(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 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 whether Heizid bi'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is Chayav a Korban even if one was warned.
With whom had the three Chachamim been learning when Rav Kahana met them?

(b) Assuming that the Nishba was warned, on what grounds might he be ...

  1. ... Chayav a Korban?
  2. ... Patur?
(c) What is the third possibility?

(d) Why did they not ask the same She'eilah by Shevu'as ha'Eidus, which is also Chayav be'Meizid?

(a) How did the three Chachamim try to resolve Rav Kahana's She'eilah from the Mishnah 'Chamurah Heimenah Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, she'Chayavin al Zedonah Malkos ve'al Shigegasah Asham ... '?

(b) What does the Tana then mean there by 'Chamurah Heimenah Shevu'as ha'Pikadon'? In what way is Shevu'as ha'Pikadon be'Meizid more stringent than Shevu'as ha'Eidus?

(c) How did Rava bar Isi refute their proof by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon?

(a) Rav Kahana himself goes one step further, establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and changing the text.
How could he be so certain that his version was the correct one?

(b) Why does the proof from the Beraisa now fall away?

(c) How does Rav Kahana then explain the words 'Chamurah Heimenu Shevu'as ha'Pikadon'? Bearing in mind the distinction between the two Korbanos, what way is Shevu'as ha'Pikadon more stringent than Shevu'as ha'Eidus, according to him?

(d) Why is 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 ... '?
  2. ... our Mishnah 'Eino Chayav al Shigegasah, u'Mah Hu Chayav al Zedonah, Asham ... '?
(a) How do 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'? Like which side of the She'eilah does this seem to go?

(b) We refute this proof however, by explaining 'Eino Lokeh' to mean that Malkos is insufficient and that he requires a Korban too (like the third side).
What problem do we have with this explanation?

(c) How do we deal with the problem? What is the purpose of the Korban of a Tamei Nazir?

(a) What was Rabah's reaction, when his Talmidim told him Rav Kahana's She'eilah? What problem did he have with the fact that Rav Kahana only asked about a case where the witnesses actually warned the Nishba?

(b) The Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk in Vayikra (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'. What does this mean?

(c) What does the Tana then learn from "ve'Nishba al Sheker"?

(d) How does Rav Chanina attempt to support Rabah's opinion from the Seifa of the Beraisa? How does he interpret 'P'rat le'Loveh bi'Sh'tar'?

(a) How doe Rabah himself refute Rav Chanina's proof? How does he interpret the Beraisa?

(b) And he extrapolates this from the Reisha? How must the Reisha 'P'rat le'Modeh le'Echad min ha'Achin O le'Echad min ha'Shutfin' speak? Why can it not be speaking when he admitted to the half of the claimant?

(c) We learned in our Mishnah 'Eino Chayav al Shigegasah, u'Mahu Chayav al Zedonah, Asham ... '.
How do we try to disprove Rabah from here? How do we explain 'Zedonah'?

(d) How will Rabah then explain 'Zedonah' to answer the Kashya?

(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.
What do we ask on Rabah from the fact that the first pair of witnesses is Chayav?

(b) How does Ravina repudiate this Kashya? How will Rabah establish the status of the second pair of witnesses?

Answers to questions



(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.
What does the Tana rule in a case where he confessed only after the witnesses arrived?

(b) How do we learn the learn the latter ruling from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Shilem Oso be'Rosho va'Chamishiso Yosef Alav"?

(c) Why is there no proof that one is Chayav a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon even on money on which there are witnesses, from ...

  1. ... this Beraisa?
  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?
(d) What do 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'?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabah's statement anyway.
What does he say about someone who denies money on which there are ...
  1. ... witnesses?
  2. ... a document?
(b) Rav papa attributes Rebbi Yochanan's distinction to the fact that witnesses eventually die, whereas documents remain intact.
On what grounds does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua beg to differ?

(c) So how does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explain Rebbi Yochanan's ruling? To what does he ascribe his latter ruling regarding documents?

(d) How does what we just said resolve the dilemma with regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar regarding whether 'Eidei Karka' are subject to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon or not, as to who said what?

(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.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) Over which principle do they argue?

(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 from the Pasuk second Ribuy in the Pasuk "ve'Chichesh ba'Amiso" ... "O mi'Kol Asher Yishava Alav la'Shaker''.
Which sole item does he preclude from the 'Miy'ut' "be'Pikadon O bi'Sesumes Yad ... "?

(d) According to the Rabbanan, which two similarities to the 'P'rat' "be'Pikadon O bi'Sesumes Yad O be'Gazel" must an article possess before it can be subject to a Shevu'ah?

(e) Besides Karka (which is not 'Mitaltel) and Sh'taros (which are not 'Gufo Mamon'), what else do the Rabbanan preclude? Why is that?

(a) We try to connect the above-mentioned Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar regarding 'Mashbi'a Eidei Karka' to the current Machlokes.
What is the purpose of this comparison?

(b) Like whom would each one then hold?

(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. Based on the 'Mem' in the word "mi'Kol ( Asher Yishava ... "), why might even Rebbi Eliezer hold Patur by 'Mashbi'a Eidei Karka' (like Rebbi Yochanan)?

(d) How does ... ... Rav Papa attempt to prove Rebbi Yochanan right from our Mishnah, which incorporates a case of

  1. 'Ganavta es Shori' in the Din of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon?
  2. ... Rav Papi quoting Rava, refute the proof from the Seifa 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo Chayav ... '?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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