Mishnah 1
Hear the Mishnah

1)

(a)Between the claimant and the defendant, which one generally swears?

(b)The Tana learns this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Velakach Ba'alim ... " (with reference to a Shevu'ah). How does the Pasuk continue?

(c)The Tana lists five cases (See Tos. Yom-Tov) where the claimant swears. What is the source for that?

(d)What are the first three (one-word) cases listed by the Mishnah?

(e)If he fourth case is where the defendant is suspect of swearing falsely, what is the fifth?

1)

(a)Between the claimant and the defendant, it is - the latter that generally swears.

(b)The Tana learns this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (with reference to a Shevu'ah) "ve'Lakach Ba'alim - ve'Lo Yeshalem" (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The Tana lists five cases where the claimant swears - which the Chachamim instituted.

(d)The first three (one-word) cases listed by the Mishnah are - a Sachir (a hirer), a Nigzal (whose article has been stolen) and a Nechbal (who has been wounded).

(e)The fourth case is where the defendant is suspect of swearing falsely, and the fifth - 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' (a shop-keeper by his ledger [all of which the Tana will now explain]).

2)

(a)In the case of 'Sachir', the worker claims his wages. What happens next?

(b)On what basis did the Chachamim switch the Shevu'ah from the hirer to the Sachir?

(c)The current ruling is confined to where the Sachir claims 'bi'Zemano'. What is considered 'bi'Zemano' by ...

1. ... a day worker?

2. ... a night worker?

(d)What if he claims after that?

2)

(a)In the case of 'Sachir', when the worker claims his wages - the hirer replies that he has already paid, and the hirer counters that he did not receive them.

(b)The Chachamim switched the Shevu'ah from the hirer to the Sachir - because they assume that the hirer mistakenly thought that he had paid the Sachir due to the many workers with whom he is busy (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The current ruling is confined to where the Sachir claims 'bi'Zemano', which by ...

1. ... a day worker means - by the end of the following night, and by ...

2. ... a night worker - the end of the following day.

(d)If he claims after that - the hirer makes a Shvu'as Heses and is Patur.

3)

(a)How will the Din differ if the hirer hired the Sachir without witnesses?

(b)Why is that?

3)

(a)Neither may the Sachir swear and claim in the event that the hirer hired the Sachir without witnesses ...

(b)... since the hirer is then believed with a 'Migu' - in that he could have claimed that he did not hire him in the first place (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

4)

(a)How does Rebbi Yehudah qualify the Tana Kama's ruling?

(b)What is then the case (incorporating the Sachir, the Nigzal and the Nechbal in the next two Mishnahs) according to him?

(c)How many regular Dinrim comprise a golden Dinar?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah in all three cases?

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the the Tana Kama's ruling - by establishing the case specifically where the hirer admits to part of the claim (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)According to him, the Sachir (and the same applies to the Nigzal and the Nechbal in the next two Mishnahs, as we will explain) only swears and takes, - there where the Sachir claims fifty Dinrim, say, and the hirer counters that he already received a golden Dinar ...

(c)... twenty-five regular Dinrim.

(d)The Halachah (in all three cases) is - like the Tana Kama.

Mishnah 2
Hear the Mishnah

5)

(a)The Mishnah now defines the case of 'Nigzal'. If Reuven denies Shimon's claim that he entered Reuven's house and took a security without permission (See Tos. Yom-Tov), why is he not Patur with a Shevu'as Heses?

(b)What do Shimon and Reuven now claim?

(c)Why did the Chachamim thyen switch the Shevu'ah on to Shimon?

(d)On what condition do we allow Reuven to swear and be Patur?

(e)Rebbi Yehudah requires Reuven to admit to part of the claim (as we learned in the previous Mishnah). What is the case?

5)

(a)The Mishnah now defines the case of 'Nigzal'. If Reuven denies Shimon's claim that he entered Reuven's house and took a security without permission (See Tos. Yom-Tov), he is not Patur with a Shevu'as Heses - because the Tana is speaking where two witnesses testify that they saw him entering Shimon's house empty-handed and leave with articles hidden under his clothes (See Tos. Yom-Tov.

(b)Shimon now claims - that the 'stolen' objects are his, whereas according to Reuven - he was merely retrieving his own articles.

