Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Litigant Oaths
Property Law
Sources
A
The Gemara answers:
What
is the
money
that one is not liable to pay based on his own admission? It is referring to the payment of
a fine [
kenas
].
In all cases where the Torah imposes a fine, if the defendant admits his liability voluntarily he is not required to pay it. Therefore, the
a fortiori
inference is as follows:
If
the admission of one’s own
mouth, which does not render him liable
to pay
a fine,
nevertheless
renders him liable
to take
an oath
with regard to the part of the claim to which he did not admit…
Bava Metzia 3b:5
MISHNA:
By Torah law, the
oath
imposed
by the judges
upon one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when
the claim is
for the value of at least
two silver
ma’a
,
and the
defendant’s
admission is
for
the value of
at least
one
peruta
. And
furthermore,
if the admission is not of
the same
type
as
the claim,
i.e., the defendant admitted to a debt that the claimant did not claim, the defendant is
exempt
from taking an oath…
Shevuot 38b:8-19
§ The Gemara asks: Practically speaking,
what
difference
is there between an oath
administered
by Torah law and an oath
administered
by rabbinic
law, i.e., an oath of inducement? The Gemara answers: The practical difference
between them is
with regard to the
transfer of an oath
to the other party. In a case where the defendant suggests that instead of taking an oath himself, the claimant should take an oath and collect that which he claims, if the oath is administered
by Torah law, we do not transfer
the
oath
to the claimant…
Shevuot 41a:2-8
§
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught
a
baraita
: If one says to another:
I
have
one hundred dinars [
maneh
] in your possession
that you borrowed from me and did not repay,
and the other
party
says: Nothing of yours
is
in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars
that he owes the claimant,
he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder,
i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him. This ruling is derived
via an
a fortiori
inference from the
halakha
that one who admits to…
Bava Metzia 3a:14-18
After dismissing the attempted proof for Rav Sheshet’s statement that a bailee who denies possession of a deposit is considered a robber even without having taken a false oath, the Gemara now attempts to disprove the statement itself.
Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection
to Rav Sheshet’s statement: Though it is usually the defendant who is required to take an oath in order to avoid having to pay a claim, there are cases in which the plaintiff takes an oath to receive payment. The mishna in
Shevuot
(44b) lists these cases:
And
one such case is
where
the plaintiff’s…
Bava Kamma 105b:22-106a:10
When a person who issues a claim against a colleague with regard to movable property, and the defendant acknowledges a portion of the claim, he must pay what he acknowledged, and take an oath with regard to the remainder. This is a Scriptural obligation, as Exodus 22:8 states: "That this is it."
Similarly, if the defendant denies the entire obligation and says: "Such a thing never happened," and one witness testifies that the defendant is obligated to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated by Scriptural Law to take an oath…
Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant 1-5
§ The mishna teaches that the court administers an oath to one who admits to part of a claim only when
the claim is
for at least the value of
two silver
ma’a
. Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the exact meaning of this statement.
Rav says
that
the denial of
the
claim
must be at least the value of
two silver
ma’a
.
And Shmuel says
that the
claim itself
must be at least the value of
two silver
ma’a
; i.e.,
even
if the defendant
denied only one
peruta
of the claim,
or
conversely…
Shevuot 39b:8-40b:20
MISHNA:
And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath
by Torah law: Canaanite
slaves, and
financial
documents, and land, and consecrated
property.
In
a case where
these
items are stolen,
there is no payment of double
the principal,
nor is there payment of four or five
times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it.
An unpaid bailee
who lost one of these items
does not take an oath
that he was not negligent in safeguarding it…
Shevuot 42b:12-43a:16
Any
oath, including one incurred by rabbinic law,
may be extended
to render the person who takes it liable to take an additional oath,
except for
the oath of
a hired worker, which may not be extended,
since the hired worker’s oath was instituted only to alleviate the concerns of the employer.
Rav Ḥisda says:
For
everyone,
the Sages
are not lenient,
in that they extend any oath they incur to impose upon them additional oaths,
except for a hired worker,
for
whom they are lenient…
Shevuot 49a:1
MISHNA:
In the case of
one who says to another: I robbed you,
or:
You lent me
money, or:
You deposited
an item
with me, and I do not know if I returned
your property
to you
or
if I did not return
it
to you,
he is
liable to pay
the sum or item in question.
