## Shevuot Daf 43a

###### Shevuot 43a:1
[Shevuot 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:1)

״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים״ – פְּרָט, ״לִשְׁמֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. 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:**
The verse introduces the *halakhot* with regard to an unpaid bailee with the phrase: “If a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard” (Exodus 22:6). The phrase **“if a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization, “silver or vessels” is a detail,** and when the verse states: **“To safeguard,” it then generalized** again. Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization and a detail and a generalization,** in which case **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Applying this principle here, one concludes 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,** an unpaid bailee takes an oath concerning **anything that is movable** property **and has intrinsic monetary** value.


###### Shevuot 43a:2
[Shevuot 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Land is** therefore **excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves are 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. **Consecrated** property is excluded because it **is written** in the verse: “If a man delivers to **his neighbor.”** This term indicates that both the one depositing the item and the bailee must be people, and not the Temple treasury.


###### Shevuot 43a:3
[Shevuot 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:3)

נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה״ – פְּרָט, ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל כּוּ׳, עַד הֶקְדֵּשׁ – ״רֵעֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **a paid bailee does not pay** for the loss or theft of one of these items. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse introduces the *halakhot* with regard to a paid bailee with the phrase: “If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to guard” (Exodus 22:9). The phrase **“if a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization,** the phrase **“a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” is a detail,** and when the verse states: **“Or any animal to safeguard,” it then generalized** again. Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** which excludes any item that is not similar to the detail, as delineated in the previous *baraita* with regard to an unpaid bailee, **up to** and including the last clause of that *baraita*: **Consecrated** property is excluded because it **is written** in the verse: “If a man delivers to **his neighbor.”**


###### Shevuot 43a:4
[Shevuot 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:4)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּקַרְקַע וְאֵינָן כְּקַרְקַע כּוּ׳. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע אֵינוֹ כְּקַרְקַע?! אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּטְעוּנוֹת, לִיפַּלְגִי בִּסְרוּקוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabbi Meir says: There are** certain **items that are like land** with regard to their form, **but are not** treated **like land** from a halakhic perspective; and the Rabbis do not concede that this is so, as they hold that the halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself. The Gemara challenges: **By inference, does Rabbi Meir hold** that the halakhic status of **anything that is attached to the land is not like land?** If so, **rather than disagreeing with regard to** grapevines **laden** with fruit, **let them disagree with regard to fruitless** vines, as Rabbi Meir holds that the halakhic status of the vines themselves is not like that of the land.


###### Shevuot 43a:5
[Shevuot 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:5)

(אֶלָּא) אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הָכָא בַּעֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לְהִבָּצֵר קָמִיפַּלְגִי; דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said** that **they disagree here** not with regard to any item that is attached to the land, as Rabbi Meir concedes that such items usually have the halakhic status of the land itself. The dispute is specifically **with regard to grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds** that their halakhic status is **similar to** that of grapes that are already **harvested, and the Rabbis hold** that their halakhic status is **not similar to** that of grapes that are already **harvested,** and that they still have the status of land.


###### Shevuot 43a:6
[Shevuot 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:6)

אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל כּוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת״ סְתָם, אֲבָל אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת זֶה מָלֵא״ – יְדִיעָא טַעַנְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **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 delivered to you a house full of produce, 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 is less that that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. **Abaye said: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where** the claimant **said to him:** I gave you **a house** full of produce, **without specification. But** if **he said to him:** I gave you **this** specific **house full** of produce, **his claim is known** and defined, and the defendant is therefore required to take an oath concerning it.


###### Shevuot 43a:7
[Shevuot 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה אוֹמֵר ״עַד הַזִּיז״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״עַד הַחַלּוֹן״ – חַיָּיב; לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּ״בַיִת מָלֵא״, אֲבָל ״בַּיִת זֶה מָלֵא״ – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: If so, rather than teaching** in **the last clause** of the mishna: 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, **let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach** the distinction **within** the case **itself,** where the claim was for a house full of produce, and say: **In what** case **is this statement,** that the defendant is exempt, **said?** It is said **in** a case where the claim was for an unspecified **house full** of produce; **but** if the claim was for **this** particular **house full** of produce, the defendant is **liable** to take an oath. Since the mishna did not make this distinction, evidently the defendant is exempt even if the claim is referring to a specific house.


###### Shevuot 43a:8
[Shevuot 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּטְעָנֶנּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה שֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, וְיוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The defendant **is never liable** to take an oath **unless** the claimant **claims from him an item that is** defined **by size, by weight, or by number, and** the defendant **admits to him with regard to** a part of the claim that is **an item that is** defined **by size, by weight, or by number.**


###### Shevuot 43a:9
[Shevuot 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:9)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי״ – פָּטוּר. ״מְנוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא מְנוֹרָה קְטַנָּה״ – פָּטוּר. ״אֲזוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא אֲזוֹרָה קְטַנָּה״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** If the claimant says: **I have a *kor* of produce in your possession, and the other one says: Nothing of yours is in my possession,** the defendant is **exempt** from taking an oath, as he denies the entire debt. If he says: **I have a large candelabrum in your possession,** and the defendant responds: **You have only a small candelabrum in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath, as he admits not to part of the claim, but to possessing a different item. Similarly, if the claimant says: **I have a large belt in your possession,** and the defendant responds: **You have only a small belt in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Shevuot 43a:10
[Shevuot 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:10)

אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ: ״כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ״ – חַיָּיב. ״מְנוֹרָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר לִיטְרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא בַּת חָמֵשׁ לִיטְרִין״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **But** if the claimant **said to him: I have a *kor* of produce in your possession, and the other one says: You have only a half-*kor* in my possession,** he is **liable** to take an oath. Similarly, if the claimant says: **I have a candelabrum** weighing **ten *litra* in your possession,** and the defendant responds: **You have only a five-*litra*** candelabrum **in my possession,** he is **liable** to take an oath.


