Gemara Clarity

Shevuos 38b

שבועות ל״ח ע״ב

Shevuot 38b

Learn Shevuos 38b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 38b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The end of פרק שבועת הפקדון, and the opening of שבועת הדיינין: when one who admits part of a claim must swear, and how the court administers the oath

Overview

The גמרא finishes asking whether a man who swore to one claimant and then said 'and not yours either' to the others is liable for each claim separately. From רבי חייא's count of twenty offerings it concludes that such a denial counts as specific. It then explains why רבי שמעון exempts a false oath about rape or seduction. אביי knocks down רבא's grain parable, and רבין's version of רבי יוחנן says that according to רבי שמעון the father claims only the קנס. That ends פרק שבועת הפקדון. A new משנה opens the laws of שבועת הדיינין, the oath of one who admits part of a claim: the minimum amounts, full denial versus partial admission, and when the admission counts as the same kind as the claim. It also covers vessels and land, and whose claims can lead to an oath. The גמרא then teaches that the person swearing must hold a holy object, and the הלכה follows רבא and not רב פפא. It adds rules for standing or sitting, and says the oath may be said in any language. The judges' warning before the oath begins here and continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

אוֹ דִלְמָא אַכׇּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב?

Or perhaps he is liable for each and every one?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא:

Come and hear, for Rabbi Chiyya taught:

הֲרֵי כָּאן עֶשְׂרִים חַטָּאוֹת.

Here there are twenty sin-offerings.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי?

What is the case?

The steps (32)

  1. QuestionOr is he liable for each claim separately?
  2. Proofרבי חייא's teaching: twenty sin-offerings
  3. ProofWorking out the case: he did not specify, yet he is liable many times
  4. StatementWhy רבי שמעון exempts in the case of rape or seduction
  5. Statementרבא's parable: wheat, barley and spelt
  6. Challengeאביי rejects רבא's grain comparison
  7. Statementרבין's version: רבי שמעון says the father claims only the fine
  8. QuestionWhat is the reason behind their disagreement?
  9. Responseרב פפא: fixed amount versus what admission cancels
  10. ConclusionHadran — Closing the chapter on the oath of deposits
  11. StatementNew משנה: the minimum amounts for the court's oath
  12. StatementExamples of the minimum claim and admission amounts
  13. StatementFull denial versus partial admission
  14. StatementA claim on behalf of a late father
  15. StatementAdmitting a debt and then claiming payment or denial
  16. StatementA loan that must be repaid in front of witnesses
  17. StatementGold and silver: a different kind versus the same kind
  18. StatementGrain versus produce: does the claim include legumes?
  19. StatementWheat claimed, barley admitted: רבן גמליאל disagrees
  20. StatementJugs of oil versus empty jugs
  21. StatementClaims of vessels and land
  22. StatementNo oath on claims of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor
  23. QuestionHow is the oath administered?
  24. Responseרב: the oath stated in the Torah
  25. Questionרבינא asks whose view רב's statement follows
  26. Responseרב אשי: the point is holding a holy object
  27. Proofרבא: an oath with God's name alone must be redone
  28. Statementרב פפא: an oath on תפילין must be redone
  29. ConclusionThe הלכה follows רבא, not רב פפא
  30. StatementStanding or sitting, ספר תורה or תפילין
  31. StatementThe judges' oath may be said in any language
  32. StatementThe judges begin warning the person