(c)The Chachamim switched the Shevu'ah on to Shimon - because at first glance, Reuven appears guilty, and we cannot trust him to swear truthfully (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)We do allow Reuven to swear and be Patur however - if Shimon claims that he stole expensive articles that one would not expect him to own (such as if he is a poor man who is now claiming a pure silver cup [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

(e)Rebbi Yehudah requires Reuven to admit to part of the claim (as we learned in the previous Mishnah), for example - where Shimon claims two vessels and Reuven counters that he only stole one (See Tiferes Yisrael).

Mishnah 3
Hear the Mishnah

6)

(a)In the case of Nechbal that the Mishnah now discusses, what do the witnesses testify?

(b)What do Reuven and Shimon then claim?

(c)On what condition is Shimon obligated to pay Reuven even without a Shevu'ah?

(d)What is an example of this?

(e)Rebbi Yehudah requires Shimon to admit to part of the claim for him to be Chayav a Shevu'ah. What is the case?

6)

(a)In the case of Nechbal that the Mishnah now discusses (See Tos. Yom-Tov), the witnesses testify - that Reuven entered Shimon's domain whole and emerged wounded.

(b)Reuven then claims that Shimon struck him, whereas, according to Shimon, Reuven hurt himself.

(c)Shimon is obligated to pay Reuven even without a Shevu'ah - if the wound appeared in a location where Shimon could not possibly have hurt himself ...

(d)... such as a bite (See Tos. Yom-Tov) on his back.

(e)Rebbi Yehudah requires Shimon to admit to part of the claim for him to be Chayav a Shevu'ah - in that he admits that he struck him in one location, whereas Reuven claims that he struck him in two.

Mishnah 4
Hear the Mishnah

7)

(a)Regarding the Din of 'she'Kenegdo Nishba' (switching the Shevu'ah to the claimant), which Shevu'ah might the suspect have sworn falsely, besides those of Shevu'as ha'Eidus or Shevu'as ha'Pikadon?

(b)Why does the Tana say 'even' with reference to it?

(c)Why does he not include Shevu'as Bituy?

(d)And why does he not insert the case of Shevu'as Bituy in the future?

7)

(a)Regarding the Din of 'she'Kenegdo Nishba' (switching the Shevu'ah to the claimant), Besides 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, the suspect might have sworn - Shevu'as Shav falsely.

(b)The Tana says 'even' with reference to it - because, as opposed to the first two cases, where the suspect was Ra la'Shamayim and Ra la'Beri'os (in that he caused someone a loss), here he was only Ra la'Beri'os.

(c)He does not include Shevu'as Bituy - because, seeing as it is confined to the future ('I will eat!' or 'I will not eat!'), he may well have sworn in good faith, and it was only later that his Yeitzer-ha'Ra overcame him.

(d)And he does not bother to insert the case of Shevu'as Bituy in the past (I ate!' or 'I did not eat!') - since effectively, it is synonymous with a Shevu'as Shav.

8)

(a)The Mishnah now lists a case where one of the litigants is a gambler, a pigeon-racer (Mafri'ach-Yonim) a lender on interest (See Tos. Yom-Tov [or any of the Pesulim mentioned in the third Perek of Sanhedrin]). What does it say about them?

(b)What is the significance of this list?

(c)How must we therefore establish 'Malvei be'Ribis'?

(d)What else might 'Mafrichei-Yonim' mean?

(e)Then what makes it de'Rabbanan?

8)

(a)The Mishnah now lists a case where one of the litigants is a gambler, a pigeon-racer (Mafri'ach-Yonim) a lender on interest (See Tos. Yom-Tov [or any of the Pesulim mentioned in the third Perek of Sanhedrin]). He says that - they too, are subject to 'she'Kenegdo Nishba' (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'she'Kenegdo ... ') ...

(b)... even though they are all only Pesulim de'Rabbanan (as opposed to the previous cases, which are all Pesulim d'Oraysa).

(c)Consequently, we must establish 'Malvei be'Ribis - by Ribis de'Rabbanan.

(d)'Mafrichei-Yonim' might also mean - someone who trains his pigeons to lure pigeons that belong to others to his dove-cots ...

(e)... which is Gezeilah de'Rabbanan (because of Darkei Shalom, since pigeons in a dove-cote can easily fly away).

9)

(a)If both litigants are suspect, Rebbi Yossi says that the Shevu'ah returns to its place. This might mean that it goes back to Sinai. What will that mean?

(b)Others explain it to mean that it goes to the litigant who was originally meant to swear. What is then the Din?

(c)What does Rebbi Meir say?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?

9)

(a)If both litigants are suspect, Rebbi Yossi says that the Shevu'ah returns to its place. This might mean that it goes back to Sinai - that Hash-m who instituted the Din of Shevu'ah will punish the person who falsely denies money that belongs to his friend, but the Beis-Din do not do anything.

