Gemara Clarity

Shevuos 37a

שבועות ל״ז ע״א

Shevuot 37a

Learn Shevuos 37a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 37a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A warned, deliberate false deposit oath: מלקות, קרבן, or both, and רבה's rule that denying a debt that has witnesses brings no קרבן

Overview

רב כהנא asks about someone who deliberately swears falsely about a deposit (שבועת הפקדון) after witnesses warned him. Does he bring the usual אשם, get only מלקות, or get both? A first proof from a ברייתא is pushed aside in two ways. רבא בר איתי says it follows only רבי שמעון. רב כהנא says the correct wording of the ברייתא never mentions מלקות. Further proofs fall away because they might be about someone who was never warned. A ברייתא comparing a נזיר טמא to a deposit oath is also deflected: 'not flogged' may simply mean that lashes alone do not finish his case. רבה then objects that when witnesses exist, a false denial is only empty words. This shows he holds that denying a debt that has עדים brings no קרבן. רבה himself turns down a ברייתא offered in his support, and the גמרא begins a list of proofs against his rule, starting with a משנה about two sets of witnesses.

Opening lines

לְהוּ: הֵזִיד בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן

to them: If one intentionally swore falsely about a deposit

וְהִתְרוּ בּוֹ, מַהוּ?

and they warned him, what is the law?

כֵּיוָן דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא –

Since it is a novelty,

דִּבְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן

for in the entire Torah we do not find

The steps (25)

  1. QuestionWarned intentional false deposit oath: lashes, offering, or both?
  2. ProofProof from a ברייתא: lashes, not an offering
  3. QuestionWhy lashes count as the stricter result
  4. RejectionThe ברייתא follows only רבי שמעון
  5. Rejectionרב כהנא says the ברייתא actually reads differently
  6. ChallengeWhy not answer the question from רב כהנא's own wording?
  7. ResolutionMaybe the case is one with no warning
  8. ProofAnother version: a proof from a source saying intentional brings an אשם
  9. RejectionAgain, maybe he was not warned
  10. ProofProof from comparing an impure nazir to a deposit oath
  11. RejectionNot flogged means not settled by lashes alone
  12. ChallengeBut the impure נזיר also brings an offering
  13. ResolutionThe נזיר's offering is to restart his נזירות in purity
  14. Challengeרבה asks: with witnesses, the denial is just empty words
  15. Conclusionרבה holds that denying money that has witnesses is exempt
  16. Proofרב חנינא brings a ברייתא to support רבה
  17. Rejectionרבה: the ברייתא is about someone who admits the loan
  18. Proofרבה points to the brothers case to back his reading
  19. QuestionWhat is the brothers case? Not admitting only one brother's half
  20. ResponseHe admits the whole debt but says he borrowed from only one brother
  21. ConclusionThe whole ברייתא is about denying details only
  22. ProofProof from the משנה that an intentional false oath brings an אשם
  23. RejectionNo: the משנה means he admits on his own
  24. ProofProof from two sets of witnesses who both denied
  25. QuestionWhy is the first set liable if the second set was still there?