ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 37
(a) Rav Kahana asked Rav Acha bar Huna, Rav Shmuel B'rei de'Rabah bar bar
Chanah and Rav Yitzchak B'rei de'Rav Yehudah - who had been learning
Shevu'os with Rabah, whether Heizid bi'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is Chayav a
Korban even one was warned.
(b) Assuming that the Nishba was warned, he might be ...
1. ... Chayav a Korban - because now that the Torah prescribes a Korban be
Meizid, which it does not usually do, we take the Chidush to its extreme.
(c) The third possibility is - that one brings a Korban as well as receiving
2. ... Patur - because perhaps it is only when there is no warning, where no
Malkos is due, that one has to bring a Korban, but when there is a warning,
why should he not receive Malkos
(d) They did not ask the same She'eilah by Shevu'as ha'Eidus, which is also
Chayav be'Meizid - because seeing as nobody can really know that the alleged
witnesses really know what is being asked of them, there is no such thing as
a 'Vaday Hasra'ah' (see also Tosfos DH 'Heizid).
(a) The three Chachamim tried to resolve Rav Kahana's She'eilah from the
Beraisa 'Chamurah Heimenah Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, she'Chayavin al Zedonah
Malkos ve'al Shigegasah Asham ... ' - which clearly speaks when the Nishba
was warned (otherwise he would not receive Malkos), and the Tana sentences
him to Malkos, implying but not a Korban (like the second side of the
(b) When the Tana then says 'Chamurah Heimenah Shevu'as ha'Pikadon' - he
means that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon be'Meizid is more stringent than Shevu'as
ha'Eidus, who brings a Korban under the same circumsances, because a person
would rather bring a Korban than receive Malkos.
(c) Rava bar Isi refutes their proof however, by establishing the Beraisa in
question (which holds that there is no Korban for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon
be'Meizid) like Rebbi Shimon (who learned like that in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus)
but according to the Rabbanan, who hold that one brings a Korban be'Meizid
too, one might be Chayav a Chatas as well as Malkos in the case where he was
warned (like the third side of the She'eilah).
(a) Rav Kahana himself goes one step further, establishing the Beraisa like
the Rabbanan, and changing the text. He knew that his version was the
correct one - because he was the one to introduce the Beraisa in the first
(b) The proof from the Beraisa now falls away - since it is possible to
establish the Beraisa when there was no warning (and therefore no Malkos),
as we will explain shortly.
(c) Rav Kahana explains the words 'Chamurah Heimenu Shevu'as ha'Pikadon' to
mean - that whereas the Chatas of Shevu'as ha'Eidus has no minimum
price-tag, that of the Asham Gezeilos does, as we explained in our Mishnah.
(d) There no proof from ...
1. ... Rav Kahana's version of the Beraisa that one is Chayav a Korban
besides Malkos since the Beraisa specifically writes 'Echad Zedonah ve'Echad
Shigegasah Asham ... ' - seeing as the Tana could be speaking when there was
2. ... our Mishnah 'Eino Chayav al Shigegasah, u'Mah Hu Chayav al Zedonah,
Asham ... ' - because there too, the Tana might be speaking when there was
(a) We try to resolve Rav Kahana's She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Lo Im Amarta
be'Nazir Tamei she'Kein Lokeh, Tomar bi'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon she'Eino Lokeh',
based on the inference from the Reisha, that it must be speaking where there
was a Hasra'ah. In that case, the Seifa clearly holds that there is no
Malkos, but there is a Korban (like the first side of the She'eilah).
(b) We refute this proof by explaining 'Eino Lokeh' to mean that Malkos is
insufficient and that he requires a Korban too (like the third side). The
problem with this explanation is - the inference that in the Reisha, Malkos
will suffice, when the Torah specifically obligates a Tamei Nazir to bring a
(c) The answer is - that it may well be that Malkos does indeed complete the
Kaparah, and the purpose of the Korban is to enable the Nazir to begin
counting his Nezirus afresh.
