ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 49
***** Perek Arba'ah Shomrin *****
(a) Our Mishnah obligates a Shomer Chinam to swear on everything -
incorporating theft, loss and O'nes ('Shevurah u'Meisah').
(b) The Din of ...
1. ... a Sho'el is - that he is Chayav to pay for everything.
(c) In spite of what we learned, a Sho'el is Patur with a Shevu'ah - in a
case of 'Meisah Machmas Melachah', if the animal died (or depreciated) due
to regular work.
2. ... a Shomer Sachar and a Socher is - that he swears on Shevurah
u'Meisah, but has to pay for Geneivah va'Aveidah.
(a) Despite our having already learned these Halachos in Bava Metzi'a, Rebbi
found it necessary to repeat them here - because of the Din of Korban
Shevu'ah that is determined by the Chiyuv and P'tur of the Shomer, as we
shall now see.
(b) If the owner owns asks for his ox, and the Shomer Chinam claims that it
died, or was broken, captured, stolen or lost, when in reality, anything
else happened to the animal other than what he claimed; the owner then
demanded a Shevu'ah, and the Shomer swore - he is Patur from bringing a
(c) And in the same case, only where the Shomer Chinam denied having
received the ox in the first place - the Tana issues the same ruling.
(d) The common reason for both of these rulings is - because the Shomer
Chinam's Shevu'ah did not exempt him from paying (since even if his response
would have been correct, he would have been Patur). The criterion for being
Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah is -that the Shevu'ah that he made exempts him from
(a) The Tana rules, in a case where, after the Shomer Chinam claims and
swears that the ox ...
1. ... went lost, witnesses testify that he ate the animal - that the Shomer
is Chayav to pay the value of the ox.
(b) In both of the above cases, the Din will differ if he himself confesses
that he ate it or stole it - inasmuch as he is then obligated to pay an
extra fifth, and to bring an Asham Gezeilos.
2. ... was stolen, witnesses testify that he is the thief - he is obligated
to pay double (due to the Din of 'To'en Ta'anas Ganav').
(c) He does not pay Kefel in these cases - because of the principle 'Modeh
(d) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Gezel ha'Ger) "Vehisvadu es
Chatasam Asher Asu" - that one only pays an extra fifth and brings an Asham
by one's own admission (but not on the testimony of two witnesses).
(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where Shimon denies knowledge of the ox that
Reuven claims he stole from him, and witnesses testify that ...
1. ... he did steal it - that he is obligated to pay double (Kefel).
(b) The Tana is not speaking here, when Shimon swore - because actual theft
does not require a Shevu'ah for the Ganav to be sentenced to pay.
2. ... he Shechted or stole it - that pays four or five times the amount
that he stole (Arba'ah va'Chamishah).
(c) And the Tana goes on to cite a case where Shimon saw that witnesses were
about to go to Beis-Din, and he preempted them and admitted to having
stolen, but denied having Shechted or sold the animal. Should the witnesses
subsequently testify that he did steal the animal and Shechted or sold it,
Beis-Din obligate Shimon to pay only the Keren ...
1. ... but not the Kefel - on the basis of the principle 'Modeh bi'Kenas
2. ... but not Arba'ah va'Chamishah - because whoever is not Chayav Kefel,
is not Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah either (seeing as he would actually be
paying three or four times, and not four or five, as prescribed by the
(a) In a case where Reuven asks a Sho'el what happened to his ox, and he
replies that it died, or was broken, captured, stolen or lost, when in
reality, anything else happened to the animal other than what he claimed;
the owner then demands a Shevu'ah, and the Sho'el swears, our Mishnah
exempts the Sho'el from a Korban Shevu'ah - because here again, the Shevu'ah
that he made did not exempt him from paying (this time because even after
the Shevu'ah, he still remains Chayav to pay).
(b) And in a case where the Sho'el denies having received the animal, and
swears to that effect, and witnesses testify that the animal died, was
wounded, captured, stolen or lost - the Tana obligates him to bring a Korban
(because his oath would have exempted him from paying).
(c) In a case where a Shomer Sachar or Socher claims, backing his claim with
a Shevu'ah, that the animal ...
1. ... died, when in reality, it was captured or vice-versa - the Tana
exempts him from a Korban (since he would have been Patur even if he had not
made the Shevu'ah).
2. ... was stolen, when in reality, it went lost or vice-versa - he exempts
him too (seeing as he is Chayav to pay, even with the Shevu'ah).
