(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Shevuos 47


(a) (Mishnah): If one of them was a gambler...
(b) Question: Why must these cases be taught?
(c) Answer: The previous cases were disqualified mid'Oraisa; these people are only disqualified mid'Rabanan.
(d) (Mishnah): If both parties were disqualified...
(e) Question (Rava): What is the correct text of the Mishnah (some versions switch the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yosi)?
(f) Rav Nachman: I do not know.
(g) Question (Rava): What is the Halachah?
(h) Rav Nachman: I do not know.
(i) Version #1 (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi and Rav Zevid bar Oshaya citing Rav Nachman): R. Yosi says, they divide (the disputed money).
(j) Version #2 (Rav Zevid citing R. Oshaya): R. Yosi says, they divide;
1. (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): A case occurred, Rav Nachman ruled that they divide.
(k) (Mishnah): The oath returns to its place.
(l) Question: To where does it return?
(m) Answer (R. Ami): Our teachers in Bavel say that it returns to Sinai (i.e. Hash-m will punish the guilty party for transgressing the oath on Sinai, which included the prohibition of stealing; Beis Din does not force the defendant to do anything);
(n) Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael say that it returns to the defendant (and since he cannot swear, he must pay).
(o) (Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Bavel' refers to Rav and Shmuel; the following shows that they say that it returns to Sinai.
1. (Mishnah): Similarly, orphans only collect after swearing.
2. Question: From whom do they (need to swear in order to) collect?
i. Suggestion: From (Shimon,) the one who borrowed from their father (Reuven).
ii. Rejection: Reuven could have collected without swearing, why must his orphans swear?!
3. Answer: Rather, they must swear in order to collect from Shimon's orphans.
4. (Rav and Shmuel): This is only if Reuven died before Shimon;
i. But if Shimon died first, Reuven could not have collected from the orphans without swearing that he was not paid;
ii. One does not inherit (a claim to) money which the father could only collect through swearing (Rashi - because the orphans do not know if the loan was paid, they cannot take the oath).
(p) (Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael' refers to R. Aba; the following shows that he says that it returns to the defendant.
1. One witness testified in front of R. Ami that Reuven grabbed an ingot from Shimon; Reuven said 'Yes, I grabbed it - it is mine!'
2. Question (R. Ami): What is the law? We cannot obligate Reuven based on one witness, nor can we totally exempt him!
3. Suggestion: He should swear to contradict the testimony.
4. Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: He cannot contradict it, for he admits that he took it, nor is he believed to say 'Shimon was holding *my* ingot'.
i. He is unable to swear (in this case), just as a thief (is never believed to swear).
5. Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: Since he admits that he took it, and we assume that it was Shimon's (for Shimon was holding it), Reuven is like a thief (who is not believed to swear).
6. Answer (R. Aba): He is obligated to swear, but he cannot, therefore he must pay.
(a) (Rava): A Beraisa supports R. Aba.
1. (R. Ami - Beraisa): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem" - (an oath decides the dispute between the two parties,) not between their heirs.
2. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: Reuven says 'Your father owed my father 100', and Shimon says 'He only owed 50'.
ii. Rejection: Since Shimon is certain, he swears just as his father would have sworn!
3. Answer: Rather, Reuven says 'Your father owed my father 100', and Shimon says 'I know that he owed 50, I do not know if he owed more'.

i. If we say that Shimon would be obligated to swear in such a case (and since he is unsure, he cannot, so he must pay), we understand why a verse is needed to exempt his heirs;
ii. But if Shimon would be exempt in such a case, why do we need a verse to exempt his heirs?!
(b) Question: What do Rav and Shmuel learn from "Shevu'as Hash-m Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem"?
(c) Answer: As Shimon ben Tarfon expounds.
1. (Beraisa - Shimon ben Tarfon): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem" - this teaches that the (punishment) for the oath is on both parties.
2. "Lo Sin'af" - this may be read 'Lo San'if", do not be an agent to bring others to sexual immorality.
3. "Va'TeRaGNu v'Ohaleichem" - TaRtem v'GiNisem (you toured (Eretz Yisrael, i.e. sent spies) and debased Hash-m, who put His Ohel (the Divine Presence, in the Mishkan) amidst you.
4. "Ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar Peras" - one who touches someone anointed (with oil), the oil comes on him (the Peras river was the smallest of the four rivers in Gan Eden, but it is called the big river because it is a border of Eretz Yisrael);
5. Tana d'vei R. Yishmael says, the slave of a king is also called a king.
(a) (Mishnah): A grocer swears based on his ledger...
(b) Question (Rebbi): There is no reason for everyone (the grocer and the workers) to swear!
(c) Answer (R. Chiya - Mishnah): (There is a need -) both swear and collect from the employer.
(d) Question: Did Rebbi accept this answer?
(e) Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): The workers swear to the grocer (that he did not pay them, and the grocer does not collect from the employer, i.e. Rebbi did not accept the answer).
(f) Rejection (Rava): (Really, he accepted the answer.) The Beraisa means, the workers swear *to the employer in front of *the grocer; since the grocer knows the truth, perhaps they will be embarrassed to swear falsely in front of him. (The grocer also swears and collects).
(g) (Rav Huna): If two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, either pair may testify (by itself) in another case (we do not know which pair is lying; when in doubt, we follow the Chazakah, they are valid witnesses).
(h) (Rav Chisda): Since we do not know which are lying, we do not accept testimony from either pair.
(i) If each pair signed on a difference loan document:
1. If the lenders and borrowers in the documents are different, (the cases are unrelated, Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue as above (Rav Huna honors the documents, Rav Chisda invalidates them);
2. If both documents are for the same lender and borrower, all agree that the lender collects the smaller loan (one document is valid, we do not know which, therefore he collects the smaller);
3. If Reuven borrowed from two different lenders, (according to Rav Chisda, both documents are invalid; according to Rav Huna) this is just like our Mishnah (even though one party is certainly lying, since the employer does not know which, he must pay both - here also, Reuven does not know which document is invalid, he must pay both);
4. If Shimon lent to two different borrowers, (according to Rav Chisda, both documents are invalid);
5. Question: According to Rav Huna, what is the law in this case? (Since one is invalid, neither borrower need pay; or, do we consider this like two separate cases, and he collects both?)
6. This question is not resolved.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,