But if he said to him: I do not know if I robbed you,
or: I do not know
if you lent me money,
or: I do not know
if you deposited
an item
with me,
he is
exempt from paying
the sum or item in question…
Bava Kamma 118a:5-10
The Gemara suggests:
Come
and
hear
proof from a mishna (
Shevuot
44b):
Anyone who
is obligated to
take an oath
that is enumerated
in the Torah takes an oath and does not pay. And these take an oath and take
their payment:
The hired worker
who demands his wages from his employer;
and one who was robbed; and one who was injured,
who claims compensation from the one who caused him damage;
and
if
the one opposing him,
the other litigant in a case, was supposed to take an oath but he is
suspected with regard to oaths…
Ketubot 87b:6
If we say
that it is
where
the lender’s son
said to
the borrower’s son:
One hundred dinars
that belonged
to my father
were
in the possession of your father,
as a loan, and you must repay me, and the borrower’s son
said to him: He had
a debt of
fifty, and
the other
fifty he did not have
to pay him, i.e., he did not owe it, that is difficult. Under these circumstances,
what
does it matter
to me
if it is
he,
the borrower’s heir,
or his father…
Shevuot 47a:12-13
The Gemara asks:
But in
a case where his denial is contradicted by two
witnesses, does he assume the presumptive status of one who
falsely
denies
his debts?
But doesn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say
that
Rav Ḥisda says: One who denies
a claim that he received
a loan
and is contradicted by witnesses
is fit to bear witness
in a different case. He does not assume the status of a confirmed liar, as perhaps he intended to return the money afterward and denied the claim only in order to buy time until he acquired the necessary funds to repay the loan…
Bava Metzia 4a:8-5a:17
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…
Shevuot 44b:12-45a:2
The Gemara now presents that case:
As
there was
a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another.
The one from whom it was taken
came before Rabbi Ami
while
Rabbi Abba was sitting before him,
and he
brought one witness
who testified
that
it was, in fact,
snatched from him.
The one who snatched it
said to him: Yes,
it is true that
I snatched
it,
but I
merely
snatched
that which was
mine. Rabbi Ami said:
…
Bava Batra 33b:8-34a:2
Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba
from a
baraita
: The verse states:
“If a man gives
his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found, he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6). The use of the word “man” indicates that the
giving
of a deposit
by a minor is nothing. And I have
derived
only
a case
where he gives
the deposit
when he is a minor and lodges the claim
concerning it
against
the bailee
when he is
still a
minor…
Bava Kamma 106b:17-107a:1
Rather, Rava said
that the plaintiff can extend an oath by stating:
Take an oath to me that you were not sold to me as a Hebrew slave.
In this case the plaintiff is not questioning the man’s lineage, as he is simply claiming that he was sold to him as a slave and must work for him. The Gemara asks: But there is nothing novel about this
halakha
, as this
is a proper claim
that
there is money
owed
to him
by the accused. The sale and service of a Hebrew slave can be assessed in monetary terms, and is analogous to all claims of debt…
Kiddushin 28a:6
and any
oath
that is similar to it,
i.e., that is clearly a falsehood, disqualifies one from further oath taking. § The mishna teaches: 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 that grew during the Sabbatical Year, then the litigant opposing him takes an oath and receives payment of his claim. The Gemara asks:
Why do I
need
these additional
examples of a person who is suspect with regard to oath taking? The Gemara explains: The mishna first
teaches
…
Shevuot 47a:1-5
Rava says: That is to say
that if one says to another:
I
have
one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other
person
says: I do not know,
he is
exempt,
similar to this case, where the brothers who claim that they do not know if this person is their brother are not obligated to share their inheritance with him.
Bava Batra 135a:10
The Gemara suggests:
Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation
of the opinion
of Rav Naḥman. As it was stated
that the
amora’im
disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says:
I
have
one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say:
The respondent is
liable
to pay, because he did not deny the claim.
Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say:
He is
exempt
from payment.
Bava Metzia 97b:6
Property Law
דיני רכוש
Laws of the Release of Loans
Laws of Selling Ancestral Fields
Laws of Selling Property in a Walled City
Laws of the Methods of Acquisition
Laws of Retraction of a Transaction before its Completion
Laws of Cancellation of a Transaction and the Seller's Responsibility
Stipulations of a Purchased Acquisition
Intent of the Seller and the Purchaser
Laws of Ownerless Property
Laws of Gifts
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
