Shevuos 45b

שבועות מ״ה ע״ב

Shevuot 45b

Learn Shevuos 45b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Shevuos 45b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When a שכיר may swear and collect his wages, and the מגו of רב and שמואל that limits this oath to a hiring done in front of עדים.

Overview

חכמים let a שכיר swear and collect his wages because the בעל הבית is busy with many workers and may forget whether he paid. The גמרא tests this reason against two ברייתות. An employer surely remembers the wage he agreed to. After the deadline, he has two חזקות on his side: he does not violate בל תלין, and a worker does not wait to ask for his pay. Next, רב and שמואל (and also רבי יוחנן) limit the worker's oath to cases where the hiring was seen by עדים. Without עדים, the employer is believed through a מגו, since he could have denied hiring him at all. רבא challenges this, saying that by the same logic the Torah's שבועת שומרין would never apply. The answer is that it applies when the deposit was made with a שטר. From this exchange the גמרא learns how a deposit must be returned. Finally, רב ששת finds a ברייתא that seems to contradict רב and שמואל, and רב נחמן בר יצחק begins to answer. His answer continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (25)

1. ChallengeThen the worker should also swear about the agreed wage
2. ResolutionThe agreed wage is something he surely remembers
3. ChallengeThen the worker should also swear after the deadline
4. ResolutionPresumption that the employer does not violate בל תלין
5. ChallengeBut you said the employer is busy and forgets
6. ResolutionAt the deadline, he makes a point of remembering
7. ChallengeDoes the worker violate the ban on stealing?
8. ResolutionThe employer has two presumptions
9. StatementThe worker's oath only applies when he was hired in front of witnesses
10. Proofרבי יצחק confirms the ruling in the name of רבי יוחנן
11. QuestionDid ריש לקיש disagree?
12. Responseריש לקיש was silent, either drinking or waiting
13. Proofרב also taught the same ruling
14. Statementרמי בר חמא praises the ruling
15. Challengeרבא: by this logic the bailee's oath could never happen
16. ResolutionThe oath applies when the item was deposited with witnesses
17. ChallengeHe could still say he returned it
18. ResolutionThe oath applies when the item was deposited with a document
19. ConclusionBoth agree on how a deposit must be returned
20. Statementרמי בר חמא praises רב ששת with a verse
21. Questionרב ששת asks רבה בר שמואל about a hired worker
22. ResponseThe ברייתא: a worker within his time swears and collects
23. ResponseAn argument about the amount: the claimant must bring proof
24. ChallengeInference: the first clause needs no proof
25. Resolutionרב נחמן בר יצחק begins to respond