## Shevuot Daf 42b

###### Shevuot 42b:1
[Shevuot 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:1)

כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי טַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹדָאַת עַצְמוֹ נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **All** other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are **also** cases of **a claim of others and his own admission.** Yet in the *baraita* Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.


###### Shevuot 42b:2
[Shevuot 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:2)

אֶלָּא בִּדְרַבָּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע? חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְהַאי – בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּלִיכְפְּרֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵינוֹ מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the statement **of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what** reason **did the Torah say** that one who **admits to a part of the claim must take an oath?** It is because there is **a presumption** that **a person does not exhibit insolence** by lying **in the presence of his creditor,** who did him a favor by lending money to him. **And this** person who denies part of the claim actually **wants to deny all of** the debt, so as to be exempt, **and this** fact, i.e., **that he does not deny** all of **it,** is **because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor.**


###### Shevuot 42b:3
[Shevuot 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:3)

וּבְכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּלָא אוֹדִי לֵיהּ – אִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּמִיט מִינֵּיהּ, סָבַר: עַד דְּהָוֵי לִי זוּזֵי וּפָרַעְנָא לֵיהּ; וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר רְמִי שְׁבוּעָה עִילָּוֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלוֹדֵי לֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba continues: **And** in order not to exhibit insolence, he **wants to admit to** the creditor **with regard to all of** the debt; **and this** fact, i.e., **that he did not admit** the entire debt **to him,** is because he may be temporarily **avoiding** paying **him.** He **rationalizes** doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only **until** the time **that I have** enough **money, and** then **I will repay him. And** therefore, **the Merciful One says** in the Torah: **Impose an oath on him in order** to induce the debtor **to admit the entire** debt **to him.**


###### Shevuot 42b:4
[Shevuot 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:4)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: לָא שְׁנָא בּוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא בִּבְנוֹ – אֵינוֹ מֵעֵיז, וְהִלְכָּךְ לָאו מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הוּא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: בְּפָנָיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מֵעֵיז, אֲבָל בִּפְנֵי בְּנוֹ מֵעֵיז; וּמִדְּלֹא מֵעֵיז – מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this principle, **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains:** It **is no different with regard to** the creditor **himself, and** it **is no different with regard to his son;** the debtor **would not exhibit insolence** and deny the debt. **And therefore, he is not** deemed as **one returning a lost item** on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. **And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of** the original creditor **that** one **would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son,** who did not lend him the money, he would **exhibit insolence** and deny the claim entirely. **And since** this debtor **is not exhibiting insolence,** as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, **he is** deemed as **one returning a lost item,** and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.


###### Shevuot 42b:5
[Shevuot 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:5)

מִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב?! הָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: ״מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר״ – פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֵּשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הוּא! הָתָם דְּלָא אָמַר ״בָּרִי לִי״, הָכָא דְּאָמַר ״בָּרִי לִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Can you interpret** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Isn’t it taught** in **the former clause** that if the claimant said: My late **father had one hundred dinars in your possession,** 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?** The Gemara answers: **There,** it is referring to a case **where** the claimant **did not say: I am certain** that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. **Here,** by contrast, it is a case **where he said: I am certain** that you owe him.


###### Shevuot 42b:6
[Shevuot 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:6)

שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״לְקָטָן״ – לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי קָטָן, ״לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״ – לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Returning to the Gemara’s question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, **Shmuel said** a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath **to a minor,** it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order **to collect from** the **minor’s property.** Similarly, if one’s debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath **to** a representative of **the Temple** treasury in order **to collect from the consecrated property.**


###### Shevuot 42b:7
[Shevuot 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:7)

לְקָטָן לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי קָטָן – תְּנֵינָא: מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה! תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: The *halakha* that one takes an oath **to a minor** in order **to collect from a minor’s property** is one that **we learn** in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract **from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I** need **two** *mishnayot* to teach this *halakha*?


###### Shevuot 42b:8
[Shevuot 42b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:8)

הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – כִּדְאַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא; דְּתָנֵי אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא: יְתוֹמִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ – גְּדוֹלִים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר קְטַנִּים; בֵּין לִשְׁבוּעָה בֵּין לְזִיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: By mentioning this *halakha* twice, the Mishna **teaches us this:** The *halakha* applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, **in accordance with** the statement **of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught:** The **orphans of which** the Sages **spoke** are **adult** orphans, **and needless to say,** the same *halakha* also applies to **minor** orphans. This principle applies **with regard to both** the *halakha* that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of **an oath, and to** the *halakha* that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from **inferior-quality** land.


###### Shevuot 42b:9
[Shevuot 42b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:9)

לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ – תְּנֵינָא: מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה; וּמָה לִי מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים לְהֶדְיוֹט, וּמָה לִי מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים לְגָבוֹהַּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath **to** a representative of **the Temple** treasury in order **to collect** a debt **from consecrated property,** the Gemara asks: **We learn** this *halakha* in the mishna (45a): **From liened property** that has been sold one **collects** a debt **only by means of an oath. And what** difference is it **to me** whether the property was **liened to an ordinary** person, **and what** difference is it **to me** whether the property was **liened to the Most High,** i.e., it was consecrated?


###### Shevuot 42b:10
[Shevuot 42b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:10)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הֶדְיוֹט הוּא דְּאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה קְנוּנְיָא עַל הֶדְיוֹט; אֲבָל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דְּאֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה קְנוּנְיָא עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** for this *halakha* to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might **enter your mind to say** that **it is** specifically in order to collect a debt from **an ordinary** person that one is required to take an oath, **as a person** is liable to **collude** with another **against an ordinary** person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. **But** one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the **Temple** treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, **as a person does not collude** with another **against** the **Temple** treasury. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.


###### Shevuot 42b:11
[Shevuot 42b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:11)

וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ כׇּל נְכָסָיו, וְאָמַר: ״מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיָדִי״ – נֶאֱמָן, חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה קְנוּנְיָא עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ! אָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי שְׁכִיב מְרַע, דְּאֵין אָדָם חוֹטֵא וְלֹא לוֹ; אֲבָל גַּבֵּי בָּרִיא, וַדַּאי חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rav Huna say** that in the case of **a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession,** his statement is **deemed credible,** as the **presumption** is that **a person does not collude** with another **against** the **Temple** treasury? The Sages **said** in response: **That statement** applies only in the case of **a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own** benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. **But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned** about collusion, even against the Temple treasury.


###### Shevuot 42b:12
[Shevuot 42b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן: הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath** by Torah law: Canaanite **slaves, and** financial **documents, and land, and consecrated** property. **In** a case where **these** items are stolen, **there is no payment of double** the principal, **nor is there payment of four or five** times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. **An unpaid bailee** who lost one of these items **does not take an oath** that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and **a paid bailee does not pay** for the loss or theft of one of these items.


###### Shevuot 42b:13
[Shevuot 42b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:13)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says** there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to **consecrated** property **for which** one **bears** the financial **responsibility** to compensate the Temple treasury in the event **of their** loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, **one takes an oath concerning them,** as they are considered his own property. **But** with regard to consecrated property **for which** he **does not bear** the financial **responsibility for their** loss, **one does not take an oath concerning them.**


###### Shevuot 42b:14
[Shevuot 42b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:14)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן בְּקַרְקַע וְאֵינָן כְּקַרְקַע; וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד? ״עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב שְׁבוּעָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּקַרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: There are** certain **items that are** physically **on the land but are not** treated **like land** from a halakhic perspective, **and the Rabbis do not concede to him** concerning this point. **How so?** If one makes the claim: **I assigned you ten grapevines laden** with fruit to safeguard, **and the other one says: They are only five** vines, **Rabbi Meir deems** the defendant **liable** to take **an oath,** as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. **And the Rabbis say:** The halakhic status of **anything that is attached to the land is like the land** itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath.


###### Shevuot 42b:15
[Shevuot 42b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:15)

אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן. כֵּיצַד? ״בַּיִת מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ״ וְ״כִיס מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל״ – פָּטוּר. זֶה אוֹמֵר ״עַד הַזִּיז״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״עַד הַחַלּוֹן״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One takes an oath only concerning an item that is** defined **by size, by weight, or by number. How so?** If the claimant says: **I transferred to you a house full** of produce, **or: I transferred to you a pouch full** of money, **and the other** person **says: I do not know** how much you gave me, **but what you left** in my possession **you may take,** and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is **exempt** from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if **this** party **says** that the house was full **up to the ledge, and that** party **says** that it was full **up to the window,** the defendant is **liable** to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount.


###### Shevuot 42b:16
[Shevuot 42b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כְּלָל; ״עַל שׁוֹר״ וְ״עַל חֲמוֹר״ וְ״עַל שֶׂה״ וְ״עַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פְּרָט; ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From where do we** derive that one is exempt from the **payment of double** the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing…he shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase **“for every matter of trespass” is a generalization;** the phrase **“whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing” is a detail;** and when the verse states: **“Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalized again.**


###### Shevuot 42b:17
[Shevuot 42b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:17)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Applying this principle here, one may conclude that **just as** each of the items mentioned in the **detail** is clearly **defined as an item that is movable** property **and has intrinsic monetary** value, **so too, anything that is movable** property **and has intrinsic monetary** value is subject to double payment.


###### Shevuot 42b:18
[Shevuot 42b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:18)

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת – שֶׁאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין; יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים – שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת; יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מִטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן; הֶקְדֵּשׁ – ״רֵעֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Land is** therefore **excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves are** also **excluded, as they are compared to land** in many areas of *halakha*. Financial **documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary** value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, **consecrated** property is excluded because it **is written** in the verse: “He shall pay double to **his neighbor,”** i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.


###### Shevuot 42b:19
[Shevuot 42b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:19)

וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And there is no payment of double** the principal, **nor** is there payment of **four or five** times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since **the Merciful One states** in the Torah **fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment,** one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.


###### Shevuot 42b:20
[Shevuot 42b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/42b:20)

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **An unpaid bailee** who lost one of the excluded items **does not take an oath.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers that it is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: