## Shevuot Daf 47a

###### Shevuot 47a:1
[Shevuot 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:1)

וְכֹל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and any** oath **that is similar to it,** i.e., that is clearly a falsehood, disqualifies one from further oath taking.


###### Shevuot 47a:2
[Shevuot 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:2)

הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? תְּנָא פְּסוּלָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְקָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָא דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one of** the litigants **was a dice player,** or one who lends with interest, or among those who fly pigeons, or among the vendors of produce that grew during the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **these additional** examples of a person who is suspect with regard to oath taking? The Gemara explains: The mishna first **teaches** examples of people who are **disqualified by Torah law, and** then **teaches** examples of those who are **disqualified by rabbinic law.**


###### Shevuot 47a:3
[Shevuot 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:3)

הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הֵיכִי תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא. הִלְכְתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **both** litigants **were suspect,** the oath returned to its place; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount. **Rava said to Rav Naḥman: How is it** actually **taught?** What is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion and what is Rabbi Meir’s opinion? Rav Naḥman **said to him: I do not know.** Rava asked him: **What is the *halakha*?** Rav Naḥman **said to him: I do not know.**


###### Shevuot 47a:4
[Shevuot 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:4)

אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: עֲבַד רַב נַחְמָן עוֹבָדָא – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated** that **Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says** that **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabbi Yosei says: They divide** the disputed amount. **And similarly, Rav Zevid bar Oshaya teaches** that **Rabbi Yosei says: They divide** the disputed amount. The Gemara records a slightly different version of this tradition: **There are** those **who say** that **Rav Zevid teaches** that **Rabbi Oshaya says** that **Rabbi Yosei says: They divide** the disputed amount. **Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said** that **Rav Naḥman ruled** in an actual **case** that the litigants **divide** the disputed amount.


###### Shevuot 47a:5
[Shevuot 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:5)

חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ. לְהֵיכָן חָזְרָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי, רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל אָמְרוּ: חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לְסִינַי, רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמְרוּ: חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לַמְחוּיָּב לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rabbi Yosei rules in the mishna that in a case where both sides are suspect and cannot take an oath, **the oath returned to its place.** The Gemara asks: **To where did it return?** What is meant by the oath returning to its place? **Rabbi Ami said** that **our Sages in Babylonia say:** The **oath returned to Sinai,** where God administered an oath to the Jewish people that they would keep the mitzvot of the Torah, including the prohibition against robbery. The litigant who is robbing the other will be punished by God, not the court. **Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael said: The oath returned to** the one **who** was initially **liable to** take **it,** i.e., the defendant, and since he is disqualified from taking an oath, he must pay.


###### Shevuot 47a:6
[Shevuot 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – רַבִּי אַבָּא. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – דִּתְנַן: וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִין, לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מִמַּאן? אִילֵּימָא מִלֹּוֶה – אֲבוּהוֹן שָׁקֵיל בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה, וְאִינְהוּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִין מִן הַיְּתוֹמִין – לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that the term: **Our Sages in Babylonia,** refers to **Rav and Shmuel;** and the term: **Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael,** refers to **Rabbi Abba.** The fact that the term: **Our Sages in Babylonia,** refers to **Rav and Shmuel** is **as we learned** in the mishna (45a): **And likewise, orphans may collect** a loan **with** a promissory note inherited from their father **only by** taking **an oath; and we discussed it** (see 48a), asking: **From whom** do they collect a debt by taking an oath? **If we say** that they collect this way **from the borrower,** i.e., those who borrowed from their fathers, that would not make sense. **Their father would take** payment with the promissory note **without** taking **an oath, and they** collect only **by means of** taking **an oath?** Don’t orphans have privileged status? **Rather, this** is what the mishna **is saying: And even orphans do not collect** with their father’s promissory note **from** the borrower’s **orphans, except by means of** taking **an oath.**


###### Shevuot 47a:7
[Shevuot 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:7)

וְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּת מַלְוֶה בְּחַיֵּי לֹוֶה; אֲבָל מֵת לֹוֶה בְּחַיֵּי מַלְוֶה – כְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב מַלְוֶה לִבְנֵי לֹוֶה שְׁבוּעָה, וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa continues: **And Rav and Shmuel both say** that the Sages **taught** that the lender’s orphans need to take an oath in order to be paid by the borrower’s orphans **only when** the **lender died during the lifetime of** the **borrower,** and the lender’s children had an opportunity to collect directly from the borrower without taking an oath. **But** if the **borrower died during the lifetime of** the **lender,** the **lender has already become liable to** take **an oath to the children of** the **borrower,** since one can collect from orphans only by means of an oath, **and a person cannot bequeath an oath,** i.e., a debt that requires the taking of an oath in order to be collected, **to his children,** and no payment is made. The lender’s children cannot take the oath that their father would have taken, that the promissory note has not been paid. The only oath they can take is that their father never told them that it had been paid, and that is insufficient once the father became liable to take an oath. From here it is clear that Rav and Shmuel hold that when no oath can be taken, the oath returns to Sinai, and the court takes no action.


