POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Shevuos 46
SHEVUOS 46 (7 Adar) - dedicated in memory of the passing (on 7 Adar
5748/1988) of Moreinu Ha'Rav Ha'Gaon Rav Shaul David Ha'Kohen Margulies
ZT'L, Av Beis Din of Prushkov (suburb of Warsaw), Rav of Congregation Degel
Israel (Queens, N.Y.), examiner for Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin (in Poland) and
close disciple of ha'Gaon Rav Meir Shapiro (initiator of the Daf ha'Yomi).
Dedicated by Rebbetzin Margulies and Rabbi and Mrs. David Sheinfeld.
1) A DISPUTE OVER THE WAGE
(a) Question (Bei Rav): If a worker claims that he was hired
for two (Zuz), the employer says he hired him for one,
2) THE ENACTMENT OF AN OATH FOR A "NIGZAL"
(b) Answer (Shmuel): In this case, the employer swears and
the worker loses, for people remember the wage. (There is
no more reason to say that the employer forgot,
therefore, the worker does not collect without proof.)
(c) Question (Beraisa #1): (If a worker claims that he was
hired for two Zuz, and the employer says he hired him for
one, for the worker) to take money (from the employer),
he must bring proof.
1. Inference: If he cannot bring proof, he has no
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): No, the Beraisa means as follows:
2. According to Shmuel, the employer should have to
swear (to avoid paying two)!
1. If the worker can bring proof, he collects;
(e) Question (Beraisa #2): Reuven gave his garment to a
craftsman (Shimon) to be fixed; Shimon claims that he was
hired for two, Reuven says that he hired him for one.
2. If he cannot bring proof, the employer must swear,
and then the worker loses.
1. If Shimon still has the garment, Reuven must bring a
proof or pay two;
(f) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Beraisa #2 is R.
Yehudah, who says that whenever the Torah obligated the
employer to swear (as here, Reuven agrees that he owes
one), Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and
2. If he returned the garment to Reuven: if it is
within the time to claim his wage, Shimon swears and
i. If the time has passed, Shimon must bring proof
to collect two from Reuven.
3. Summation of question: In the middle clause, why
does Shimon swear and collect? According to Shmuel,
Reuven should swear and be exempt!
(g) Question: Where do we find that R. Yehudah says this?
1. Suggestion: In our Mishnah.
(h) Answer: In the following Beraisa.
2. Rejection: There, R. Yehudah allows the worker to
collect less freely than Chachamim!
i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The worker may swear
and collect only when the employer partially
admitted to the claim.
1. (Beraisa): A worker can swear and collect within the
time to claim his wage, but not after the time has
(i) Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): It is illogical to
say that Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue on
2. R. Yehudah says, that is only when the employer
admits that he owes part of the wages (and the
worker says that he owes all), or when he says that
he hired him for one (and the worker says, for two);
i. But if the employer says that he never hired
him, or he paid all his wages, the worker must
bring proof in order to collect.
1. R. Yehudah is stringent (he only allows the worker
to collect when the employer partially admits),
Chachamim are more lenient on the worker;
(j) Answer (Rava): It *is* logical to say that Beraisa #2 is
R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue!
2. Will we say that where R. Yehudah is lenient (to
allow the craftsman to swear (in the proper time)
and collect after returning the garment), Chachamim
3. Counter-question: If you will say that Beraisa #2 is
Chachamim, who is the Tana of Beraisa #1?
i. It is not Chachamim, nor R. Yehudah (for both
agree that when they argue about the wage, the
worker swears and collects)!
1. R. Yehudah says that when the Torah obligates the
employer to swear, Chachamim enacted that the worker
swears and collects;
i. If mid'Oraisa the employer need not swear, only
mid'Rabanan he must swear, Chachamim did not
make a second enactment for the worker.
2. Chachamim say that even when only a mid'Rabanan oath
falls on the employer, Chachamim enacted that the
worker swears and collects;
i. They hold that everyone remembers the wage, so
when they argue about the wage, the worker does
not swear and collect.
(a) (Mishnah): The case of a Nigzal: witnesses testify that
Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security...
(b) Objection: Why does Yehudah swear and collect? Perhaps
Levi did not take anything!