(b)Others explain it to mean that it goes to the litigant who was originally meant to swear - but because he is unable to do so, he is Chayav to pay.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir, if they are both suspect - they divide the claimed money/object between them.

(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Meir (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Mishnah 5
Hear the Mishnah

10)

(a)If the case of 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' is not where the shopkeeper claims that Reuven owes him two hundred Zuz, then what is it? What did Reuven ask the shopkeeper to do?

(b)What is now the case?

(c)Who, according to the Tana Kama, is subsequently Chayav to swear?

(d)Why does ...

1. ... the worker not swear to the shopkeeper and claim from him?

2. ... the shopkeeper not swear to the worker and become exempt?

(e)Why do we obligate the shopkeeper and the worker to swear to Reuven in front of one another?

10)

(a)The case of 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' is not where the shopkeeper claims that Reuven owes him two hundred Zuz, but - where Reuven asks the shopkeeper to give his son two Sa'ah of wheat (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and his worker a Sela (See Tos. Yom-Tov 'Lo she'Yomar' [which he promises to repay]).

(b)The case is - where the latter claims that he fulfilled Reuven's request, but where his son and his worker counter that they did not receive the goods (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)According to the Tana Kama - the son and the worker subsequently swear that they did not receive the goods, and claim from Reuven (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)On the one hand ...

1. ... the worker does not swear to the shopkeeper and claim from him - because the latter can claim that he does not trust his Shevu'ah (though Reuven clearly did, since he did not ask him to pay in front of witnesses). On the other hand ...

2. ... the shopkeeper does not swear to the worker and become exempt - for the same reason (since the latter too, can claim that he doesn't trust his Shevu'ah).

(e)To encourage the guilty party to confess - we obligate the shopkeeper and the worker to swear to Reuven in front of one another, to embarrass the guilty party thereby encouraging him to confess.

11)

(a)On what grounds does ben Nannes object to this ruling?

(b)What does he therefore say?

(c)Like whom is the Halachah?

11)

(a)ben Nannes objects to this ruling - since it is inevitable that one of the two is swearing falsely.

(b)He therefore rules that - they both take without a Shevu'ah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

Mishnah 6
Hear the Mishnah

12)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a case where Reuven asks a shopkeeper to give him a Dinar's-worth of fruit, which he does. What does Reuven reply when the shopkeeper asks for he money?

(b)Where is the fruit currently lying?

(c)On what grounds does Reuven swear and take it?

12)

(a)The Tana now discusses a case where Reuven asks a shopkeeper to give him a Dinar's-worth of fruit, which he does. When the shopkeeper asks for the money, Reuven replies - that he already paid and that the shopkkeper put it in his money-bag.

(b)The fruit is currently - piled in the street (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)Reuven swears and takes it - based on the fact that the shopkeeper admits that he sold him the fruit (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

13)

(a)In the reverse case, where, after Reuven has given the Dinar to the shopkeeper, he asks the shopkeeper for the fruit that is piled in the street, what does the latter reply?

(b)What does he say about the fruit that is piled in the street?

(c)On what grounds does the Tana Kama rule that the shopkeeper swears and retains it?

13)

(a)In the reverse case, where, after Reuven has given the Dinar to the shopkeeper, he asks the shopkeeper for the fruit that is piled in the street, the latter replies that - he already gave him the fruit that he purchased ...

(b)... and that the fruit that is piled in the street - is other fruit that he placed there to sell.

(c)The Tana Kama rules that the shopkeeper swears (a Shevu'ah that is akin to a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa) and retains it - since Reuven admits that he purchased it (See Tos. Yom-Tov) and the shopkeeper claims that the fruit in question is not the fruit that he bought (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

14)

(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about whoever has the fruit in his possession?

(b)In which of the two above-mentioned cases does he argue with the Tana Kama?

(c)Seeing as the fruit is piled in the street, why does he refer to it as being in the Reuven's possession?

14)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah says - that whoever has the fruit in his possession has the upper hand.

(b)He argues with the Tana Kama in the latter case (See Tiferes Yisrael) - where he holds that there too, Reuven swears and takes the fruit.

(c)Despite the fact that the fruit is piled in the street - he refers to the fruit as being in Reuven's possession, seeing as the fruit is no longer in the shopkeeper's shop.

15)

(a)In similar vein to the previous Mishnah, what does the Tana say about a case where ...