3. ... died, or was wounded or captured, when in reality, it was stolen or
went lost - the Tana obligates him to bring a Korban Shevu'ah (because the
Shevu'ah would have exempted him from paying).
4. ... was stolen or went lost, when in reality, it was wounded or
captured - he exempts him from a Korban, seeing as a. the Shevu'ah did not
exempt him from paying, and b. without it, he would have been Patur anyway.
(a) When Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah established our Mishnah, which
refers to four types of guardians, like Rebbi Meir, Rava objected - on the
grounds that even those who argue with Rebbi Meir agree with that statement.
(b) What Rav Nachman really meant was - that the author of our Mishnah, *who
gives a Socher the same Din as a Shomer Sachar*, must be Rebbi Meir.
(c) Rabah bar Avuhah reconciled his statement with the Beraisa, which
presents this opinion in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, whereas Rebbi Meir says
'Socher ke'Shomer Chinam' - by switching the opinions in the Beraisa.
(d) Despite the fact that there are only three Dinim, we explain our Mishnah
'Arba'ah Shomrim Hein' - with regard to the number of Shomrim (as indeed the
words suggest), even though there are only three Dinim.
(a) Regarding all the cases that we just cited where the Shomer is absolved
from a Korban Shevu'ah, Rav comments - that they are nevertheless Chayav
because of Shevu'as Bituy.
(b) According to Shmuel, they are Patur because of Shevu'as Bituy, too - and
is therefore Patur from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored. According to Rav however, he
is Chayav (assuming that he was Meizid on the Shevu'ah but Shogeg on the
(c) Rav's reason is because the Shevu'ah is applicable 'be'La'av ve'Hein
(Nignav, ve'Lo Nignav)'; Shmuel's - because it is not applicable in the
(d) The problem with this Machlokes is - that we have already learned it
(a) To answer the Kashya, we explain that even if they had argued in the
case of 'Shevu'ah she'Zarak P'loni ... ', we would have thought that, in our
case, Rav would agree with Shmuel, because of a statement by Rebbi Ami, who
says that any Shevu'ah that is enforced by Beis-Din - is not subject to a
(b) And having taught us their Machlokes here, they found it necessary to
repeat it there - to teach us that Shmuel's ruling of Patur is not confined
to our case, because of Rebbi Ami, but extends to a Shevu'ah which the
Nishba made of his own volition, where it is not subject to a Shevu'as
Bituy, because it does not pertain to the future, as we explained. Note,
that in any event, it is of course, subject to a Shevu'as Shav, for which he
would receive Malkos, if he transgressed be'Meizid.
(c) Rebbi Ami learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shevu'as Bituy)
"O Nefesh Ki Sishava" - that a Shevu'as Bituy is confined to a Shevu'ah that
is made on the Nishba's volition, precluding one that is enforced by
(d) This in turn, is based on a statement of Resh Lakish, who learns that
the word "Ki" - has any one of four meanings 'I' (If or when), 'Dilma'
(perhaps), 'Ela' (but) or 'de'Ha' (because).
(e) Rebbi Ami now interprets "Ki Sishava" as - 'if he swears' (with
connotations of swearing voluntarily).
(a) Rav, on the other hand, interpret "Ki Sishava" - as 'because he swore'
(meaning that he must bring the Korban whether he chose to swear or not).
(b) Rebbi Elazar sides - with Rav, obligating all cases in our Mishnah to
bring a Korban Shevu'ah, except for two (which might be construed as even
three or four) ...
(c) ... one of them is 'Eini Yode'a Mah Atah Sach' of a Sho'el. The other -
is the Geneivah or Aveidah, which the Shomer Sachar or Socher denied with a
Ta'anah of Meis, Nishbar or Nishba.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah categorizes all of the above cases into two
'K'lalim'. Of all the possible computations of changing from Chovah to
Chovah, from P'tur to P'tur, from Chavah to P'tur and from P'tur to Chovah,
the only one which renders a Shomer Sachar (or Socher) Chayav is - from
Chovah to P'tur.
***** Hadran Alach 'Arba'ah Shomrin', u'Selika Lah Maseches Shevu'os *****
(b) In the second 'K'lal' - he only obligates a Korban Shevu'ah in a case
where the Nishba's Shevu'ah alleviates his situation, but not where it
On to Avodah Zarah