## Shevuot Daf 47b

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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אָבִיו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מִיחַיַּיב, אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִיפְטַר גַּבֵּי יוֹרְשִׁין; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אָבִיו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא נָמֵי פָּטוּר, קְרָא גַּבֵּי יוֹרְשִׁין לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba continues: **Granted, if you say** that **his father,** in **a case like this, would be liable** to take an oath, due to his partial admission, then the **verse was necessary to exempt the heirs** from taking the oath. **But if you say** that in **a case like this, his father is also exempt** from taking an oath, **why do I** need **a verse about** exempting the **heirs?** Evidently, an oath reverts to one who is liable to take it, and when he cannot take that oath he must pay the claim against him.


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

וְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – הַאי ״שְׁבֻעַת ה׳״ מַאי קָא דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rav and Shmuel,** who hold that one who cannot take an oath does not have to pay, and therefore there is no difference between the heirs and the father, **what do they derive from this** verse: **“The oath of the Lord** shall be between them both” (Exodus 22:10)?


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

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁבֻעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַשְּׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Shimon ben Tarfon says:** The verse: **“The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,” teaches that** when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, **the oath applies to them both,** i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God’s name.


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

שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַזְהָרָה לָעוֹקֵב אַחֵר נוֹאֵף, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תִּנְאָף״ – לֹא תַּנְאִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since this Sage was mentioned, the Gemara cites some of his other statements. **Shimon ben Tarfon says:** With regard to the **prohibition of following after an adulterer,** i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, **from where** is it derived? **The verse states: “You shall not commit adultery [*lo tinaf* ]”** (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: **You shall not cause adultery [*lo tanif* ].**


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

״וַתֵּרָגְנוּ בְּאׇהֳלֵיכֶם״ – שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: תַּרְתֶּם וְגִינִּיתֶם בְּאׇהֳלוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Commenting on the verse describing the response of the Jewish people to the spies’ slander of Eretz Yisrael: **“And you murmured [*vatteragenu*] in your tents** and said: Because the Lord hated us, He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us” (Deuteronomy 1:27), **Shimon ben Tarfon says:** “*Teragenu*” is interpreted as though it is composed of two Hebrew expressions: **You explored [*tartem*]** the land, **and: You disparaged [*ginnitem*]** it, **in the tent of the Omnipresent.**


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

״עַד הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל נְהַר פְּרָת״ – שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: קְרַב לְגַבֵּי דְהִינָא, וְאִידְּהַן. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: עֶבֶד מֶלֶךְ – כְּמֶלֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the verse: **“As far as the great river, the river Euphrates”** (Deuteronomy 1:7), **Shimon ben Tarfon says:** Although it is not the largest river, the Euphrates is called great in accordance with the adage: **Draw close to the** one **anointed with oil and become anointed** as well. Because the Euphrates is close to Eretz Yisrael, it is called great. The **school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** a similar idea: **The servant of a king is like a king.**


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

וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: טוֹרַח שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ לָמָּה? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי חִיָּיא (בַּר אַבָּא), תְּנֵינָא: שְׁנֵיהֶם נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **the storekeeper** relying **on his ledger** takes an oath and receives payment. If an employer tells a storekeeper to pay his laborers, and the storekeeper claims he paid them, while the laborers claim that they did not receive payment, both the storekeeper and the laborers take oaths and receive payment from the employer. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: Why** is there the **bother** with **this oath,** that it is imposed upon both of them? **Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: We learn** in the mishna (see 45a) that **both of them take an oath and receive** payment of their claims **from the employer.**


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

קִיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אוֹ לָא קִיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: פּוֹעֲלִין נִשְׁבָּעִין לַחֶנְוָנִי. וְאִם אִיתָא, לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **accept from him** that this is the *halakha*, **or did he not accept it from him? Come** and **hear as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: The laborers take an oath to the storekeeper** that he had not paid them. **And if it is so** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted Rabbi Ḥiyya’s ruling, then Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **should have** instead said that the laborers take an oath **to the employer.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: פּוֹעֲלִים נִשְׁבָּעִין לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת – בְּמַעֲמַד חֶנְוָנִי; כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיכַּסְפוּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Do not conclude that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept Rabbi Ḥiyya’s ruling. Rather, interpret his statement as follows: **The laborers take an oath to the employer in the presence of the storekeeper, so that they will feel ashamed** to lie **with him** present, since he knows whether or not he paid them.


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

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים הַמַּכְחִישׁוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זוֹ בָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמְעִידָה, וְזוֹ בָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמְעִידָה. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: בַּהֲדֵי סָהֲדֵי שַׁקָּרֵי לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** about a similar topic that if there were **two sets of witnesses who contradict one another,** and it is clear that one set must be testifying falsely, **Rav Huna says: This** set can **come by itself and testify** about other cases, **and that** set can **come by itself and testify.** Neither set of witnesses is disqualified for future testimony, since there is no way of knowing which was lying. **Rav Ḥisda said: Why do I** need to become involved **with lying witnesses?** Since each set of witnesses is possibly untrustworthy, both sets are disqualified.


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

שְׁנֵי מַלְוִין וּשְׁנֵי לוֹוִין וּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת – הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתַּיְיהוּ; מַלְוֶה וְלֹוֶה וּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת – יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the circumstances relevant to this dispute. If, after contradicting each other, the two sets of witnesses testified about circumstances involving **two** distinct **lenders, and two** distinct **borrowers, and** therefore **two** separate promissory **notes,** each one signed by a different set of witnesses, **this** sort of scenario **is** the subject of **their dispute.** According to Rav Huna both promissory notes are valid, and according to Rav Ḥisda neither is valid. In the case of a single **lender, and** a single **borrower, and two** promissory **notes,** with each signed by a different one of the sets of witnesses, **the holder of the** promissory **note is at a disadvantage** and can collect only the lower sum. One of the promissory notes is necessarily not valid, as it is signed by witnesses who testified falsely.


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

שְׁנֵי מַלְוִין וְלֹוֶה אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת – הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין; שְׁנֵי לוֹוִין וּמַלְוֶה אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת – מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **two lenders, and a single borrower, and two** promissory **notes, this is** the same as **the mishna,** where two claimants who contradict each other come to collect payment from a single person who must pay them both, as the evidence for both claims has a presumption of validity. In the case of **two borrowers, and a single lender, and two** promissory **notes, what** is the *halakha*? Can each of the borrowers claim that the promissory note supporting the claim against him is not valid, as it could have been signed by the untrustworthy set of witnesses; or does each of them have to pay unless he can prove that the promissory note against him was signed by the unfit set of witnesses? The Gemara states: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


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

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection** from a *baraita*: