(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shevuos 48



(a) In a case where Reuven asks a storekeeper for a Dinar's worth of fruit, and when the latter asks for the money, he claims that he already paid him and that he put the money in his purse, our Mishnah obligates Reuven to swear a Shevu'as Heses that he paid. Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa qualifies this ruling - by establishing it when the fruit is still piled up in the storekeeper's Reshus (or in the Reshus ha'Rabim [see commentaries on the Mishnah); once Reuven has placed it in his box and has slung it over his shoulder however, he absolves Reuven from the Shevuah.

(b) Having taught us the basic Halachah in the case of the fruit, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat the same Halachah with regard to the banker - because money, unlike fruit, does not tend to go bad, in which case we may have thought that, even if the storekeeper might have perhaps been in a hurry to place the *fruit* in Reuven's box before the latter gave him the money, the banker would certainly not give him the coins before he had paid (and we would not therefore believe Reuven, even with a Shevu'ah).

(c) And the reason that he found it necessary to present the case of fruit as well is - to teach us that even there, Rebbi Yehudah holds that the storekeeper would not give Reuven the fruit before he paid.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Yesomim may only claim with a Shevu'ah. This can only be referring to claiming from other Yesomim - because otherwise, there is no more reason to obligate them to swear than their father, who would have claimed without a Shevu'ah (as we learned earlier).

(b) Rav and Shmuel qualify this ruling - by restricting it to where the creditor died before the debtor, because otherwise, the creditor would have already been Chayav a Shevu'ah to the Yesomim, and an heir does not inherit money which requires a Shevu'ah (as we explained earlier).

(c) They sent Rebbi Elazar a She'eilah, asking what this Shevu'ah was in aid of. He replied - that although he did not know how Yesomim could be expected to take the same oath as their father, he did know that they would have to swear the triple-Shevu'as ha'Yorshin ('she'Lo Pakadnu Aba ... ') before claiming the money.

(d) When they sent him the She'eilah again in the days of Rebbi Ami - he expressed surprise that they did so. Had he known the answer, he sent back, he would certainly have let them know.

(a) Although Rebbi Elazar did not know any more about the Shevu'ah than he did the first time, he did however, cite them a statement by Rebbi Ami regarding 'Amad ba'Din u'Meis'. He was referring to a case where the Loveh died first, and the Malveh had already claimed from the Yesomim before he died.

(b) In the case of ...

1. ... 'Amad ba'Din u'Meis', he ruled - 'Ein Adam Morish Shevu'ah la'Banav'.
2. ... 'Lo Amad ba'Din u'Meis', he ruled - that the Yesomim are obligated to swear the Shevu'as ha'Yorshin (as we just explained).
(c) Rebbi Ami's first ruling clashes with that of Rav and Shmuel - inasmuch as he requires the Malveh to have been specifically obligated by Beis-Din, in order to negate his heirs right to claim, whereas Rav and Shmuel negate it from the moment the Loveh died.

(d) Rav Nachman therefore commented - that either one holds like Rav and Shmuel or one doesn't (meaning that one holds like Rebbi Aba).

(a) Based on the testimony of Rav bar Minyumi, when a case of 'Sheneihen Chashudin' came before Rav Nachman - he ruled 'Yachloku' ...

(b) ... implying that he does not rule like Rav and Shmuel. When in his previous statement, he seems to have a Safek whether to rule like them or not - he meant on the assumption that we hold like Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah' (after we invert the opinions), whereas he personally, holds like Rebbi Yossi.

(a) The Mishnah in Kesuvos grants a woman (who is not claiming Mezonos) - twenty- five years after her husband's death, before she forfeits her rights to her Kesuvah.

(b) Should she die during that time period - her heirs simply take over her rights until it elapses.

(c) Bearing in mind that the husband died first, Rebbi Oshaya ask from here on Rav and Shmuel - according to whom her heirs ought not to be allowed to claim at all, seeing as the woman already became Chayav a Shevu'ah to her husband's heirs and 'Ein Adam Morish Shevu'ah le'Banav'.

(d) To reconcile Rav and Shmuel with the Beraisa, we establish it when the widow swore to the Yorshin before she died.

(a) Rav Sh'mayah establishes the Beraisa, which, with reference to the previous Beraisa, obligates her or her Yorshim (or whoever comes on account of her) to swear - 'li'Tzedadin'. It obligates her to swear and claim even if she is an Almanah, but her Yorshin ... only if their mother was a Gerushah.

(b) Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya asks further from another Beraisa which gives a son the edge over his father 'she'ha'Ben Govah bein bi'Shevu'ah bein she'Lo bi'Shevu'ah, ve'ha'Av Eino Govah Ela bi'Shevu'ah', which speaks - when the father of the Loveh died before their father.

(c) The son then claims ...

1. ... with a Shevu'ah - if there are no witnesses that his father left instructions before his death that the debt was already paid.
2. ... without a Shevu'ah - if there are, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah.
(d) To reconcile Rav and Shmuel with the Beraisa, we establish the author as Beis Shamai, who hold in a Mishnah in Sotah 'Sh'tar ha'Omed Lig'vos ke'Gavuy Dami'. Consequently, the heirs will inherit their father's rights in spite of the Shevu'ah, seeing as it is not a Shevu'ah that they are inheriting, but proper Mamon (on which the Shevu'ah is incidental).



(a) When Rav Nachman arrived in Sura, Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna greeted him - with the suggestion that they negate the ruling of Rav and Shmuel (even though this was Rav's territory).

