Shevuos 40b

שבועות מ׳ ע״ב

Shevuot 40b

Learn Shevuos 40b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 40b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Using the משנה of כלים וקרקעות to settle whether a claim for two different types, where the defendant admits one type and denies the other, requires an oath; and the question of why the משנה would teach זקיקה when it is already taught elsewhere.

Overview

The amud asks what happens when someone claims two different kinds of items and the defendant admits one kind and denies the other. The גמרא tries to prove from the משנה of כלים וקרקעות that such a defendant must swear. It answers that the משנה mentions land to teach זקיקה, and that our משנה is the main source for that rule. רבי חייא בר אבא quotes רבי יוחנן that wheat and barley are exempt. Proofs against him from the משנה and from an ox-and-sheep ברייתא are turned aside, and the ברייתא is finally assigned to אדמון, as a set tradition of רבי יוחנן. Then come rulings of רב ענן in the name of שמואל about a defendant who jumps in with a trick and about two needles. Next is רב פפא's case of vessels and a פרוטה, which the גמרא explains as following רב on one point and שמואל on the other. Last, רב נחמן rules that someone who denies the whole claim still swears a שבועת היסת. The גמרא defends this with the idea that a borrower may only be stalling, and then brings רב חביבא's version, which attaches the oath to the later case of the משנה.

Opening lines

The steps (31)

1. StatementEnd of the משנה about vessels and land
2. ProofInferring that two kinds of vessels would require an oath
3. RejectionMaybe two kinds of vessels are also exempt
4. Challengeזקיקה is already taught elsewhere
5. ResolutionOur משנה is the main source and the other only mentions it in passing
6. StatementClaimed wheat and barley and admitted one of them, so he is exempt
7. ChallengeBut רבי יוחנן was quoted as ruling there is an oath
8. ResolutionDifferent אמוראים report רבי יוחנן differently
9. ProofA proof from the משנה that wheat and barley would require an oath
10. RejectionThe משנה's case shows how far רבן גמליאל goes
11. ProofA proof from the case of vessels and land
12. RejectionThe vessels-and-land case teaches something else
13. ChallengeIsn't the pulling-in rule already taught elsewhere?
14. ResolutionThis is the main source; the other משנה mentions it in passing
15. ChallengeA ברייתא about an ox and a sheep
16. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows רבן גמליאל
17. ChallengeThen the first case should also require an oath
18. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows אדמון
19. ProofThis is a set tradition from רבי יוחנן
20. StatementAdmitting barley before the claim is finished
21. StatementTwo needles: vessels of any value
22. StatementVessels and a פרוטה
23. ConclusionOne ruling follows רב and the other follows שמואל
24. StatementDenying the whole claim still requires a rabbinic oath
25. QuestionWhy impose this oath?
26. ResponsePeople do not make claims for nothing
27. ChallengeA borrower would not lie to his lender's face
28. ResolutionHe is just stalling until he can pay
29. ProofProof: denying a loan does not make someone an invalid witness
30. StatementA second version: the oath belongs to the later case
31. StatementComparing the versions: the first version covers the second case too