POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 48
1) WITNESSES WHO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER
(a) Question (Rav Huna bar Yehudah - Beraisa): Two witnesses
saw the new moon:
2) SWEARING ABOUT WHETHER MONEY WAS GIVEN
1. If to one it appeared two plowshares above the
horizon, to the other, three plowshares, we accept
their testimony (we attribute the difference to
inaccuracy, the testimonies concur);
(b) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa means, if someone else agrees
with one of them about the moon, they join and we accept
their testimony to sanctify the new month;
2. If to one it appeared three plowshares above, to the
other, five, we reject their testimony (we do not
attribute the difference to inaccuracy, this is
i. The witnesses can join for other testimony.
ii. Suggestion: This means that either witness can
testify with someone else in a monetary case
(like Rav Huna, he is a valid witness)!
1. We ignore the other witness, since two witnesses
disagree with him.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven asked Shimon (a grocer) for a Dinar's
worth of produce...(Reuven swears that he paid a Dinar,
and keeps the produce.)
3) INHERITING MONEY WHICH CAN BE COLLECTED WITH AN OATH
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): This is when the produce is in
front of them and they are fighting over them, but if
Reuven put them in his bag and slung them over his
shoulder, Shimon can only take them if he brings a proof
(if he does not, Reuven need not swear).
(c) (Mishnah): Reuven asked Shimon (a moneychanger) for a
Dinar's worth of smaller coins...(Reuven swears that he
gave him and keeps the coins).
(d) We must teach both cases.
1. If we only taught regarding a grocer, one might have
thought that Chachamim say that a grocer is believed
(when the buyer holds the produce) because fruit
rots (so he gives the produce before receiving the
money, lest the buyer retract), but they admit
regarding a moneychanger;
(e) If we only taught regarding a moneychanger, one might
have thought that R. Yehudah only says that a
moneychanger is never believed, for he never gives change
before receiving the money, but admits regarding a grocer
(because fruit rots, as we said above).
(a) (Mishnah): Just as a woman who wants to collect the rest
of a Kesuvah which was already partially paid...must
swear, also orphans must swear to collect.
(b) Question: From whom do they (need to swear in order to)
1. Suggestion: From (Shimon,) the one who borrowed from
their father (Reuven).
(c) Answer: Rather, they must swear in order to collect from
2. Rejection: Reuven could have collected without
swearing, why must his orphans swear?!
(d) (Rav and Shmuel): This is only if Reuven died before
1. But if Shimon died first, Reuven could not have
collected from the orphans without swearing that he
was not paid;
(e) Question: Why doesn't it suffice for them to take the
oath of orphans ('Our father did not tell us that this
document was paid, nor did we find a receipt saying that
the document was paid')?
i. 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).
(f) Answer #1(R. Elazar): Indeed, they can swear thusly and
collect! (He argues with Rav and Shmuel.)
(g) Answer #2 (R. Ami): If Reuven tried collecting in Beis
Din from Shimon's orphans, and Beis Din ruled that he
must swear first, and he died before swearing, his heirs
do not inherit the right to collect through swearing;
1. If Reuven never tried to collect and he died, his
heirs inherit the money owed to him, they take the
oath of orphans and collect.
(h) Objection (Rav Nachman): The law does not depend on
whether or not he tried collecting in Beis Din - the
moment Shimon's died, the law is that he can only collect
if he swears!
(i) (Rav Nachman): Rather, if the Halachah follows Rav and
Shmuel, they cannot collect even if Reuven never tried
collecting; if the Halachah is not like Rav and Shmuel,
they can collect even if Reuven tried collecting in Beis
(j) Question: Rav Nachman is unsure whether the Halachah
follows Rav and Shmuel!
1. But Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that a case occurred,
and Rav Nachman ruled that they collect half!
(k) Answer: Rav Nachman meant, if Rav and Shmuel's
explanation of R. Meir is correct, we do not distinguish
whether Reuven tried collecting;
1. Rav Nachman himself holds that the Halachah follows
(l) (The following questions are against Rav and Shmuel, for
we see that heirs can inherit money which could only have
been collected by swearing to orphans.)
(m) Question #1 (Rav Oshaya - Mishnah): If a widow died
without collecting her Kesuvah, her heirs must express
within 25 years their intent to collect it (if they do
not, this shows that they waived their right to collect
from the other orphans).
(n) Answer: The case is, she swore that she did not collect
any part of her Kesuvah, but died before collecting it.
(o) Question #2 (Mishnah): Reuven married Leah; she died. He
married Rachel, and he died - Rachel or (if she died) her
heirs have precedence (to collect her Kesuvah) before
Leah's sons collect (Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, the right to
collect the dowry she brought into the marriage).
(p) Answer: Here also, Rachel swore and died before
(q) Question #3 (Mishnah): (Even if Reuven wrote in Leah's
Kesuvah that he waives the right to make her or her heirs
swear that she did not receive part of her Kesuvah, if
Reuven died before it was collected, his heirs can demand
an oath before paying her, her heirs, or anyone who
acquired the rights to her Kesuvah. (Since his heirs can
make her swear, the case is that she did not swear
(r) Answer (Rav Shemayah): The Mishnah puts together the laws
of two different cases:
1. His heirs can make her swear whether she was widowed
(s) Question #4 (Rav Noson bar Hoshaya - Beraisa): A son has
greater ability to collect (debts owed to his father,
after the father died) than his father:
2. They can make her heirs swear (the oath of orphans)
if she was divorced (a divorcee need not swear to
collect; but a widow must swear to collect, her
heirs do not inherit her Kesuvah).