1. (Rav Nachman): If Reuven took an axe and said 'I
will cut Shimon's date tree', and we later see it
cut and lying on the ground, we do not say that
Reuven (surely) cut it and must pay;
(c) Answer: The Mishnah means, witnesses testify that Levi
took a security.
2. This is because people often make empty, exaggerated
3. Here also, perhaps Levi never took a security!
(d) Question: We should ask the witnesses what he took! (Why
must Yehudah swear?)
(e) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The case is, Yehudah
claims that Levi took vessels that can be hidden under
(f) (Rav Yehudah): If witnesses saw Reuven leave Shimon's
house with vessels hidden under his garment, and Reuven
claims that he bought them, he is not believed.
3) THE OATH OF A "NECHBAL"
1. This is only if Shimon does not normally sell his
vessels, *and* Reuven took vessels which people do
not normally hide, *and* Reuven does not normally
hide (even such) vessels;
(g) (Rava): (The Mishnah teaches that if witnesses testify
that Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security,
Yehudah swears about what was taken, and he collects;)
even one who guards Yehudah's house, or (the watchman's)
wife may swear.
i. If any of these is not true, Reuven is
2. This is only if Shimon claims that he lent him the
vessels, but we do not believe him if he claims that
Reuven stole them.
3. Version #1 (Rashi): We only believe Shimon regarding
vessels that are normally lent or rented; regarding
other vessels, Shimon is always believed.
4. Version #2 (Tosfos): When we said that Reuven is
believed (e.g. if Shimon normally sells his vessels,
or regarding vessels which people normally hide, or
if Reuven normally hides vessels, or if Shimon
claims that Reuven stole them), this only applies to
vessels that are not normally lent or rented;
i. Regarding vessels that are normally lent or
rented, Shimon is always believed. (End of
5. Support: Rav Huna bar Avin taught, if Levi is
holding vessels that are normally lent or rented,
and they used to belong to Yehudah, he is not
believed to say that he bought them.
6. Rava allowed a man to collect a scissors (used by
those who comb garments) and a Sefer of Agadah from
orphans, because these were known to belong to him
(we assume that he lent them to their father).
(h) Question (Rav Papa): One who works for and boards by
Yehudah, may he swear?
1. This question is not resolved.
(i) Question (Rav Yemar): If Yehudah claims that Levi took a
silver cup, what is the law?
(j) Answer (Rav Ashi): If we estimate that Yehudah is wealthy
enough to own such a cup, or if he is so trustworthy that
people would deposit it by him, he is believed; if not,
(a) (Mishnah): The case of a Nechbal...(Levi swears that
Yehudah wounded him, and collects).
4) SOMEONE WHO IS DISQUALIFIED FROM SWEARING
(b) (Rav Yehudah): Levi only swears about a wound that he
could have inflicted on himself; a wound he could not do
to himself (e.g. on his back), he collects without
(c) Question: Perhaps he scratched himself against a wall!
(d) Answer (R. Chiya): The case is, he was bitten on his
(e) Question: Perhaps someone bit him!
(f) Answer: The case is, Levi was secluded with Yehudah, no
one else was there.
(a) (Mishnah): If the defendant is suspected of swearing
falsely, even a vain oath.
(b) Question: Why does it say *even* a vain oath?
(c) The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.
1. Not only (if he swore falsely) an oath which denies
money, but even a vain oath disqualifies him from
(d) Question: The Mishnah should also say that he is
disqualified for a false oath of Bituy!
(e) Answer: The Mishnah only lists oaths that are false the
moment they are said;
1. Version #1 (Rashi): One who swore a false oath of
Bituy never intended to swear falsely (albeit later
he did not fulfill his oath), he is not suspected to
(f) Question: Indeed, a (future) oath of Bituy such as 'I
will (or will not) eat' is not false the moment it is
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): The Tana only lists oaths that
are false the moment they are said (but one who
transgresses an oath of Bituy is likewise
disqualified from swearing).
1. But a oath of Bituy (in the past) such as 'I ate (or
did not eat)' is false the moment it is said (why
does the Mishnah omit it?)
(g) Answer: The Tana taught vain oaths, this includes false
oaths of Bituy in the past.