1. ... a banker gives a client copper coins (See Tos. Yom-Tov) to the value of a Dinar and in reply to his request for the Dinar, the latter claims that he gave it to him and that he placed it in a money-bag?

2. ... after giving the banker a Dinar, in reply to the client's request for the coins, the latter replies that he gave them to him and that he placed them in his purse?

(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah object to the Tana Kama's latter ruling?

(c)What does he therefore say?

15)

(a)In similar vein to the previous Mishnah, in a case where ...

1. ... a banker gives a client coins to the value of a Dinar and in reply to his request for the Dinar, the latter claims that he gave it to him and that he placed it in a money-bag, the Tana rules that - the client swears and takes the Dinar

2. ... after giving the banker a Dinar, in reply to the client's request for the coins, the latter replies that he gave them to him and that he placed them in his purse - the banker swears and is Patur.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah objects to the Tana Kama's latter ruling - because a banker does not tend to give the Isrin (the coins [See Tiferes Yisrael]) before receiving his Dinar (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Amar le'Shulchani').

(c)Consequently, in this latter case too - the client swears and takes the coins (See Tiferes Yisrael)

16)

(a)Why does the Tana see fit to repeat the Machlokes with regard to both a shopkeeper and a banker? Had he inserted ...

1. ... the former only, what would we have thought with regard to the latter?

2. ... the latter only, what would we have thought with regard to the former?

(b)Like whom is the Halachah in both cases?

16)

(a)The Tana sees fit to repeat the Machlokes with regard to both a shopkeeper and a banker, because, had he inserted ...

1. ... the former only, we would have thought with regard to the latter that the Tana Kama concedes to Rebbi Yehudah - seeing as a banker does not tend to give the coins before receiving his Dinar.

2. ... the latter only, we would have thought with regard to the former that Rebbi Yehudah concedes to the Tana Kama - that a shopkeeper sometimes does give the fruit before receiving payment.

(b)The Halachah in both cases is - like the Tana Kama.

Mishnah 7
Hear the Mishnah

17)

(a)The first of a number of Dinim that the Mishnah here repeats what we already learned in Kesuvos (regarding the Din of a woman who claims her Kesubah) is that of 'ha'Pogemes Kesubasah'. What is the case?

(b)What does the Tana say about it?

(c)And what does he say about a case where one witness testifies that the woman already received her Kesubah?

(d)Of the two remaining cases that share the same ruling, one of them is where a woman claims her complete Kesubah from Nechasim Meshubadim (from people who purchased property from her husband) or from the Yesomim. What is the other?

17)

(a)The first of a number of Dinim that the Mishnah here repeats what we already learned in Kesuvos (regarding the Din of a woman who claims her Kesubah) is that of 'ha'Pogemes Kesubasah' - who produces her Kesubah and admits that she has already received half the money.

(b)The Tana rules - that she is Chayav a Shevu'ah ...

(c)... and the same will apply to where one witness testifies that the woman already received her Kesubah.

(d)Of the two remaining cases that share the same ruling, one of them is where a woman claims her complete Kesubah from Nechasim Mwshubadim (from people who purchased property from her husband) or from the Yesomim, the other - where she claims it not in the presence of her husband (who might be overseas).

18)

(a)The Tana issues the same ruling with regard to Yesomim who claim. What is the case? From whom are they claiming?

(b)What do the latter counter?

(c)What if they would counter that their father told them that the loan never took place and that he did not owe the claimants' father anything?

(d)One reason for this is because the Yesomim from whom they are claiming cannot discount the witnesses on the Sh'tar. What is the other?

18)

(a)The Tana issues the same ruling with regard to Yesomim who claim - from other Yesomim ...

(b)... who counter that - they do not know whether their father already paid or not. But ...

(c)... if they were to counter that their father told them that the loan never took place and that he did not owe the claimants' father anything - then the claiming Yesomim would be able to claim without a Shevu'ah ...

(d)... because a. the Yesomim from whom they are claiming cannot discount the witnesses on the Sh'tar - and b. whoever says that he did not borrow automatically admits that he has not paid.

19)

(a)The Tana lists three points in the Shevu'ah that the Yesomim make (See Meleches Sh'lomoh). What is the difference between 'she'Lo Pakadnu Aba' and 'she'Lo Amar lanu Aba'?

(b)What is the third item that comprises the Shevu'ah?

