The oath of the judges [i.e., the oath by which the judges beswear him where there is acknowledgement of part of the claim], two silver [The claim must not be less than for two maoth of silver, a third of a dinar. For the dinar is six maoth, the weight of ninety-six medium sized se'oroth (barley-corns), so that the weight equivalent of two maoth is thirty-two se'oroth.], and the admission, the value of a p'rutah. [The admission which makes him liable to an oath must not be less than the value of a p'rutah. So that if what he denied was less than two (maoth of silver) or what he admitted, less than a p'rutah, he is not liable to a Torah mandated oath, but he is besworn a shvuath heseth (a consuetudinal oath) by rabbinical ordinance. One who is liable to a Torah mandated oath must hold an object in his hand (e.g., a Torah scroll or teffillin) when he swears; and one who is liable to a shvuath heseth does not hold an object in his hand, but the beadle of the congregation or the one who beswears him holds an object in his hand while the oath is being taken. There are only three Torah mandated oaths, and no more: (the oath for) one who admits part of the claim, (the oath administered) where one witness testifies against him and he swears in refutation of the witness, and the oath of the watchers (shomrim). All of the other oaths mentioned in the Mishnah are rabbinically prescribed, and are similar to Torah oaths in that an object is held. The only (substantive) difference between a Torah oath and those mentioned in the Mishnah is that if one is liable to a Torah oath and refuses to swear, beth-din go down to his property and exact payment in full, whereas if one is liable to a rabbinically prescribed oath and he refuses to swear, he is placed under the ban until he pays or swears. And if after thirty days of the ban he still refuses to either swear or pay, he is smitten "stripes of rebellion" (makkoth marduth), the ban is rescinded and he is "let go," and they do not go down to his property.] And if the admission is not of the "kind" of the claim, he is exempt (from an oath). How so? (If one claims:) "You owe me two silver (maoth," and he says:) "I owe you only a p'rutah," he is exempt, [the admission not being of the "kind" of the claim, the claim being "silver," and the admission copper. This, only when the claim is for the weight of two maoth of silver or more. But if he claims a coin of silver, the other had admitted a coin (of copper)!] "You owe me two silver and a p'rutah" — "I owe you only a p'rutah," he is liable, [the premise being: If the claim is for wheat and barley, and the admission for any one of them, he is liable.] "You owe me a maneh" — "I owe you nothing," he is exempt. "You owe me a maneh" — "I owe you only fifty dinars," he is liable. "You owe my father a maneh" — "I owe you only fifty dinars," he is exempt, for he is like the returner of a lost object, [who is exempt from an oath, as we learned: If one finds a lost object, he is not subject to an oath, for the public good. And this, only when the son does not claim positively that he owes his father a maneh, but only tentatively. But if he claimed it positively, and the other admitted to only fifty, he is subject to a Torah mandated oath, this not being like returning a lost object.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שבועת הדיינין – the oath that the judges impose through a partial admission of the claim, it is necessary that the claim not be less than two M’ah of silver, which is one-third of a Denar, and the Denar is six Maot and it has the weight of ninety six [pieces] of intermediate [sized] barley, and it was found that the weight of two Maot were thirty two [pieces/panacles of] barley.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
In the previous three chapters the mishnah discussed oaths which a person takes on his own. Our chapter begins to discuss oaths which are imposed by a court. There are several different types of oaths that may be imposed by a court. The first type of oath, the one described in our chapter, is sworn in a case where a person admits to owing part of a claim but denies the other part of the claim. We will learn the particulars of this oath as we proceed. For the sake of clarity, when explaining these mishnayoth we will use the name Reuven as the claimant, and Shimon as the defendant.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
וההודאה – that [the judges] obligate him to take an oath on should not be less than the worthy of a equivalent of a penny, for iif what he denies to him is less than two siver [coins], or what he admitted was less than the value of the equivalent of a penny, he is not obligated for an oath according to the Torah. But, we impose an oathupon him an oath of inducement (an oath instituted by the Sages in a case where a defendant completely denies a claim, in order to clear himself of suspicion).according to the words of the Soferim/Scribes . And one who is liable for an oath according to the Torah takes an object in his hand, as for example, a Torah scroll or Tefillin (i.e., phylacteries) when he is taking anoath. But the person who is liable for an oath of inducement does not take an object in his hand, but rather, the Hannan of the synagogue or the one administering the oath takes an object in his hand at the time when his fellow swears to him. And there are three kinds of oaths according to the Torah, and not mor. He who admits to part of the claim, and [the case] of where one witness testifies against him, that he takes an