4) THE FINAL RULING
1. A son sometimes collects through swearing, sometimes
he collects without swearing (this will be explained
(t) Answer: The Beraisa is Beis Shamai, who say that a
document is considered to be paid (even though the father
must swear to collect, it is as if he bequeaths money to
his son; Beis Hillel would say, the father only has the
right to collect through swearing, the son does not
2. A father only collects through swearing.
3. Question: What is the case?
4. Answer: The borrower died before the father
(therefore, the father could only collect through
5. Summation of question: A son collects without
swearing, when his father told witnesses just before
dying that he was not paid - this is like R. Shimon
i. All other times, he collects through swearing
the oath of orphans (even though his father
would have had to swear that he was not paid)!
(a) Suggestion (Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna): Let us
overturn the ruling of Rav and Shmuel!
5) SWEARING ABOUT AN UNCERTAIN CLAIM
(b) Rejection (Rav Nachman): No, but let us ensure that (even
those who rule like Rav and Shmuel) do not extend the law
to other cases.
(c) Question: What other cases might one have thought to
extend it to?
(d) Answer: Rav Papa's case.
1. (Rav Papa): If Reuven lent money with a document and
partially collected the loan, even though Reuven
must swear to collect the rest, his heirs inherit
the (right to collect) the money.
(e) (Rav Papa): Shimon lent money to Levi, Yehudah was an
Arev; Levi died. (Even though Shimon must swear in order
to collect from Yehudah,) Shimon's heirs inherit the
(f) Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): No - since
Yehudah can collect what he pays from Levi's heirs, this
is precisely the law of Rav and Shmuel (the heirs do not
(g) (Rami bar Chama): Shimon lent money to Levi; Levi died,
then Shimon died, and his brother inherited him. We do
not extend Rav and Shmuel's law to say that the brother
(h) Rejection (Rava): We do extend it, there is no difference
between 'Our father did not tell us...' and 'Our brother
did not tell us...'
(i) (Rav Chama): Since the Halachah was not decided to be
like Rav and Shmuel, nor like R. Elazar, whichever way a
judge rules, the ruling stands.
(j) (Rav Papa): Orphans have a loan document that they want
to collect from the orphans of the borrower - we do not
tear up the document, nor do we collect the debt for
1. We do not collect the debt for them, perhaps the
Halachah follows Rav and Shmuel (because we are in
doubt, it is better not to act);
(k) A judge ruled like R. Elazar; a Chacham told him 'I will
bring a letter from Eretz Yisrael saying that the
Halachah does not follow R. Elazar'.
2. We do not tear up the document, perhaps they will
find a judge that rules like R. Elazar.
1. The judge: Until you bring the letter, my ruling
2. The Chacham told this to Rav Chama.
3. Rav Chama: Whichever way a judge rules, the ruling
(a) (Mishnah): The following swear even when there is no
(b) Objection: If there is no claim, there is no reason to
(c) Answer: The Mishnah means, the following swear even when
the claim against them is uncertain: partners,
(d) (Beraisa): When the Mishnah says 'A member of the
household who goes in and out...', this does not mean
that he walks in and out, rather, he conducts business
with workers and produce.
(e) Question: Why must the people listed swear even when
there is no claim?
(f) Answer: Because they toil, they think they are entitled
to take (extra) compensation for themselves.
(g) (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): They are obligated to swear only
if there is a claim of (perhaps you took) at least two
Ma'os (for then this resembles a mid'Oraisa oath).
(h) Question: This is like Shmuel, who says that the claim
must be at least two Ma'os;
1. But R. Chiya's teaching supports Rav (who says that
the denial must be at least two Ma'os)!
(i) Answer: Rav Yosef means, there must be a denial of a
claim of at least two Ma'os.
(j) (Mishnah): After the partners split up (or the others
desist their positions)...
(k) Question: If a defendant must take a mid'Rabanan oath,
can the claimant Megalgel (force him to swear about other
(l) Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven borrowed from Shimon before
Shemitah, and became his partner (or sharecropper) after
Shemitah, Shimon (can make Reuven swear about the
partnership, but he) cannot Megalgel (force him to swear
about the loan);
1. Inference: This is because Shemitah cancels the
loan, if not for this (e.g. if he borrowed after
Shemitah), he could Megalgel, even though the oath
of partners is mid'Rabanan!
(m) Question: Perhaps the inference is that if Reuven became
Shimon's partner before Shemitah, and borrowed from him
after Shemitah (and admitted to part of the loan), Shimon
could (make Reuven swear mid'Oraisa about the loan, and)
Megalgel (an oath about the partnership)!
(n) Answer: That cannot be, for end of the Beraisa explicitly
1. (End of the Beraisa): If Reuven became Shimon's
partner before Shemitah, and borrowed from him after
Shemitah, Shimon can Megalgel.
2. We conclude that one can Megalgel, even from a