** to pay, as he already admitted that he owed him the amount.


###### Shevuot 38b:13
[Shevuot 38b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:13)

״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ ״הֵן״; ״אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים״, לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי״, ״נְתַתִּיו לָךְ״ – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיתְּנוֹ בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where the claimant said: **I have one hundred dinars in your possession,** and the defendant **said to him: Yes,** to which the claimant responded: **Give** the money **to me only in** the presence of **witnesses,** then if **the next day** the claimant **said to him: Give** the money **to me,** and the defendant responded: **I** already **gave it to you,** he is **liable** to pay, **as** he is **required to give it** to him **in** the presence of **witnesses,** and he cannot prove that he did so.


###### Shevuot 38b:14
[Shevuot 38b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:14)

״לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶּסֶף״ – פָּטוּר. ״דִּינַר זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא דִּינָר כֶּסֶף וּטְרֵיסִית וּפוּנְדָּיוֹת וּפְרוּטָה״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna resumes discussion of the oath imposed by the court in a case where the defendant admits to a part of a claim. If the claimant said: **I have a *litra*,** i.e., a specific weight, **of gold in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only a *litra* of silver in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath, as his admission relates to a different item than that which the claim relates to. But if the claimant said: **I have a gold dinar in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only a silver dinar, or a *tereisit*, or a *pundeyon*, or a *peruta* in my possession,** he is **liable** to take an oath, **as** they are **all** of **one type;** they are all **coins.** Since the claim concerns money, the difference between the different types of coins is disregarded, as the claim is essentially referring to the monetary value, not to a specific type of coin.


###### Shevuot 38b:15
[Shevuot 38b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:15)

״כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית״ – פָּטוּר. ״כּוֹר פֵּירוֹת לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל פֵּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the claimant said: **I have a *kor* of grain in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only a half-*kor* of legumes in my possession,** he is **exempt.** But if the claimant said: **I have a *kor* of produce in your possession,** and the defendant responded: **You have only a half-*kor* of legumes in my possession,** he is **liable, as legumes are included in produce.**


###### Shevuot 38b:16
[Shevuot 38b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:16)

טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **claimed** that another owes **him wheat, and** the defendant **admitted to** owing **him barley,** he is **exempt; and Rabban Gamliel deems** him **liable** to take an oath. According to Rabban Gamliel, one who admits to a part of the claim is liable to take an oath even if the admission is not of the same type as the claim.


###### Shevuot 38b:17
[Shevuot 38b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:17)

הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּקַנְקַנִּים – אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה לוֹ מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבַע. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one who claims** that **another** owes him **jugs of oil, and** the latter then **admitted** that he owes **him pitchers,** i.e., the jugs themselves, but not the oil, **Admon says: Since he admitted to him** with regard to **a part** of the claim, and his admission was **of the** same **type** as **the claim,** i.e., the claim included both containers and oil and he admitted to owing him containers, **he must take an oath. And the Rabbis say: The** partial **admission** in this case **is not of** the same **type** as **the claim,** as he completely denied owing him oil. **Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon** as correct.


###### Shevuot 38b:18
[Shevuot 38b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:18)

טְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת; וְהוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים – פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת – פָּטוּר. בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת לִישָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **claimed** that another owes **him vessels and land, and** the defendant **admitted to** owing him **vessels but denied** the claim of **land,** or conversely, he admitted **to** owing him **land but denied** the claim of **vessels,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath, as oaths are not taken concerning claims involving land. If **he admitted to part** of the claim about **the land,** he is **exempt.** If he admitted **to part** of the claim about **the vessels,** he is **liable** to take an oath concerning the entire claim, **as property that does not serve as a guarantee,** i.e., movable property, **binds the property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., the land, so that the oath about the movable property can be extended to require him **to take an oath concerning** the land as well.


###### Shevuot 38b:19
[Shevuot 38b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:19)

אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן; אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִין לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. And** the court **does not administer an oath to a minor. But one does take an oath to a minor, or to** a representative of **the Temple** treasury with regard to consecrated property.


###### Shevuot 38b:20
[Shevuot 38b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:20)

**גְּמָ׳** הֵיכִי מַשְׁבְּעִינַן לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּתוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ בַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **How** does the court **administer an oath to** someone who is liable to take an oath? **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** The court **administers to him the oath stated in the Torah, as it is written** in Abraham’s instruction to his servant: **“And I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven”** (Genesis 24:3).


###### Shevuot 38b:21
[Shevuot 38b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר אִידִי, דְּאָמַר: בָּעֵינַן שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose** opinion is Rav’s statement? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi, who says** that when one is liable to take an oath, **we require** him to take it using **the ineffable name** of God?


###### Shevuot 38b:22
[Shevuot 38b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:22)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי בְּכִינּוּי; וְנָפְקָא מִינַּהּ צְרִיךְ לְאַתְפּוֹשֵׂי חֶפְצָא בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: You** may **even say** it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that one is merely required to take an oath **using an appellation** of God. **And** the practical **ramification** of Rav’s statement is that just as in the aforementioned verse, Abraham said: “Please put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear” (Genesis 24:2–3), instructing his servant to grasp his circumcised penis, which is considered sacred to some degree, so too, in oaths administered by the court, **one must grasp** a sacred **item in his hand** while taking the oath.


###### Shevuot 38b:23
[Shevuot 38b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:23)

וְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי דַּיָּינָא דְּאַשְׁבַּע ״בַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם״ – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְחוֹזֵר. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי דַּיָּינָא דְּאַשְׁבַּע בִּתְפִלִּין – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְחוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava; as Rava said: This judge who administers an oath “by the Lord, the God of heaven,”** without instructing the litigant to grasp a sacred item, **is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter** that appears in the **Mishna;** in which case his ruling is **revoked,** and the litigant must repeat the oath. **And Rav Pappa said: This judge who administers an oath in** which the litigant grasps **phylacteries,** not a Torah scroll, **is considered like one who made a mistake with regard to a matter** that appears in the **Mishna;** in which case his ruling is **revoked,** and the litigant must repeat the oath.


###### Shevuot 38b:24
[Shevuot 38b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:24)

וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא. הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא – דְּהָא לָא נָקֵיט חֶפְצָא בִּידֵיהּ; וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא – דְּהָא נָקֵיט חֶפְצָא בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava, but the *halakha*** is **not in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Pappa. The *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** that if the litigant merely took an oath using the ineffable name of God, he is required to take another oath, **as he was not grasping** any sacred **item in his hand; but the *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Pappa,** that if the litigant was grasping phylacteries he is required to take another oath, **as he was grasping** a sacred **item in his hand,** even though it was not a Torah scroll.


###### Shevuot 38b:25
[Shevuot 38b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:25)

שְׁבוּעָה מְעוּמָּד; תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – מְיוּשָּׁב. שְׁבוּעָה בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה; תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – לְכַתְּחִלָּה בִּתְפִלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One takes **an oath while standing,** but **a Torah scholar** takes an oath **while sitting.** One takes **an oath** grasping **a Torah scroll** *ab initio*, but **a Torah scholar** may take an oath grasping **phylacteries *ab initio*.**


###### Shevuot 38b:26
[Shevuot 38b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:26)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין, אַף הִיא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ נֶאֶמְרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **An oath** imposed **by the judges may also** be **recited in its language,** i.e., in any language spoken by the one taking the oath. It is not required that the oath be in Hebrew.


###### Shevuot 38b:27
[Shevuot 38b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/38b:27)

אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before he takes the oath, the judges **say to him: Be aware**