כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין, הַשָּׂכִיר, וְהַנִּגְזָל, וְהַנֶּחְבָּל, וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ. הַשָּׂכִיר כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הִתְקַבַּלְתָּ דִינַר זָהָב: All those who take an oath that is legislated by the Torah take an oath and do not pay. By Torah law, one takes an oath only in order to exempt himself from a monetary claim. And these litigants take a rabbinically instituted oath and receive possession of the disputed funds or property, i.e., their claim is upheld by means of the oath, even though they are not in possession of the property in question: A hired worker who claims that he has not received his wages; and one who was robbed and sues the person who robbed him; and one who was injured, who claims compensation from the person who injured him; and one whose opposing litigant is suspect with regard to the taking of an oath. When a person suspected of taking false oaths is liable to take an oath in order to exempt himself, the claimant takes an oath instead and receives payment. And a storekeeper relying on his ledger also takes an oath and is paid. How does this halakha apply to the hired worker? The case is where one says to his employer: Give me my wages that are still in your possession. The employer says: I already gave them to you. And that worker says: I have not received them. In such a case, the worker takes an oath that he has not received his wages, and he receives payment from his employer. Rabbi Yehuda says: This oath cannot be administered unless there is partial admission on the part of the employer. How so? The case is where the worker said to him: Give me my wages, fifty silver dinars, which are still in your possession. And the employer says: You have already received one golden dinar, which is worth twenty-five silver dinars. Since the employer has admitted that he owes part of the sum, the worker takes an oath and is paid the whole sum.
הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּלַי נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד: How does this halakha apply to one who was robbed? The case is where witnesses testified about the defendant that he entered the claimant’s house to seize collateral from him without the authority to do so. The claimant said: You took items that belong to me. And the defendant said: I did not take them. The claimant takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. Rabbi Yehuda says: This oath cannot be administered unless there is partial admission on the part of the defendant. How so? The case is where the claimant said to him: You took two items. And he says: I took only one. Since the defendant admits that he took one item from the house, the claimant takes an oath and receives payment of his whole claim.
הַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס תַּחַת יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל, וְאָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי שְׁתַּיִם, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי בְךָ אֶלָּא אֶחָת: How does this halakha apply to one who was injured? The case is where witnesses testified about the injured person that he entered into the domain of the defendant whole but left injured, and the claimant said to the defendant: You injured me. And the defendant says: I did not injure you. The injured party takes an oath and receives compensation. Rabbi Yehuda says: This oath cannot be administered unless there is partial admission. How so? The case is where the claimant said to the defendant: You injured me twice. And the other says: I injured you only once. In such a case, the injured party takes an oath that he was injured twice and receives compensation for both injuries.
וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כֵּיצַד, אַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְאַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין, חָזְרָה הַשְּׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלֹקוּ: How does this halakha apply to one whose opposing litigant is suspect with regard to the taking of an oath and therefore is not permitted to take the oath? One is considered suspect with regard to oaths if he has been found to have taken a false oath, whether it was an oath of testimony, or whether it was an oath on a deposit, or even an oath taken in vain, which is a less severe prohibition. There are also categories of people who by rabbinic decree are considered suspect with regard to oaths: If one of the litigants was a dice player, or one who lends with interest, or among those who fly pigeons, or among the vendors of produce of the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. If both litigants were suspect, the oath returned to its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, and will be explained in the Gemara. Rabbi Meir says: Since neither can take an oath, they divide the disputed amount.
וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ כֵּיצַד, לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ כָּתוּב עַל פִּנְקָסִי שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז, אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּין, תֵּן לְפוֹעֲלִי בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לֹא נָטַלְנוּ, (שְׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּעִים), הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל וְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. אָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס, כֵּיצַד אֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְאֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: And how does this halakha apply to the storekeeper relying on his ledger? This ruling is not referring to the case where a storekeeper says to a customer: It is written in my ledger that you owe me two hundred dinars. Rather, it is referring to a case where a customer says to a storekeeper: Give my son two se’a of wheat, or: Give my laborers a sela in small coins. And later the storekeeper says: I gave it to them; but they say: We did not receive it. In such a case, where the father or employer admits that he gave those instructions and it is also recorded in the storekeeper’s ledger, the storekeeper takes an oath that he gave the son the wheat or paid the laborers, and he receives compensation from the father or employer; and the laborers take an oath that they were not paid and receive their wages from the employer. Ben Nannas said: How is it that both these and those come to take an oath in vain? One of them is certainly lying. Rather, the storekeeper receives his compensation without taking an oath, and the laborers receive their wages without taking an oath.
