ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 47
(a) Having already taught us the Din of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' by 'Nigzal',
the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add the case of 'Mesachek
be'Kuvya' (a person who gambols with dice) - to include a P'sul de'Rabanan
in the list
(b) He is only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan - because he does not really steal, only
he does not acquire the money he wins due to the principle of 'Asmachta Lo
Kanya' (according to one opinion [as we learned in Sanhedrin]).
(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, in the case of 'Sheneihen
Chashudin', Rebbi Yossi holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah', and Rebbi Meir,
'Yachloku' (as it stands in our Mishnah), or vice-versa, he replied that he
did not know. When he asked him what the Halachah was - he didn't know
(d) All the other opinions cited here, including Rav Yosef bar Minyumi
quoting Rav Nachman, invert the opinions in our Mishnah. According to Rav
Yosef bar Minyumi, when such a case came before Rav Nachman - he actually
(a) When Rebbi Ami quotes Raboseinu she'be'Bavel, who say (in connection
with 'Hayu Sheneihen Chashudin') 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', he means -
that the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai, where Hashem made us swear that we would
not steal (and that Shevu'ah will pertain here to the guilty party). Other
than that, there is no Shevu'ah, and the case is dissolved.
(b) Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael hold - 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav
Lah', meaning that the Shevu'ah ends at the door of the one who was
originally obligated to make it, and if he cannot do so, he is obligated to
(c) Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael says Rav Papa, are Rav and Shmuel.
'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' is - Rebbi Aba.
(a) When the Tana adds Yesomim to the list of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin', he
cannot be referring to an ordinary debtor - because seeing as their father
could claim from him without a Shevu'ah, why should *they* have to swear?
(b) In fact, he is referring - to a debtor who is also a Yasom (and from
whom the father would have therefore only been able to claim with a
(a) Rav and Shmuel establish this exclusively in a case where the creditor
died in the lifetime of the debtor, because, had the debtor died first - the
creditor would have already been Chayav a Shevu'ah to the debtor's Yasom,
and an heir cannot inherit money that requires a Shevu'ah ...
(b) ... because he is unable to swear that he did not receive the money
(like his father was obligated to do).
(c) The practical application of this ruling is - that in such a case, the
Yesomim would lose their claim.
(d) This proves that 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' are synonymous with Rav and
Shmuel - because we see that there where neither party is able to swear, the
Shevu'ah returns to Sinai (despite the fact that the Shevu'ah is only
mi'de'Rabbanan [see Toras Chayim]; whereas according to those who say
'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomo' the Yesomim of the Malveh would claim without a
Shevu'ah [presumably, because it is only a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan). Clearly
then, they are the ones who hold 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', which
according to Rav Papa, is the opinion of Raboseinu she'be'Bavel.
(a) In the case that came before Rebbi Ami, where Reuven grabbed a lump of
silver from Shimon in front of one witness, and claimed that it belonged to
him, Rebbi Ami ruled 'Mitoch she'Eino Yachol Lishava, Meshalem' (meaning
that since the defendant is unable to counter the witness's testimony with a
Shevu'ah, he has to pay, as we learned in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus'') ...
(b) ... which is synonymous with 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav Lah', a proof
that 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' is Rebbi Aba.
(a) Rebbi Ami Darshened from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein
Sheneihem" - 've'Lo Bein ha'Yorshin' (meaning that Yorshin do not swear to
(b) This cannot refer to a case where Reuven's heirs claim that their father
lent Shimon's father a Manah, and Shimon's heirs admit to fifty Zuz and deny
the other fifty - because, if the Yorshin are sure of the facts, there is no
reason why they should not swear, just as their father would have done.
(c) The case must therefore be - when they respond with a Safek (claiming
that their father might have only borrowed fifty Zuz).
(d) This supports Rebbi Aba's opinion - because it is only if their father
would have had to pay under such circumstances that a Pasuk would be
required to exempt his heirs; but if he would be Patur (like the opinion of
Rebbi Aba), it is obvious that they would be Patur too.
(a) Rav and Shmuel Darshen the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein
Sheneihem" like Shimon ben Tarfon in a Beraisa, who interprets it to mean -
that the Shevu'ah pertains to someone who causes his fellow-Jew to swear as
well as to the person who actually swears (as we already learned in
(b) Shimon ben Tarfon also includes in the La'av of "Lo Tin'af" 'Okef Achar
No'ef', which refers to - someone who encourages prostitution by providing
the women (such as the owner of a brothel).
