(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 46

SHEVUOS 46 (7 Adar) - dedicated in memory of the passing (on 7 Adar 5748/1988) of Moreinu Ha'Rav Ha'Gaon Rav Shaul David Ha'Kohen Margulies ZT'L, Av Beis Din of Prushkov (suburb of Warsaw), Rav of Congregation Degel Israel (Queens, N.Y.), examiner for Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin (in Poland) and close disciple of ha'Gaon Rav Meir Shapiro (initiator of the Daf ha'Yomi). Dedicated by Rebbetzin Margulies and Rabbi and Mrs. David Sheinfeld.


(a) They sent from Rav's Beis-Hamedrash to ask Shmuel who will have to swear in a case where the craftsman claims that he was promised two Zuz, and the employer counters that they only agreed on one.
What did Shmuel reply?

(b) What reason did he give to differentiate between this ruling and that of 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'?

(c) How does Rav Nachman reconcile this with Rabah bar Shmuel, who concluded (in this very case) 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah', implying that if the employee does not prove his claim, he loses outright (without the employer having to swear)?

(a) We have a problem with Shmuel however, from a Beraisa which discuses a case where a tailor claims two Zuz for repairing a coat, and the owner claims that he only agreed to pay one.
What does the Tana rule as long as the tailor still has the coat in his possession?

(b) If he already returned the coat to the owner, and claims his wages within the time limit, the Tana applies the ruling of our Mishnah 'Sachir bi'Zemano ... '.
What does he Tana rule in a case where he claims his wages after the time limit has expired?

(c) Which of these rulings is a Kashya on Shmuel?

(d) To reconcile the Beraisa with Shmuel, Rav Nachman establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(a) Why do we reject the suggestion that the Rebbi Yehudah referred to by Rav Nachman is the one in our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, ad she'Tehei Sham Miktzas Hoda'ah'?

(b) We therefore conclude that he is referring to Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa. The Tana Kama there stresses that the Sachir only swears as long as it is within the time limit set by the Torah. Rebbi Yehudah restricts this ruling to a 'Modeh be'Miktzas'.
What two examples does he give of ...

  1. ... 'Modeh be'Miktzas'?
  2. ... 'Kofer ba'Kol (who does not swear)?
(c) What logistical problem does Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi have with confining the 'Kula' of 'Katzatzta Shetayim ... ' to Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) On the other hand, what problem do we have with extending it to the Rabbanan?

4) To reconcile Rabah bar Shmuel with the Beraisa, Rava concludes that in fact, Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over two separate issues.
On what grounds ...
  1. ... is Rebbi Yehudah strict with the Sachir in the case of 'Kofer ba'Kol'?
  2. ... are the Rabbanan strict with him in the case of 'Shetayim Katzatzta Li ... '?
(a) What did Rav Nachman say about Reuven who picks up an ax and announces that he is going to chop down Shimon's tree, in the event that Shimon's tree is subsequently found chopped down?

(b) What is the logic behind Rav Nachman's ruling?

(c) Based on this logic, what problem do we have with the case of 'Nigzal' in our Mishnah?

(d) If, as we conclude, the Tana is speaking about vessels that witnesses actually saw the 'Gazlan' taking away objects, why do they not also testify which objects he took?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rav Yehudah say about Reuven who is seen leaving Shimon's house with objects hidden in his clothes, which he claims he purchased from Shimon? What does Shimon say?

(b) Will he be believed with a Shevu'ah?

(c) This will not apply, says Rav Yehudah, to a case where Shimon sells such objects.
How does he qualify this statement? In which circumstances will Reuven be believed with a Shevu'ah even if ...

  1. ... Shimon does not?
  2. ... they are not objects that one tends to hide?
(d) If neither of these conditions is fulfilled, which combination of facts will be responsible for his not being believed?
(a) In which circumstances is Shimon never believed?

(b) With regard to which kind of objects is Reuven believed, irrespective of the above?

(a) Rav Huna bar Avin proved this from Rava.
From whom did he allow someone to claim a 'Zuga de'Sarb'la' and a 'Sifra de'Agad'ta'?
What is a 'Zuga de'Sarb'la'?

(b) What was the case?

(c) What does Rav Huna bar Avin prove from this episode? How does he prove his point from there?

(a) Why was Rava's ruling confined to 'Sifra de'Agad'ta'? What would he have ruled with regard to a Sefer Halachah?

(b) Would there then be any point in writing a Sh'tar Mechirah for the sale of such Sefarim?

(a) The case of 'Nigzal' currently under discussion, is one of those included in 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin'.
Who else besides the guard, can swear and claim the objects from the 'Gazlan' on behalf of the Nigzal?

(b) Rav Papa's She'eilah whether this incorporates 'Sechiro u'Lekito' remains unresolved.
What is 'Sechiro u'Lekito'?

(c) Rav Yeimar asked Rav Ashi whether the Nigzal is believed even if he claims that the Gazlan took silver.
What did Rav Ashi reply?

(a) With regard to the case of 'Nechbal' cited in our Mishnah, under which circumstances does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permit the Nechbal to claim even without a Shevu'ah?

(b) Why are we not afraid that ...

  1. ... that he scratched himself against a wall? What does the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya say about that?
  2. ... a third person wounded him?
(c) We already learned in our Mishnah that the Tana states 'va'Afilu Shevu'as Shav' to include even such a Shevu'ah that does not entail causing a monetary loss in the Din of she'Kenegdo Chashud'.
Why does the Tana not then include a Shevu'as Bituy ...
  1. ... in the future (which does not cause a monetary loss either)?
  2. ... in the past?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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