אָמַר לַחֶנְוָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר פֵּרוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהוֹלַכְתָּן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע חֶנְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁהַפֵּרוֹת בְּיָדוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אָמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר מָעוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע שֻׁלְחָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שֻׁלְחָנִי לִתֵּן אִסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטֹּל דִּינָרוֹ: If one said to a storekeeper: Give me produce valued at a dinar, and he gave him the produce. And later the storekeeper said to him: Give me that dinar you owe me, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet [be’unpali], the customer shall take an oath that he gave him the dinar. If, after he gave the storekeeper the money, the customer said to him: Give me the produce, and the storekeeper said to him: I gave it to you and you transported it to your house, the storekeeper shall take an oath that he has already filled the order, and he is exempt from supplying the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: Whoever has the produce in his possession has the advantage, and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath. Similarly, if one said to a money changer: Give me small coins valued at a dinar, and he gave him the coins, and subsequently the money changer said to him: Give me the dinar, and the customer said to him: I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet; the customer shall take an oath that he paid. If the customer gave the money changer the dinar, and then said to him: Give me the coins, and the money changer said to him: I gave them to you and you cast them into your purse, the money changer shall take an oath. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not a money changer’s way to give even an issar until he receives a dinar. Therefore, the fact that the customer received the coins indicates that the money changer already received his payment.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וּמִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פְקָדָנוּ אַבָּא, וְלֹא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד הַבֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ, הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: These cases of taking an oath are just like other cases where the Sages said that one takes an oath and receives payment. The mishna (see Ketubot 87a) teaches: A woman who vitiates her marriage contract by acknowledging receipt of partial payment may collect the remainder only by taking an oath; or if one witness testifies that her marriage contract has been paid, she may collect it only by taking an oath. She may collect it from liened property that has been sold to a third party, or from the property of orphans, only by taking an oath, and a woman who collects it from her husband’s property when not in his presence may collect it only by taking an oath. And likewise, orphans may collect a loan with a promissory note inherited from their father only by taking an oath. Orphans who wish to collect payment of money owed to their father must take the following oath: On our oath our father did not direct us on his deathbed not to collect with this promissory note, and our father did not say to us that this note was paid, and we did not find among our father’s documents a record showing that this promissory note was paid. After taking that oath, they may collect the money. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even if the son was born after the father’s death, he needs to take an oath in order to receive the money owed to his father. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death: This promissory note has not been paid, the son collects the debt without having to take an oath.
וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִים שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה, הַשֻּׁתָּפִין, וְהָאֲרִיסִין, וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשֵׂאת וְהַנּוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וּבֶן הַבָּיִת. אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵנִי, רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּשָּׁבַע לִי, חַיָּב. חָלְקוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין, אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה: And these people are sometimes required to take an oath that they do not owe anything even when there is no explicit claim against them: Partners, sharecroppers, stewards [apotropin], a woman who does business from home, where she manages the property of orphans, and the member of the household appointed to manage the household’s affairs. For example, in a case where one of these people said to one of the people whose property he or she manages: What is your claim against me? If the other replied: It is simply my wish that you take an oath to me that you have not taken anything of mine, the former is liable to take that oath. Once the partners or the sharecroppers have divided the common property, each taking his share, then one side may not require an oath of the other absent a definite claim. But if an oath was imposed upon him due to some other situation, that oath can be extended to impose upon him any other oath, i.e., it can be extended to apply to any other of their disputes. The mishna adds: And the Sabbatical Year abrogates the obligation to take an oath about a debt, just like it abrogates a debt.