(a) When Rabah's Talmidim told him over Rav Kahana's She'eilah, he had a
problem with the fact that Rav Kahana only asked about a case where the
witnesses actually warned the Nishba - implying that if they hadn't, he
would certainly be Chayav. But surely, in such a case, where he could not
deny the loan (or whatever), irrespective of the fact that he wasn't Chayav
Malkos, it should not be considered a denial of Mamon, and he should not be
(b) The Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk (in connection with Shevu'as ha'Pikadon)
"ve'Chichesh Bah", 'P'rat le'Modeh le'Echad min ha'Achin O le'Echad min
ha'Shutfin', meaning - that he admitted that he owed one of the brothers or
partners who claimed from him.
(c) The Tana then learns from "ve'Nishba al Sheker" - to preclude someone
who borrows with a document or someone who borrows with witnesses.
(d) Rav Chanina attempts to support Rabah's opinion from the Seifa of the
Beraisa - by interpreting it to mean that he denied money on which there was
a Sh'tar or Eidim (concurring with Rabah's ruling).
(a) Rabah himself refutes Rav Chanina's proof however by interpreting the
Beraisa to mean - that he admitted to the loan but denied having handed him
a Sh'tar or that there were witnesses who had seen the transaction taking
place (because then he is not denying anything real).
(b) He extrapolated this from the Reisha 'P'rat le'Modeh le'Echad min
ha'Achin O le'Echad min ha'Shutfin', which must be speaking (not when he
admitted to half of one of the claimants, because then, why should he not be
Chayav on the half which he denies, but) - when he admitted that he owed the
entire amount to the claimant and denied that his brother or his partner had
any claim on him (where again, he is not really denying anything).
(c) We learned in our Mishnah 'Eino Chayav al Shigegasah, u'Mahu Chayav al
Zedonah, Asham ... '. On the assumption - that 'Zedonah' refers to the
warning of witnesses (see Hagahos ha'Bach), we see from here that one is
Chayav even when there are witnesses, a Kashya on Rabah.
(d) Rabah will therefore explain 'Zedonah' to mean Zadon Atzmo, when he
deliberately swore falsely, but where there were no witnesses.
(a) The Mishnah in Shevu'as ha'Eidus ruled that if two pairs of witnesses
both denied having witnessed a transaction, both are Chayav because either
testimony could clinch the deal. We ask why, according to Rabah, the first
pair of witnesses is Chayav, seeing as the second pair has not yet testified
(in which case he has not really denied anything).
(b) Ravina repudiates this Kashya (like he did in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus' - by
establishing the second pair of witnesses as being related to the first pair
through their wives, who were Gosesos when the first pair testified (and it
comes to teach us that in spite of the fact that the majority of Gosesin
die, we consider them alive up to the point of death), in which case, the
second pair was not fit at the time to testify (until one of the pair's
(a) If a guardian claims that the Pikadon he is looking after has been
stolen, swears and then, before witnesses testify, he confesses that he
still has it in his possession, the Beraisa rules that he must pay the
article plus a fifth and bring a Korban. But if he confessed only after the
witnesses arrived, the Tana rules - that he pays the article plus double and
brings an Asham, but not an extra fifth ...
(b) ... because of the Pasuk "ve'Shilem Oso be'Rosho va'Chamishiso Yosef
Alav", from which we Darshen 'Mamon ha'Mishtalem be'Rosh, Mosif Chomesh ...
' (only when one pays the principle and not more, does one add a fifth, but
not when one has to pay double as well).
(c) There is no proof that one is Chayav a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon even on money
on which there are witnesses, from ...
1. ... this Beraisa - because we establish it when the wives were related at
the time of the Shevu'ah, like Ravina established the Beraisa above.
(d) And we finally prove from the Beraisa that we also cited on the previous
Amud 'Lo Im Amarta be'Nazir Tamei she'Kein Lokeh, Tomar bi'Shevu'as
ha'Pikadon she'Eino Lokeh' - which (like we just said about the initial text
of the previous Beraisa), must be speaking when there are witnesses and
warning, yet the Tana concludes Tomar bi'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon she'Eino
Lokeh', implying that he brings a Korban nonetheless (a Kashya on Rabah).
