## Shevuot Daf 48a

###### Shevuot 48a:1
[Shevuot 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:1)

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי מַרְדְּעוֹת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, וּמִצְטָרְפִין לְעֵדוּת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** witness who came to testify about the new moon **says** that he saw it **two oxgoads high** above the horizon, **and** the other **one says** it was **three** oxgoads high, **their testimony is valid,** as a discrepancy of this type is reasonable. But if **one says** that he saw the moon **three** oxgoads above the horizon, **and the** other **one says** it was **five, their testimony is voided. But** despite this, they are not disqualified as witnesses, and either of them may **join in another testimony.**


###### Shevuot 48a:2
[Shevuot 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:2)

מַאי, לָאו לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן? אָמַר רָבָא: הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין לְעֵדוּת אַחֶרֶת שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ; דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי וְחַד, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** teaching that they each can join with another witness **for testimony** about **monetary matters,** even though each of them is suspected of giving false testimony? This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s opinion. **Rava said,** explaining how Rav Ḥisda understands this *baraita*: **He,** one of the contradictory witnesses, **and another** witness **may combine for another testimony about** the **new moon, as** in doing so, **they become two** witnesses against **one** testifying differently; **and the statement of one** witness has **no** standing **in a place** where it is contradicted by **two** witnesses.


###### Shevuot 48a:3
[Shevuot 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:3)

אָמַר לַחֶנְוָנִי ״תֵּן לִי בְּדִינָר פֵּירוֹת״ כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַפֵּירוֹת צְבוּרִין וּמוּנָּחִין, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹרְרִין עֲלֵיהֶן; אֲבָל הִפְשִׁילָן בְּקוּפָּתוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **said to a storekeeper: Give me produce** valued **at a dinar,** and he gave him the produce, and subsequently the storekeeper and the customer dispute whether the customer ever paid the storekeeper, the mishna rules that the customer takes an oath that he paid. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says: When** does the customer take this oath? He takes it **when the produce is collected and situated** in front of them, **and the two of them are quarreling about it. But** if the customer has it **bundled in his basket on his back, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,** i.e., the storekeeper.


###### Shevuot 48a:4
[Shevuot 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:4)

אָמַר לַשּׁוּלְחָנִי ״תֵּן לִי״ כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָא קַמַּיְיתָא – בְּהָךְ קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּפֵירֵי עֲבִידִי דְּמַרְקְבִי, וְכֵיוָן דְּמַרְקְבִי לָא מְשַׁהוּ לֵיהּ; אֲבָל מָעוֹת דְּלָא מַרְקְבִי – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues with a similar case: If one **said to a money changer: Give me** small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently they dispute whether the customer gave the money changer the dinar, the customer takes an oath that he paid already. The Gemara notes: **It is necessary** to teach both the case involving the storekeeper and the case involving the money changer, **as had it taught us** only **this first** case, one might say that only **in that** case **do the Rabbis say** that the customer may take an oath to avoid payment, **because produce** is **prone to spoiling, and since** it **spoils** storekeepers **do not retain it** but give it to the customer immediately. **But** with regard to **money, which does not spoil, say** that **they concede to Rabbi Yehuda** that a money changer does not give coins to the customer until he has received payment, and the customer does not need to take an oath.


###### Shevuot 48a:5
[Shevuot 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:5)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the ruling **been stated** only **about that** case involving the money changer, one might say that only **in that** case **does Rabbi Yehuda say** that the customer need not take an oath to avoid payment, **but in this** case, involving the storekeeper, **say he concedes to the Rabbis.** Therefore **it is necessary** to teach this dispute for both cases.


###### Shevuot 48a:6
[Shevuot 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:6)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ [וְכוּ׳], וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִין לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ. מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא מִלֹּוֶה – אֲבוּהוֹן שָׁקֵיל בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה, וְאִינְהוּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכֵן הַיְּתוֹמִים מִן הַיְּתוֹמִים, לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches (see 45a): **Just like** other cases where the Sages **said** that one takes an oath and receives payment, the mishna teaches: A woman **who vitiates her marriage contract, etc. And likewise, orphans may not collect** with a promissory note inherited from their father except by taking an oath. The Gemara asks: **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 father, 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 an oath.**


###### Shevuot 48a:7
[Shevuot 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:7)

רַב 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 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.


###### Shevuot 48a:8
[Shevuot 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:8)

שַׁלְחוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ – מָה טִיבָהּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: יוֹרְשִׁין נִשְׁבָּעִין שְׁבוּעַת יוֹרְשִׁין, וְנוֹטְלִין. שַׁלְחוּהָ בִּימֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי, אָמַר: כּוּלֵּי הַאי שָׁלְחִי לַהּ וְאָזְלִי? אִי אַשְׁכְּחִינַן בַּהּ טַעְמָא, מִי לָא שָׁלְחִינַן לְהוּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הוֹאִיל וַאֲתָא לְיָדָן, נֵימָא בַּהּ מִילְּתָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **sent** a question **to Rabbi Elazar** in Eretz Yisrael: **What is the nature of this oath** to the orphans of the borrower that it has the capacity to prevent the lender’s children from collecting their father’s debt? Rabbi Elazar **sent** a reply **to them:** That is not the correct ruling; rather, the **heirs take** the **heirs’ oath,** that they have no knowledge that this promissory note was paid, **and collect** payment of their claim. **They sent** the same question again to Eretz Yisrael **in the days of Rabbi Ami. He said: They continue to send this** question to **this extent? If we had found** a different **explanation, wouldn’t we have sent** it **to them? Nevertheless, Rabbi Ami said: Since** this question **came to us, let us say something about it.**