19)

(a)The Tana lists three points in the Shevu'ah that the Yesomim make (See Meleches Sh'lomoh). 'she'Lo Pakadnu Aba' means that - their father did not tell them on his death-bed that the document was already paid, and 'she'Lo Amar lanu Aba' that - he did not tell them at an earlier stage.

(b)The third item that comprises the Shevu'ah is that - they did not find any evidence among his documents to suggest that the Sh'tar was paid (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

20)

(a)What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say about a son who is born after his father died?

(b)What does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say about a case where witnesses testify that, before the borrower died, he declared that the Sh'tar with which the claimant's sons are currently claiming has not been paid?

(c)Like whom is the Halachah in ...

1. ... the former Machlokes?2.

2. ... the latter Machlokes?

20)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah rules that a son who is born after his father died - also requires a Shevuah when claiming from Yesomim (See Tiferes Yisrael 50).

(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if witnesses testify that, before the borrower died, he declared that the Sh'tar with which the claimant's sons are currently claiming has not been paid - then the latter may claim without a Shevu'ah.

(c)The Halachah in ...

1. ... the former Machlokes is - like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (See also Tos. Yom-Tov & Tiferes Yisrael

2. ... the latter Machlokes is - like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Mishnah 8
Hear the Mishnah

21)

(a)The Tana lists a number of people who swear even though nobody is claiming from them. If there is no claimant, why do they need to swear?

(b)On what basis do Beis-Din make them swear on a Ta'anas Safek?

(c)The first three cases are 'Shutfin (partners), Arisin (share-croppers) and Apotropsin' (managers of one's property). The latter refers to a manager who is appointed by a grown-up to manage his affairs. On what condition is an Apotropos of Yesomim included?

(d)What if he was appointed by the father to look after his heirs' property after his death?

21)

(a)When the Tana lists a number of people who swear even though nobody is claiming from them, he means (not that there is no claimant at all, but) - that the claimant does not claim with a Ta'anas Vaday... ' ('Bari li') but with a Ta'anas Safek ('Shema').

(b)Beis-Din make them swear on a Ta'anas Safek - because people in that situation allow themselves to take on all sorts of pretexts.

(c)The first three cases are 'Shutfin (partners), Arisin (share-croppers) and Apotropsin' (managers of one's property). The latter refers to a manager who is appointed by a grown-up to manage his affairs and to an Apotropus of Yesomim - if he was appointed by the Beis-Din ...

(d)... but if he was appointed by the father to look after his heirs' property after his death - he is Patur from a Shevu'ah (See reference cited in Tos. Yom-Tov).

22)

(a)One of the two remaining people who have to swear on a Ta'anas Safek is a woman who runs the affairs of the household. Who appointed her?

(b)The last person is a ben Bayis. What is a 'ben Bayis' (in this context)?

(c)In describing the case, the Tana quotes any of the above five who appear in Beis-Din and ask the claimant what he wants. What does the claimant reply?

22)

(a)One of the two remaining people who have to swear even though nobody claims that she stole, is a woman who runs the affairs of the household - who was appointed either by the husband or (where he is no longer alive) by his children's Apotropus.

(b)The last person is a ben Bayis - one of the brothers who undertook to look after his father's property after the latter died.

(c)In describing the case, the Tana quotes any of the above five who appears in Beis-Din and asks the claimant what he wants; to which the claimant replies - 'I want you to swear to me!'

23)

(a)What if the claimant demands a Shevu'ah after the Shutfin or the Arisin (See Tos. Yom-Tov) have divided the property?

(b)On what condition will he still be obligated to swear?

(c)What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought that Gilgul Shevu'ah does not apply in this case?

23)

(a)If the claimant demands a Shevu'ah after the Shutfin or the Arisin (See Tos. Yom-Tov) have divided the property - the defendant is Patur.

(b)He will still be obligated to swear however - if there is another Shevu'ah that he has to make to the claimant (Gilgul Shevu'ah) ...

(c)... even though it is only a Shevu'as Heses, and Gilgul Shevu'ah generally pertains to a Shevu'ah min ha'Torah.

24)

(a)The Mishnah concludes that Shevi'is cancels a Shevu'ah. Why does this not pertain to the case of Shutfus and the other cases?

(b)Then what does it refer to?

24)

(a)The Mishnah concludes that Shevi'is cancels a Shevu'ah. This does not pertain to the case of Shutfus and the other cases - because Sh'mitah releases neither Shutfus nor Shevu'os that are connected with it ...

(b)... only loans and Shevu'os that pertain to them (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

D.A.F. TALMUD RESOURCES
FOR MASECHES SHEVUOS