POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 47
1) PEOPLE THAT CANNOT SWEAR
(a) (Mishnah): If one of them was a gambler...
2) ORPHANS WHO DO NOT SWEAR
(b) Question: Why must these cases be taught?
(c) Answer: The previous cases were disqualified mid'Oraisa;
these people are only disqualified mid'Rabanan.
(d) (Mishnah): If both parties were disqualified...
(e) Question (Rava): What is the correct text of the Mishnah
(some versions switch the opinions of R. Meir and R.
(f) Rav Nachman: I do not know.
(g) Question (Rava): What is the Halachah?
(h) Rav Nachman: I do not know.
(i) Version #1 (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi and Rav Zevid bar
Oshaya citing Rav Nachman): R. Yosi says, they divide
(the disputed money).
(j) Version #2 (Rav Zevid citing R. Oshaya): R. Yosi says,
1. (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): A case occurred, Rav
Nachman ruled that they divide.
(k) (Mishnah): The oath returns to its place.
(l) Question: To where does it return?
(m) Answer (R. Ami): Our teachers in Bavel say that it
returns to Sinai (i.e. Hash-m will punish the guilty
party for transgressing the oath on Sinai, which included
the prohibition of stealing; Beis Din does not force the
defendant to do anything);
(n) Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael say that it returns to the
defendant (and since he cannot swear, he must pay).
(o) (Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Bavel' refers to Rav and
Shmuel; the following shows that they say that it returns
1. (Mishnah): Similarly, orphans only collect after
(p) (Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael' refers to R.
Aba; the following shows that he says that it returns to
2. Question: From whom do they (need to swear in order
i. Suggestion: From (Shimon,) the one who borrowed
from their father (Reuven).
3. Answer: Rather, they must swear in order to collect
from Shimon's orphans.
ii. Rejection: Reuven could have collected without
swearing, why must his orphans swear?!
4. (Rav and Shmuel): This is only if Reuven died before
i. But if Shimon died first, Reuven could not have
collected from the orphans without swearing
that he was not paid;
ii. One does not inherit (a claim to) money which
the father could only collect through swearing
(Rashi - because the orphans do not know if the
loan was paid, they cannot take the oath).
1. One witness testified in front of R. Ami that Reuven
grabbed an ingot from Shimon; Reuven said 'Yes, I
grabbed it - it is mine!'
2. Question (R. Ami): What is the law? We cannot
obligate Reuven based on one witness, nor can we
totally exempt him!
3. Suggestion: He should swear to contradict the
4. Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: He cannot contradict
it, for he admits that he took it, nor is he
believed to say 'Shimon was holding *my* ingot'.
i. He is unable to swear (in this case), just as a
thief (is never believed to swear).
5. Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: Since he admits that
he took it, and we assume that it was Shimon's (for
Shimon was holding it), Reuven is like a thief (who
is not believed to swear).
6. Answer (R. Aba): He is obligated to swear, but he
cannot, therefore he must pay.
(a) (Rava): A Beraisa supports R. Aba.
1. (R. Ami - Beraisa): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tiheyeh Bein
Sheneihem" - (an oath decides the dispute between
the two parties,) not between their heirs.
2. Question: What is the case?
i. Suggestion: Reuven says 'Your father owed my
father 100', and Shimon says 'He only owed 50'.
3. Answer: Rather, Reuven says 'Your father owed my
father 100', and Shimon says 'I know that he owed
50, I do not know if he owed more'.
ii. Rejection: Since Shimon is certain, he swears
just as his father would have sworn!
3) WHEN ONE SIDE IS SURELY LYING
(b) Question: What do Rav and Shmuel learn from "Shevu'as
Hash-m Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem"?
i. If we say that Shimon would be obligated to
swear in such a case (and since he is unsure,
he cannot, so he must pay), we understand why a
verse is needed to exempt his heirs;
ii. But if Shimon would be exempt in such a case,
why do we need a verse to exempt his heirs?!
(c) Answer: As Shimon ben Tarfon expounds.
1. (Beraisa - Shimon ben Tarfon): "Shevu'as Hash-m
Tiheyeh Bein Sheneihem" - this teaches that the
(punishment) for the oath is on both parties.
2. "Lo Sin'af" - this may be read 'Lo San'if", do not
be an agent to bring others to sexual immorality.
3. "Va'TeRaGNu v'Ohaleichem" - TaRtem v'GiNisem (you
toured (Eretz Yisrael, i.e. sent spies) and debased
Hash-m, who put His Ohel (the Divine Presence, in
the Mishkan) amidst you.
4. "Ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar Peras" - one who touches
someone anointed (with oil), the oil comes on him
(the Peras river was the smallest of the four rivers
in Gan Eden, but it is called the big river because
it is a border of Eretz Yisrael);
5. Tana d'vei R. Yishmael says, the slave of a king is
also called a king.
(a) (Mishnah): A grocer swears based on his ledger...
(b) Question (Rebbi): There is no reason for everyone (the
grocer and the workers) to swear!
(c) Answer (R. Chiya - Mishnah): (There is a need -) both
swear and collect from the employer.
(d) Question: Did Rebbi accept this answer?
(e) Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): The workers swear to the grocer
(that he did not pay them, and the grocer does not
collect from the employer, i.e. Rebbi did not accept the
(f) Rejection (Rava): (Really, he accepted the answer.) The
Beraisa means, the workers swear *to the employer in
front of *the grocer; since the grocer knows the truth,
perhaps they will be embarrassed to swear falsely in
front of him. (The grocer also swears and collects).
(g) (Rav Huna): If two pairs of witnesses contradict each
other, either pair may testify (by itself) in another
case (we do not know which pair is lying; when in doubt,
we follow the Chazakah, they are valid witnesses).
(h) (Rav Chisda): Since we do not know which are lying, we do
not accept testimony from either pair.
(i) If each pair signed on a difference loan document:
1. If the lenders and borrowers in the documents are
different, (the cases are unrelated, Rav Huna and
Rav Chisda argue as above (Rav Huna honors the
documents, Rav Chisda invalidates them);
2. If both documents are for the same lender and
borrower, all agree that the lender collects the
smaller loan (one document is valid, we do not know
which, therefore he collects the smaller);
3. If Reuven borrowed from two different lenders,
(according to Rav Chisda, both documents are
invalid; according to Rav Huna) this is just like
our Mishnah (even though one party is certainly
lying, since the employer does not know which, he
must pay both - here also, Reuven does not know
which document is invalid, he must pay both);
4. If Shimon lent to two different borrowers,
(according to Rav Chisda, both documents are
5. Question: According to Rav Huna, what is the law in
this case? (Since one is invalid, neither borrower
need pay; or, do we consider this like two separate
cases, and he collects both?)
6. This question is not resolved.