Gemara Clarity

Shevuos 42a

שבועות מ״ב ע״א

Shevuot 42a

Learn Shevuos 42a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 42a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Weakened documents, a borrower's promise to trust the lender, and oaths involving a minor or an heir

Overview

This amud covers several cases about debts, documents and oaths. First it finishes the gallnuts story: witnesses prove the borrower named a false market price, and רבא rules he is a כפרן, because people do remember the set market price. Next, a lender with a שטר admits he was paid but says the money was for other debts. רב נחמן says the שטר is weakened, and רב פפא says it is not. The final הלכה is that the שטר is weakened, but only when the payment was made in front of witnesses. In a private payment the lender is believed because of a מיגו. Then the גמרא discusses a borrower who promised to believe the lender about non-payment. It asks whether that promise beats witnesses, and whether 'like two witnesses' covers three. Here רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע teaches that in testimony two are like a hundred, unlike counting opinions. Finally, the גמרא explains why no oath is taken on a minor's claim. It shows that the משנה's 'we swear to a קטן' means an adult heir claiming his father's debt, following רבי אליעזר בן יעקב.

Opening lines

עַפְצֵי דְּקָיְימִי בְּשִׁיתָּא שִׁיתָּא?״

...gallnuts that were selling at six, six [dinars per measure]?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָאו בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַרְבָּעָה הֲווֹ קָיְימִי?״

He said to him: Weren't they selling at four, four?

אֲתוֹ תְּרֵי סָהֲדִי וַאֲמַרוּ:

Two witnesses came and said:

״אִין, בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַרְבָּעָה הֲווֹ קָיְימִי״.

Yes, they were selling at four, four.

The steps (30)

  1. StatementThe gallnuts price is proven wrong by witnesses
  2. Statementרבא: The borrower is now considered a denier
  3. Challengeרמי בר חמא: Maybe he simply forgot
  4. Resolutionרבא: Everyone remembers the market price
  5. StatementNew case: 'I paid you' — 'That was a different loan'
  6. Statementרב נחמן and רב פפא argue about the note
  7. Challengeרב פפא's own oxen ruling seems to contradict him
  8. ResolutionThe oxen case named a specific deal
  9. QuestionWhat is the final ruling?
  10. ResponseTwo later אמוראים disagree
  11. ConclusionThe ruling: the document is weakened
  12. StatementThe ruling applies only to payment in front of witnesses
  13. Statement'I'll believe you' and then paying before witnesses
  14. Challengeרב פפא: the promise doesn't beat witnesses
  15. StatementTrusted 'like two', but paid before three
  16. ChallengeMajority counts for estimates, not for testimony
  17. StatementSecond version of the case
  18. ChallengeTwo witnesses equal a hundred
  19. StatementSaying 'like three' turns it into counting opinions
  20. QuestionWhy no oath on a minor's claim?
  21. ResponseA minor's handing over means nothing
  22. ChallengeThe משנה seems to contradict itself about a minor
  23. Resolutionרב: it is about someone claiming his father's debt
  24. ProofThe ברייתא of רבי אליעזר בן יעקב
  25. ChallengeDoesn't he agree a returner of lost items is exempt?
  26. Resolutionרב: the son did make a claim
  27. ChallengeBut a minor's claim doesn't count
  28. ResolutionHe is really an adult, called 'minor' about his father's matters
  29. ChallengeWhy call it 'his own claim' if the son made the claim?
  30. ResolutionThe claim is from others, but the admission is his own