## Shevuot Daf 46b

###### Shevuot 46b:1
[Shevuot 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:1)

וְאָמַר ״לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לִמְכּוֹר כֵּלָיו, אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶעָשׂוּי לִמְכּוֹר אֶת כֵּלָיו – נֶאֱמָן. וְשֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לִמְכּוֹר אֶת כֵּלָיו נָמֵי – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהַטְמִין, אֲבָל דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַטְמִין – נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** then that person **says: They were purchased** and that is why they are **in my possession,** he is **not deemed credible. And we said** this **only** with regard to items taken from **a homeowner who is not apt to sell his items; but** with regard to **a homeowner who is apt to sell his items,** the one taking the items is **deemed credible. And even** with regard to a homeowner **who is not apt to sell his items, we said** that the one carrying the items is not deemed credible **only** with regard to **items that are not typically concealed; but** with regard to **items that are typically concealed,** he is **deemed credible.**


###### Shevuot 46b:2
[Shevuot 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:2)

וְשֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהַטְמִין נָמֵי – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא אִינִישׁ דְּלָא צְנִיעַ, אֲבָל אִינִישׁ דִּצְנִיעַ – הַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא זֶה אוֹמֵר ״שְׁאוּלִין״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״לְקוּחִין״, אֲבָל בִּגְנוּבִין – לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ; לְאַחְזוֹקֵי אִינִישׁ בְּגַנָּבֵי לָא מַחְזְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even** with regard to items **that are not typically concealed, we said** that he is not deemed credible **only** with regard to **a person who is not** generally **secretive, but** with regard to **a person who is** generally **secretive, that is his manner,** i.e., he would be likely to conceal items beneath his clothing, and he is deemed credible. **And we said** this **only** when **this** one, the homeowner, **says:** The items are **borrowed, and that** one who took the items, **says:** They are **purchased, but in** a case where the homeowner claims that the items are **stolen,** it **is not in his** power to have his accusation accepted, as **we do not presume a person to** be **a thief.**


###### Shevuot 46b:3
[Shevuot 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:3)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּדְבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר, אֲבָל דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר – נֶאֱמָן. דִּשְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר, וְאָמַר ״לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. כִּי הָא דְּרָבָא אַפֵּיק זוּגָא דְּסַרְבָּלָא וְסִפְרָא דְּאַגַּדְתָּא מִיַּתְמֵי, בִּדְבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, **we said** that the one who claims he purchased the items is not deemed credible **only with regard to items that are typically lent or rented,** where the homeowner’s claim that they must now be returned is more reasonable; **but** for **items that are not typically lent or rented,** the person who took them is **deemed credible. As Rav Huna bar Avin sent** a ruling to the Sages: With regard to **items that are typically lent or rented** that someone took **and said: They were purchased** and that is why they are **in my possession, he is not deemed credible.** This is **like that** incident **where Rava** ruled to **expropriate fabric scissors and a book of *aggada* from orphans** whose father had taken them, as they were **items that are typically lent or rented.**


###### Shevuot 46b:4
[Shevuot 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבָּע, אֲפִילּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵר נִשְׁבַּעַת. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The oath of one who was robbed can be taken by others as well. **Rava says: Even a watchman** at the house can **take** the **oath,** and **even the wife of the watchman** can **take** the **oath. Rav Pappa asks:** With regard to the employer’s regular **hired worker or his** regular **harvester,** who are not appointed to safeguard the employer’s property, **what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara responds: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Shevuot 46b:5
[Shevuot 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טְעָנוֹ בְּכָסָא דְּכַסְפָּא, מַאי? חֲזֵינָא: אִי אִינִישׁ דַּאֲמִיד הוּא, אוֹ אִינִישׁ דִּמְהֵימַן הוּא דְּמַפְקְדִי אִינָשֵׁי גַּבֵּיהּ – מִשְׁתְּבַע וְשָׁקֵיל. וְאִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi:** If one **states a claim against another** that he left his house **with a silver cup** and is liable to return it, **what** is the *halakha*? Rav Ashi replied: **We see if** the owner of the house **is an affluent person, or** if **he is a trustworthy person with whom people deposit** their valuables, as those are people who would typically have a silver cup. If the homeowner is in these categories **he takes an oath and receives** payment of his claim; **but if** he is **not,** he does **not** receive the benefit of taking an oath in order to prove his claim.