oath to contradict the witness, and the oath of the bailees. But all of the rest of the oaths that are mentioned in the Mishnah are through the ordinance of the Sages, and they are like that of the Torah in the taking up of an object. And there is no difference between the oath of the Torah to the oaths that are mentioned in the Mishnah, bother than that the one who is liable to take an oath of the Torah and di dnot want to swear, the Jewish court goes into his possessions and collects from them in full payment. But the one who is one who I s liable to an oath from their words (i.e., from the Rabbis), with the ordinance of the Sages andhe doesn’t want to swear, we excommunicate him until he pays or until he swears. And if he stands in his excommunication for thirty days and does not want to take an oath nor pay, we flog him with the flogging of rebelliousness and we release him from his excommunication and he goes on his way, and we don’t descend into his possessions.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
The oath of the judges [is imposed when] the claim is [at least] two silver coins, and the admission the equivalent of a perutah. And if the admission is not of the same kind as the claim, he is exempt. How is this so? This section introduces two general rules for the “oath of judges” described in our mishnah. The case is where Reuven tells Shimon that he owes him money and Shimon denies owing the full amount. Our mishnah teaches that if Shimon denies owing Reuven at least 2 ma’ah (a small, silver coin) and admits to owing at least a perutah (a small, not valuable, copper coin) he will be obligated to swear an oath that he does not owe the rest. Furthermore, he only has to swear an oath if that which he admits owing is the same kind as that which he denies. For instance if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him 50 barrels of oil and Shimon responds that he owes 50 barrels of wine, Shimon need not swear. The mishnah will explicate this ruling in mishnah three.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה פטור – for the admission is not from the species of the claim, for this claimed silver and the other admitted to him copper. And especially that he claimed against him a silver coin – for he admitted to him with a coin.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“Two silver ma’ahs of mine are in your possession,” [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is exempt. “Two silver ma’ahs of mine and a perutah are in your possession,” [and the other replies,] “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is liable. The remainder of the mishnah explains the first rule, that the denial must be of two ma’ahs and the admission one perutah. If Reuven claims two ma’ahs and Shimon admits to one perutah, Shimon is not obligated for he denied only two ma’ahs less a perutah, which is less than the minimum two ma’ahs required. He will be obligated to swear if Reuven claims two ma’ahs and a perutah and Shimon admits to owing a perutah, for in this case Shimon did deny a full two ma’ahs.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שתי כסף ופרוטה – for holds that he claimed against him for wheat and bareley and he admitted to him on one of these, he is liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours,” he is exempt. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have of yours only fifty denarii,” he is liable. If Shimon completely denies owing Reuven money he is exempt from taking an oath. If, however, he admits to part of the claim, he must take an oath. This law requires some explanation for it may seem counterintuitive. The reasoning is thus: people are generally not so brazen as to completely deny something that is true. If Reuven claims money from Shimon and Shimon really does owe money he will not be so brash as to deny the debt completely. Therefore if he does deny the debt, he is believed without having to take an oath. People are however brazen enough to deny parts of debts. Shimon may reason to himself that he will deny owing Reuven part of the debt now and then when he gets the chance he will repay the whole debt. Since we assume that people might lie in such occasions, he must take an oath so that we can more safely assume that he is telling the truth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה – and is exempt from an oath, as is taught [Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3] – that aperson who finds an o object should not take an oath because of the repair of the world. And especially when the son does not claim with certainty that the Manah of his father is in your hands, but rather perhaps. But if he made a definitive claim against him, and he said, that he did not have anything other than fifty, he is liable for a Torah-based oath, for that is not restoring a lost objec
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“You have of my father’s a hundred denarii”, [and the other replies], “I have of his only fifty denarii”, he is exempt, because it is as if he restores a lost object. If Reuven claims that Shimon’s father owes him money and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not take an oath on the rest. Since this was not a claim against Shimon but against Shimon’s father, Shimon could have been brazen enough to deny the entire claim. Since he admitted to part of it, we trust him without making him take an oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Questions for Further Thought: • Why is this compared to returning a lost object?