(b) Rav Nachman's declined - on the grounds that 'he had not traveled all that distance to negate the rulings of Rav and Shmuel.

(c) He did suggest however - that they limit Rav and Shmuel's ruling to the one case exclusively, and not to extend it to any other.

(d) In fact, he had in mind to preclude a case which Rav Papa (who lived after Rav Nachman) ruled - in which Shimon admitted in Beis-Din that he had paid half his debt. In a case where first Shimon and then Reuven, subsequently died, Rav Papa ruled 'Yorshin Nishba'in Shevu'as Yorshin, ve'Notlin'.

(a) Rav Papa also tried to add to the above, a case where Reuven lent Shimon money backed by a guarantor, and Shimon's subsequent death was followed by the death of Reuven - because, he thought, since it is not from Shimon's Yesomim that Reuven's Yesomim are claiming, but from the guarantor, it is not the same case as that of Rav and Shmuel.

(b) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua proved him wrong however - based on the fact that once the guarantor has paid, he claims from the Yesomim, in which case it is the same case as that of Rav and Shmuel.

(c) When Rami bar Chama wanted to add to the list of exceptions a case where Reuven's brother, not his son, produced a Sh'tar against Shimon's heirs - Rava asked him why it should make a difference whether the heir swears that his *father* did not leave word that the debt was paid, or whether he says that it was his *brother*?

(a) With regard to the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar on the other, Rav Chama finally rules - that whichever way a Dayan rules, it is acceptable.

(b) Rav Papa rules that if Reuven's Yesomim produce a Sh'tar against Shimon's, we neither tear it up - in case the Dayan before whom they will eventually appear rules like Rebbi Elazar, nor do we allow them to claim with it - in case he holds like Rav and Shmuel.

(c) When a Dayan ruled like Rebbi Elazar, a certain Talmid-Chacham - threatened to bring a letter from Eretz Yisrael, to the effect that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Elazar.

(d) Rebbi Chama eventually corroborated the Dayan's ruling. Meanwhile, the Dayan response was - that he would worry when the letter arrived.

(a) We ask on our Mishnah 've'Eilu Nishba'in she'Lo be'Ta'anah, ha'Shutfin ve'ha'Arisin ... ' 'Atu be'Shofteni Askinan' - by which we mean to ask why a person should be so stupid as to swear when there is no claimant.

(b) We answer - that the Tana does not mean that there is no claimant at all, but that he only claims with a Ta'anas Safek, instead of the Ta'anas Vaday that normally elicits a Shevu'ah.

(c) 'ben Bayis' mentioned in the same list does not mean any member of the household, but one who benefits the household by bringing workers or fruit in and out of the house.

(d) The reason for the Shevu'ah in all these cases is - because, due to the fact that they all work on the joint property, we suspect that they might allow themselves the liberty of helping themselves to some of the proceeds of their hard work.

(a) The problem with Rav Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman's initial statement 've'Hu she'Yesh Ta'anah Beinaihu Sh'tei Kesef' - is the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya in support of Rav (that we already cited above), whereas Rav Nachman's statement follows the opinion of Shmuel.

(b) So we amend it to read - 've'Hu she'Yesh Kefiras Ta'anah Beinaihu Sh'tei Kesef', which is the opinion of Rav.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if Shimon borrowed money from Reuven before the Sh'mitah-year and became his partner after it - Reuven cannot force Shimon to make a 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' to include claims concerning the original loan (assuming that he was a Kofer ba'Kol).

(b) We can extrapolate from there - that during the other years of the cycle, he can.

(c) The Shevu'ah referred to here must be a Shevu'as ha'Shomrim and not a Shevu'as Heses - because it was only in the time of Rav Nachman that they instituted a Shevu'as Heses; it did not yet exist in the days of the Tana'im.

(a) We are trying to prove from the above inference - that one can even force someone to make a Gilgul Shevu'ah together with a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan.

(b) To refute this proof however, we amend the inference from the Beraisa to read - 'Ha Na'aseh Lo Shutaf O Aris Erev Shevi'is, u'le'Motza'ei Shevi'is Lavah Heimenu, Megalgelin ...

(c) ... negating the proof that 'Gilgul Shevu'ah applies to a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan - since we are now speaking when the Loveh admitted to part of the claim or there was a witness, rendering the main Shevu'ah a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa.

(d) We reject this refutal however - on the grounds that the Beraisa specifically teaches us that case (and we would not need to learn it from an inference) ...

(e) ... leaving us with the original inference, a proof that even a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan can enforce another Shevu'ah by means of a Gilgul.

(a) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda both agree that Gilgul Shevu'ah applies to all Shevuos de'Rabbanan except one - namely, the case of 'Sachir' in our Mishnah.

(b) Rav Huna says 'la'Kol Megalgelin Chutz mi'Sachir'. Rav Chisda says - 'Ein Makilin Chutz mi'Sachir'.

(c) The ramifications of their Machlokes are - that according to Rav Huna, if the claimant fails to ask for a Gulgul Shevu'ah, then Beis-Din will enforce it, whereas according to Rav Chisda it is only if the claimant asks for it that Beis-Din force the defendant to swear, but not otherwise (by a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa, it seems, Rav Chisda will agree that Beis-Din force the defendant to swear a 'Gilgul Shevu'ah'.

(d) Rav Gidal Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh *D'var* ha'Shemitah" - that Shevi'is negates the Shevu'ah, as well as the actual debt.

***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Nishba'in' *****

Next daf


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