(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 32


(a) Why can we not learn Shmuel's Din ('Ra'uhu she'Ratz Achareihen') from our Mishnah, which begins its definition of Shevu'as ha'Eidus with the words 'Amar li'Shenayim Bo'u ve'He'iduni"? Why can we not infer from there that 'Ratz Achareihem' is not good enough?

(b) Does Shevu'as ha'Pikadon require 'Amar' too? What do we learn from "ve'Kichesh ba'Amiso"?

(a) Why will saying 'La'av Davka' in both Mishnahs pose a Kashya on Sh'muel?

(b) Why would there be no problem if 'Amar' came to preclude 'Ratz Achareihem' (not like Shmuel)?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya?

(d) We cite a Beraisa in support of Sh'muel.
What does the Beraisa say?

(a) Our Mishnah invalidates a Shevu'as ha'Eidus that the witnesses denied outside Beis-Din.
How does Abaye learn this from the Pasuk "Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono"?

(b) When Rav Papa then asked Abaye why we do not also invalidate the Shevu'ah itself when it is made outside Beis-Din, he replied based on the Beraisa "le'Achas", 'le'Chayav Al Kol Achas ve'Achas'.
What does the Tana mean with this D'rashah?

(c) How does this D'rashah serve to answer Rav Papa's Kashya?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the two witnesses denied the Shevu'ah simultaneously, they are both Chayav.
What problem do we have with this?

(b) Rav Chisda establishes the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who holds 'Efshar Letzamtem'. Rebbi Yochanan establishes it even like the Rabbanan.
How does he then answer the original Kashya (from 'I Efshar Letzamtzem')?

(c) According to some texts, we establish 'Toch K'dei Dibur' either as 'K'dei She'eilas Talmid le'Rav, or as K'dei Rav le'Talmid'.
What is the difference between the two opinions?

(d) How do we nevertheless reconcile this explanation with the fact that the wording of Shevu'as ha'Eidus 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Anu Yod'im Lecha Eidus' said by two people inevitably takes longer than 'Toch K'dei Dibur'?

(a) We establish our Mishnah, which exempts the second witness from Shevu'as ha'Eidus (should he testify after 'Toch K'dei Dibur'), like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (but not like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar).
What does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) How do we initially establish the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) The Rabbanan Darshen the Pasuk "Lo Yakum Eid Echad le'Chol Avon u'le'Chol Chatas", 'Aval Kam Hu li'Shevu'ah'.
How will Rebbi Shimon Darshen it?

(d) Based on a statement of Abaye, which we are about to discuss, we conclude that even according to Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, one witness comes to obligate the defendant to swear.
Then why is he Chayav for his denial?

(a) What did Abaye mean when he said (with regard to Shevu'as ha'Eidus) 'ha'Kol Modim ...
  1. ... be'Eid Sotah she'Chayav'? Why do the Rabbanan concede that he is Chayav?
  2. ... be'Eidei Sotah she'Patur'? Why does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon concede that they are Patur?
(b) In which case do the Rabbanan and Rebi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon then argue?
Answers to questions



(a) What is the Din in a case where the defendant cannot swear because he is suspected of making a false Shevu'ah?

(b) When Abaye continued 'ha'Kol Modim be'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah', why could he not have been referring to a regular case where the borrower is suspect?

(c) Then to which case was he referring? Why is this case more clear-cut than the previous one?

(a) In the case of 'Naska de'Rav Aba', one witness testified that Reuven had grabbed a lump of silver from Shimon.
What would the Halachah normally have been?

(b) What was Rebbi Ami's dilemma?

(c) How did Rebbi Aba, who was sitting in front of Rebbi Ami, solve his dilemma?

(d) In the case of 'Naska de'Rebbi Aba, bearing in mind that since there are no two witnesses that he grabbed the silver, why do we not believe him with a 'Migu' since he could have denied having done so?

(a) Rav Papa follows in the footsteps of Abaye. To which case is he referring when he says 'ha'Kol Modim be'Eid Misah she'Hu ...
  1. ... Patur'? How is this based on the Mishnah in Yevamos?
  2. ... Chayav'?
(b) Bearing in mind that a woman's basic claim on her Kesuvah is Karka, does this mean that Rav Papa holds that 'Mashbi'a Eidei Karka Chayav' (despite the fact that this is a major Machlokes later in 'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon')?
(a) What is the problem with our Mishnah presenting first the case of 'Kafru Sheneihen be'Zeh Achar Zeh, ha'Rishon Chayav ... ' and then 'Kafar Echad ve'Hodeh Echad ha'Kofer Chayav'?

(b) To answer the Kashya, we establish the Seifa when the second witness initially denied knowledge of the testimony together with the first one.
What is then the Chidush? How does this answer the Kashya?

(c) According to Rav Chisda, who established the Reisha ('Kafru Sheneihen ke'Achas') like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the Reisha teaches us 'Efshar Letzamtzem', and the Seifa 'Toch K'dei Dibur'.
What is the problem, according to Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) How do we solve the problem according to Rebbi Yochanan too? Why do we need two Mishnah's to teach us 'Toch K'dei Dibur'?

(a) In the Mishnah's final case (of two pairs of witnesses), the second pair is clearly Chayav, since the first pair have already denied knowledge of the testimony.
What problem do we have with the Mishnah's ruling, obligating the first pair too?

(b) How do we establish the Mishnah, to answer the Kashya?

(c) What is the Chidush? What would we otherwise have thought?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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