(c) He Darshens this from "Lo Tin'af" - by reading it as 'Lo Tan'if' (see
(a) Shimon ben Tarfon explains the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Vateragnu be'Ohaleichem" - in the form of an acronym 'Tartem
ve'Ginisem be'Ohalo shel Makom' ('You spied out the land, and disgraced the
place where Hashem rested His Shechinah').
(b) We cannot understand the Pasuk literally - because size-wise, it is the
smallest of the four rivers.
2. ... "ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar P'ras", referring to the Euphrates as
''ha'Nahar ha'Gadol" - because it is the only of the four rivers that
borders Eretz Yisrael.
(c) Shimon ben Tarfon extrapolates from here the adage 'K'rav Legabei Dehina
ve'Idhen' - meaning that if one touches oil, one becomes oily.
(d) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from it - the adage 'Eved Melech ke'Melech'
(a servant of the king receives the same treatment as the king himself).
(a) When Rebbi commented on the Tana Kama's ruling with regard to Chenvani
al Pinkaso 'Torach Shevu'ah Zu Lamah', he meant - to object to the fact that
Chazal would cause a Shevu'as Shav (in the same way as ben Na'nes objects in
(b) Rebbi might have meant that both claimants take without a Shevu'ah (like
ben Na'nes), or he might have meant that the storekeeper loses with the
Shevu'ah of the workers.
(c) Rebbi Chiya cites our S'tam Mishnah, where Rebbi explicitly learns
'Sheneihem Nishba'in ve'Notlin mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis' - querying Rebbi's
subsequent doubts, in support of ben Na'nes' objection.
(a) We ask whether Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's observation or not. We
attempt to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Says
'Po'alin Nishba'in le'Chenvani' - suggesting that the workers swear and
claim from the storekeeper, and not from the Ba'al ha'Bayis, like the Tana
(b) To repudiate this suggestion - we explain this Beraisa to mean that they
actually swear to *the Ba'al ha'Bayis*, but in the presence of the
(c) ... to embarrass them (should they be lying), to force them to confess.
(a) According to Rav Huna, if two pairs of witnesses contradict one another,
each one is permitted to testify independently. He does not however, allow
them - to combine (one witness from each pair) to testify in the same case.
(b) Rav Chisda says - that seeing as we know for sure that one of the pairs
is Pasul, we cannot accept either of them in court.
(c) With regard to the above, we comment that, in a case of ...
1. ... two creditors, two debtors and two Sh'taros - Rav Huna and Rav Chisda
will apply their respective rulings (i.e. acceptable according to Rav Huna,
and unacceptable according to Rav Chisda).
(d) When we say 'Shenei Malvin ve'Loveh Echad u'Sh'nei Sh'taros, Haynu
Masnisin', we mean - that, according to Rav Huna (see Tosfos ha'Rosh), this
is precisely the case in our Mishnah, which authorizes both claimants to
claim from the unfortunate Loveh.
2. ... 'Malveh ve'Loveh u'Sh'nei Sh'taros' - both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda
will agree, that since one of the Sh'taros is definitely Kasher, the Malveh
will be able to claim the smaller debt.
(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case of 'Sh'nei Lovin u'Malveh Echad
u'Sh'nei Sh'taros. According to Rav Huna, we might ...
1. ... not accept either claim against the Loveh - since it is the same
creditor who produces both sets of witnesses (one of which is definitely
(b) This She'eilah is confined to Rav Huna. According to Rav Chisda, even
when the two sets of witnesses are brought by two different creditors they
are disqualified, how much more so, when they are brought by the same
2. ... accept both claims against him - because, seeing as he is claiming
from two different debtors, perhaps each one is treated independently, like
in Rav Huna's case.
(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah cites a Beraisa which rules that in a case where
one witness gives the height of the new moon in the sky as ...
1. ... two ox-goads and the other, as three - their testimony is Kasher.
(b) Initially, we interpret the Tana's ruling 'u'Mitztarfin le'Eidus
Acheres' to mean - that either witness is permitted to join with somebody
else to testify in cases of Mamon.
2. ... three ox-goads and the other, as five - it is Pasul.
(c) Rav Huna bar Yehudah is asking - on Rav Chisda, who disqualifies even
two witnesses under similar circumstances, from testifying at all.
(d) To reconcile Rav Chisda with the Beraisa, Rava interprets it to mean -
that either witness may combine with a third witness who sides with him,
with regard to the same testimony ...
(e) ... because seeing as there are now two witnesses against one, we apply
the principle 'Ein Devarav shel Echad be'Makom Shenayim'.