###### Shevuot 47a:8
[Shevuot 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:8)

רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל רַבִּי אַבָּא – דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּחֲטַף נְסָכָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ; אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי, יְתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ. אַיְיתִי חֲדָא סָהֲדָא דְּמִחְטָף חַטְפֵהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִין, חֲטַפִי – וְדִידִי חֲטַפִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The fact that the term: **Our Sages in Eretz Yisrael,** refers to **Rabbi Abba** is as the following story illustrates. **As** there was **a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another.** The one from whom it was taken **came before Rav Ami** while **Rabbi Abba was sitting before him,** and he **brought one witness** who testified **that** the other man **did,** in fact, **snatch it from him.** The one who snatched it **said to him: Yes,** it is true that **I snatched** it, **but I** merely **snatched** that which was **mine.**


###### Shevuot 47a:9
[Shevuot 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֵיכִי לִידַיְּינוּ דַּיָּינֵי לְהַאי דִּינָא? נֵימָא לֵיהּ ״זִיל שַׁלֵּים״ – לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי סָהֲדִי. נִפְטְרֵיהּ – אִיכָּא חַד סָהֲדָא. נֵימָא לֵיהּ ״זִיל אִישְׁתְּבַע״ – כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִיחְטָף חֲטַפִי״, הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּגַזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said: How should judges rule in this case?** If they were to **say to** the one who snatched the metal: **Go pay** for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because **there are not two witnesses** who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were **to** accept his claim and **exempt him** entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because **there is one witness** who testified against him. If they were to **say to him: Go take an oath,** which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, **once he said** that he did in fact **snatch** it, and there is no proof that it is his, **he is like a robber,** and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.


###### Shevuot 47a:10
[Shevuot 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָוֵה מְחוּיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע, וְכׇל הַמְחוּיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to him: He** is one who **is liable** to take **an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable** to take **an oath who is unable to take an oath** is liable to **pay.** This illustrates that Rabbi Abba holds that the oath returns to its place, i.e., to the defendant, who is disqualified from taking oaths, and that consequently he must pay.


###### Shevuot 47a:11
[Shevuot 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: ״שְׁבֻעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״ – וְלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: It stands to reason** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Abba; as Rabbi Ami teaches** this *baraita*: The verse states that **“the oath of the Lord shall be between them both”** (Exodus 22:10), **but not between their heirs. What are the circumstances** in which one would be liable to take an oath, but his heirs would be exempt?


###### Shevuot 47a:12
[Shevuot 47a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:12)

אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְּיַד אָבִיךָ״, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״חַמְשִׁין אִית לֵיהּ וְחַמְשִׁין לֵית לֵיהּ״ – מָה לִי הוּא וּמָה לִי אֲבוּהָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that it is **where** the lender’s son **said to** the borrower’s son: **One hundred dinars** that belonged **to my father** were **in the possession of your father,** as a loan, and you must repay me, and the borrower’s son **said to him: He had** a debt of **fifty, and** the other **fifty he did not have** to pay him, i.e., he did not owe it, that is difficult. Under these circumstances, **what** does it matter **to me** if it is **he,** the borrower’s heir, **or his father,** the original borrower? Since the son is admitting that he owes part of the money and denying the rest with certainty, he is liable to take an oath, just like his father would have been.


###### Shevuot 47a:13
[Shevuot 47a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/47a:13)

אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְּיַד אָבִיךָ״, אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״חַמְשִׁין יָדַעְנָא וְחַמְשִׁין לָא יָדַעְנָא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not that** the lender’s son **said to** the borrower’s son: **One hundred dinars** that were **my father’s** were left **in the possession of your father,** and you must repay me, and the borrower’s son **said to him:** Concerning **fifty** dinars, **I know** that my father owed them, **but I do not know** anything about the other **fifty** dinars.