###### Shevuot 46b:6
[Shevuot 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:6)

נֶחְבָּל כֵּיצַד. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ – נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How** does this *halakha* apply to **one who was injured?** If witnesses testified about the injured person that he entered into the domain of the defendant whole, but left injured, the injured party may take an oath and receive compensation. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The Sages **taught** that he needs to take an oath in order to receive compensation **only** if he was injured **in a place where he is able to injure himself, but** if he was injured **in a place where he is unable to injure himself, he receives** compensation **without** taking **an oath.**


###### Shevuot 46b:7
[Shevuot 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:7)

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא בְּכוֹתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ! תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שֶׁעָלְתָה לוֹ נְשִׁיכָה בְּגַבּוֹ וּבֵין אַצִּילֵי יָדָיו. וְדִלְמָא אַחֵר עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let us be concerned** that **perhaps he scraped against a wall** and caused the injury himself. The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches** that the mishna is referring to a case **where,** for example, **he has a bite on his back or on his elbows,** which must have been caused by someone else. The Gemara challenges: **And perhaps a different** person **did** it **to him,** and not the defendant. The Gemara explains: This is a case **where** there **is no other** person with him besides the defendant.


###### Shevuot 46b:8
[Shevuot 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:8)

וּכְשֶׁנֶּגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד [וְכוּ׳], וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: How does this *halakha* apply to **one whose opposing** litigant is **suspect** with regard to the taking of an oath and therefore is not permitted to take the oath? One is suspected if he had been found to have taken a false oath, whether it was an oath of testimony or an oath on a deposit, which are prescribed by Torah law, **or even an oath** taken **in vain.** The Gemara asks: For **what** reason does the mishna emphasize: **Even an oath** taken **in vain?**


###### Shevuot 46b:9
[Shevuot 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:9)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא הָנָךְ, דְּאִית בְּהוּ כְּפִירַת מָמוֹן; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הָא נָמֵי, דִּכְפִירַת דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – לָא מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state that one who is suspected of falsifying **these** oaths is disqualified from taking oaths, **as they entail the denial of a monetary** claim, i.e., due to the false oath someone incurs financial loss, **but** it is necessary to state that **even that** oath, an oath taken in vain, **which** involves **merely the repudiation of one’s verbal** commitment, nevertheless grants one the status of a person who is **not credible** and who is disqualified from taking oaths.


###### Shevuot 46b:10
[Shevuot 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:10)

וְלִיתְנֵי נָמֵי שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי! כִּי קָתָנֵי, שְׁבוּעָה דְּכִי קָא מִשְׁתְּבַע – בְּשִׁקְרָא קָא מִשְׁתְּבַע; אֲבָל שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דִּבְקוּשְׁטָא קָא מִשְׁתְּבַע – לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let** the *tanna* **also teach** that falsifying **an oath on an utterance,** which is also an oath without monetary consequences, disqualifies one from taking oaths. The Gemara responds: **When** the *tanna* **teaches** which types of false **oaths** disqualify a person, it includes only oaths with regard to **which when one takes the oath, he is** at that time **falsely taking the oath. But** with regard to **an oath on an utterance,** such as an oath that he will eat a specific fruit that day, **where it can be said that he took the oath with true** intention and intended to eat that fruit, but ultimately failed to do so, the *tanna* **does not teach,** as one who does not fulfill such an oath retains his credibility to take oaths, since he did not consciously lie.


###### Shevuot 46b:11
[Shevuot 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/46b:11)

תִּינַח ״אוֹכַל״ וְ״לֹא אוֹכַל״; ״אָכַלְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תָּנָא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: It **works out well** to make this distinction for one who is liable for an oath on an utterance like: **I will eat, or: I will not eat,** where it is possible that he was not lying when he took the oath. But with regard to oaths about the past like: **I ate, or: I did not eat, what can be said,** since he certainly took a false oath? The Gemara answers: **Teach** the mishna, i.e., understand it to mean: **An oath** taken **in vain**