2. ... the Beraisa that we cited on the previous Amud 'Chamurah Mimenu
Shevu'as ha'Pikadon she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'Al Shigegasah Asham ...
', which must be speaking when there were witnesses and warning (otherwise
he would not receive Malkos) as we explained there, (as Ravina asked Rav
Ashi) - because, as Rav Mordechai reminded them, Rav Kahana already changed
the text of the Beraisa to read 'Echad Zedonah ve'Echad Shigegasah Asham ...
(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabah's statement. He rules that if
someone denies money on which there are ...
1. ... witnesses - he is Chayav?
(b) Rav papa attributes Rebbi Yochanan's distinction to the fact that
witnesses eventually die, whereas documents remain intact. Rav Huna B'rei
de'Rav Yehoshua begs to differ - on the grounds that documents too, tend to
2. ... a document - he is Patur.
(c) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua therefore ascribes Rebbi Yochanan's
ruling regarding documents to - the fact that every Sh'tar involves 'Shibud
Karka'os' (a basic claim on the debtor's Karka), on which there is no
Shevu'ah, as we shall now see.
(d) This resolves the dilemma with regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi
Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar who argue whether 'Eidei Karka' are subject to
Shevu'as ha'Pikadon or not, as to who said what. Clearly then - Rebbi Yochan
an is the one who holds that they are not.
(a) In the Mishnah in Bava Kama, Rebbi Eliezer obligates Reuven to replace
the field that he robbed from Shimon in the event that a river subsequently
overflowed its banks and swamped it. The Rabbanan rule - that he is Patur.
(b) They argue over the principle - 'Ein Karka Nigzeles' (the opinion of the
Rabbanan, with which Rebbi Eliezer disagrees).
(c) The basis of their Machlokes lies in whether to Darshen 'Ribuy, Miy'ut
and Ribuy' or 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal'. Rebbi Eliezer who Darshens 'Ribuy,
Miy'ut ve'Ribuy', includes everything from the second Ribuy in the Pasuk
"ve'Chichesh ba'Amiso" ... "O mi'Kol Asher Yishava Alav la'Shaker''. And
from the 'Miy'ut' "be'Pikadon O bi'Sesumes Yad ... " he precludes - Sh'taros
(which have no intrinsic value).
(d) According to the Rabbanan, the two similarities to the 'P'rat'
"be'Pikadon O bi'Sesumes Yad O be'Gazel" that an article must possess before
it can be subject to a Shevu'ah are - 'Mitaltel, ve'Gufo Mamon' (moveable
and of intrinsic value).
(e) Besides Karka (which is not 'Mitaltel) and Sh'taros (which are not 'Gufo
Mamon'), the Rabbanan preclude Avadim, because in Behar, the Torah compares
them to Karka (in the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem").
(a) We try to connect the above-mentioned Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan
and Rebbi Elazar regarding 'Mashbi'a Eidei Karka' to the current Machlokes -
posing a Kashya on the Amora'im, as to why they repeat a Machlokes Tana'im.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan would then hold like the Rabbanan, and Rebbi Elazar, like
(c) But we refute the Kashya on the grounds that whereas both Rebbi Yochanan
and Rebbi Elazar both agree that the Rabbanan will definitely preclude Karka
from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, they dispute Rebbi Eliezer's opinion. In fact, we
conclude, even Rebbi Eliezer night hold Patur by 'Mashbi'a Eidei Karka'
(like Rebbi Yochanan), because of the 'Mem' in the word "mi'Kol ( Asher
Yishava ... ") from which we Darshen "mi'Kol", 've'Lo ha'Kol'. In other
words, even Rebbi Eliezer will concede to the Rabbanan, that the Torah
precludes Karka from a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon.
1. Rav Papa attempts to prove Rebbi Yochanan right from our Mishnah, which
incorporates a case of 'Ganavta es Shori' in the Din of Shevu'as
ha'Pikadon - from which we can infer that he does include 'Ganavta es Avdi'.
2. Rav Papi however quoting Rava, refutes the proof from the Seifa 'Zeh
ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo Chayav ... ' - which comes to include
Eved. Consequently, we cannot learn anything from our Mishnah regarding Eved