###### Shevuot 48a:9
[Shevuot 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:9)

עָמַד בַּדִּין וָמֵת – כְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב מַלְוֶה לִבְנֵי לֹוֶה שְׁבוּעָה, וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו. לֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין וָמֵת – יוֹרְשִׁין נִשְׁבָּעִין שְׁבוּעַת יוֹרְשִׁין, וְנוֹטְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the litigants **stood trial and** then the lender **died** before taking an oath, the **lender has already become liable** to take **an oath to the children of** the **borrower** in accordance with the court’s ruling, **and a person cannot bequeath an oath to his children,** in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel. If the litigants **did not** yet **stand trial, and** the lender **died, the** lender’s **heirs take the heirs’ oath, and collect** payment of their claim, as Rabbi Elazar said.


###### Shevuot 48a:10
[Shevuot 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אַטּוּ בֵּי דִינָא קָא מְחַיְּיבִי לֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה?! מֵעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁכֵיב לֹוֶה, אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מַלְוֶה לִבְנֵי לֹוֶה שְׁבוּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman objects to this: Is that to say** that it is **the court that renders** the lender **liable** to take **an oath? At the moment** the **borrower died,** the **lender was liable** to take **an oath to the children of** the **borrower.**


###### Shevuot 48a:11
[Shevuot 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:11)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִי אִיתַהּ לִדְרַב וְדִשְׁמוּאֵל, אִיתַהּ; אִי לֵיתַהּ, לֵיתַהּ. אַלְמָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ; וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: עֲבַד רַב נַחְמָן עוֹבָדָא – יַחְלוֹקוּ! לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman said: If** the ruling **of Rav and Shmuel is** accepted, **it is** accepted; and **if it is not** accepted, **it is not.** The Gemara asks: **Evidently,** Rav Naḥman **is uncertain** whether the ruling of Rav and Shmuel is accepted. **But didn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say** that **Rav Naḥman ruled** in an actual **case** against Rav and Shmuel, ruling that where both litigants are suspect about oaths **they divide** the disputed amount? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman **stated** his uncertainty with regard to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, who rule in accordance **with the statement of Rabbi Meir** that the oath returns to its place, **but he himself does not hold accordingly,** but rather rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei, who says that they divide the claim.


###### Shevuot 48a:12
[Shevuot 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:12)

מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מֵתָה – יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ מַזְכִּירִין אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּעָה וּמֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Oshaya raises an objection** from a mishna (*Ketubot* 104a): If a widow **died** without having received payment of her marriage contract, **her heirs,** e.g., sons from a previous marriage, **may invoke her marriage contract** in order to demand payment of it for **up to twenty-five years** later. Her heirs, who are orphans, can take an oath and collect their claim, even though they are collecting from other orphans, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a situation **where** the widow **took an oath but died** before she could collect the payment. When her heirs come to collect, an oath is no longer required.


###### Shevuot 48a:13
[Shevuot 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נָשָׂא רִאשׁוֹנָה וָמֵתָה, נָשָׂא שְׁנִיָּה וּמֵת הוּא – שְׁנִיָּה וְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה! הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּעָה וּמֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a mishna (*Ketubot* 90a): In a case where **he married** his **first** wife **and she died,** and by the terms of the marriage contract, her sons inherit the sum promised in her marriage contract after the husband dies, if **he** subsequently **married** his **second** wife, **and** then **he died,** the **second** wife **and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first** wife, in collecting payment of her marriage contract. The heirs of the second wife can collect the marriage contract by taking an oath to the heirs of the first wife, stating that they have no knowledge of their mother having received her marriage contract, even though this is an oath bequeathed to them by their mother. This mishna therefore contradicts the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers: This does not contradict their ruling, because they understand it to **also** be a situation **where** the second wife **took an oath but died** before she collected the payment.


###### Shevuot 48a:14
[Shevuot 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֲבָל יוֹרְשָׁיו מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ, וְאֶת יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ, וְאֶת הַבָּאִין בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another mishna (*Ketubot* 86b): If a husband stipulated that when his wife collects payment of her marriage contract he will not impose an oath on her or on her heirs or representatives, he may not impose an oath, **but his heirs can administer an oath to her, to her heirs, and to those who come on her authority** as representatives. Her heirs take an oath to collect from the husband’s heirs, though they are all orphans. This is contrary to the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, and here it is clear that the wife did not take an oath before she died.


###### Shevuot 48a:15
[Shevuot 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:15)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה, לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי: אוֹתָהּ – בְּאַלְמָנָה, וְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ – בִּגְרוּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shemaya said:** The mishna is in accordance with Rav and Shmuel’s ruling because it **teaches** the administration of an oath **disjunctively.** The heirs can administer an oath **to her when** she is receiving payment of her marriage contract as **a widow, or** they can administer an oath to **her heirs when** she is **a divorcée** who died after the divorce and before her husband died. Since she died first, her heirs were not bequeathed an oath to her husband’s heirs.


###### Shevuot 48a:16
[Shevuot 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/48a:16)

מֵתִיב רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא: יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Natan bar Hoshaya raises an objection** from a *baraita*: Sometimes **the power of the son is greater than the power of the father,**