###### Shevuot 43a:11
[Shevuot 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:11)

כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּטְעָנֶנּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, וְיוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: The **principle of the matter** is that the defendant **is never liable** to take an oath **unless** the claimant **claims from him an item that is** defined **by size, or by weight, or by number, and** the defendant **admits to him with regard to** a part of the claim that is **an item that is** defined **by size, by weight, or by number.**


###### Shevuot 43a:12
[Shevuot 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:12)

״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי ״בַּיִת זֶה מָלֵא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does the *baraita* **add** that was not already taught, by mentioning the **principle of the matter? Doesn’t** the *baraita* mention this principle **to add** that even if the claim is for **this** specific **house full** of produce, the defendant is exempt, as this is not considered an item defined by size? Accordingly, the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.


###### Shevuot 43a:13
[Shevuot 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:13)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מְנוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה וּמְנוֹרָה קְטַנָּה? מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ! אִי הָכִי, בַּת עֶשֶׂר בַּת חָמֵשׁ נָמֵי – מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having cited the *baraita*, the Gemara now analyzes it: **What is different** about a case where the claimant claimed **a large candelabrum and** the defendant admitted to owing **a small candelabrum** that renders the defendant exempt from taking an oath? It is because **that which he claimed from him, he did not admit to** at all, **and that which he admitted to, he had not claimed from him. If so,** in a case where the claimant claimed **a ten**-*litra* candelabrum **and** the defendant admitted to owing **a five**-*litra* candelabrum, the defendant should **also** be exempt, **as that which he claimed from him,** a heavier candelabrum, **he did not admit to** at all, **and that which he admitted to,** a lighter candelabrum, **he had not claimed from him.**


###### Shevuot 43a:14
[Shevuot 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: הָכָא בִּמְנוֹרָה שֶׁל חֻלְיוֹת עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: Here** in the latter case **we are dealing with a candelabrum** composed **of segments** that detach; the defendant is liable to take an oath **because he admits to** owing **him** part **of** the candelabrum claimed by the claimant.


###### Shevuot 43a:15
[Shevuot 43a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:15)

אִי הָכִי, אֲזוֹרָה נָמֵי נִיתְנֵי – וְלוֹקְמֵי בִּדְלַיְיפִי! אֶלָּא דְּלַיְיפִי לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּשֶׁל חֻלְיוֹת לָא קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, let** the *baraita* **teach** the case in which the defendant is liable to take an oath involving **a belt as well, and interpret** the case as referring **to** a belt made **of** pieces that are **connected** to each other; the claimant claims a belt with a larger number of pieces, and the defendant claims that he owes him a belt with fewer pieces. **Rather,** clearly the *baraita* **is not teaching** cases involving items made **of** pieces **connected** to each other. **Here too,** in the case of the candelabrum, the *baraita* **is not teaching** a case of a candelabrum composed **of segments** that detach.


###### Shevuot 43a:16
[Shevuot 43a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: שָׁאנֵי מְנוֹרָה, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְגוֹרְרָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל חָמֵשׁ לִיטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Abba bar Memel said** that the case of **a candelabrum is different because** one **can scrape** a *ten-litra* candelabrum **and reduce it to a five-litra** one. Therefore, he admitted to a part of the claim.


###### Shevuot 43a:17
[Shevuot 43a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ: ״סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is a case of **one who lends** money **to another on** the basis of **collateral, and the collateral was lost** while in the possession of the creditor, **and** the creditor **says to** the debtor: **I lent you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** that collateral **was worth a shekel,** i.e., a half-sela. Therefore, you owe me a shekel. **And the other** individual, the debtor, **says** in response to that claim: **That is not** the case. **Rather, you lent me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral, **and** the collateral **was worth a *sela*;** I owe you nothing. In this case, the debtor is **exempt** from payment.


###### Shevuot 43a:18
[Shevuot 43a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:18)

״סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a case of a creditor who claims: **I lent you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and it was worth a shekel. And the other** individual, the debtor, **says: That is not** the case; **rather, you lent me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral, **and** the collateral **was worth three dinars,** i.e., three-quarters of a *sela*. In this case, the debtor is **liable** to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission.


###### Shevuot 43a:19
[Shevuot 43a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:19)

״סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה״ – פָּטוּר. ״סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה״ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If in that case the debtor said: **You lent me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth two** *sela*, so now you owe me a *sela*. **And the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **said: That is not** the case; **rather, I lent you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth a *sela*.** Here, the creditor is **exempt.** If in that case the debtor said: **You lent me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth two** *sela*. **And the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **said: That is not** the case; **rather, I lent you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth five dinars.** Here, the creditor is **liable** to take an oath due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the debtor with a partial admission.


###### Shevuot 43a:20
[Shevuot 43a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/43a:20)

וּמִי נִשְׁבָּע? מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ. שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה, וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And who takes** the **oath? The one** in **whose** possession **the deposit had been** located, i.e., the creditor, who took collateral from the debtor. The Sages instituted this provision **lest this** party, i.e., the debtor, **take an oath and the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **produce the deposit** and prove the oath false.