R. Meir dice: Hay cosas que son como la tierra y que no son como la tierra; y los sabios no están de acuerdo con él. ¿Cómo es eso? (Si uno dice :) "Te di diez enredaderas cargadas", y el otro dice: "Son solo cinco", R. Meir requiere un juramento, y los sabios dicen: Lo que está unido al suelo es como el suelo. [Las uvas en espera de la cosecha son el punto de diferencia entre los sabios y R. Meir. Según R. Meir, las uvas en espera de la cosecha se consideran cosechadas, y según los sabios, no se consideran cosechadas. La halajá está de acuerdo con los sabios. Y esto, solo con respecto a los observadores (shomrim), pero con respecto a la compra y venta y ona'ah (sobrecarga), y admitir parte del reclamo—en todos ellos sostienen que lo que espera ser cosechado se considera cosechado. Y esta es la halajá.] Solo se hace un juramento sobre algo que se puede medir o pesar. ¿Cómo es eso? (Si uno dice :) "Te di una casa llena (de productos)" o: "Te di una bolsa llena (de dinero)", y el otro dice: "No sé, pero toma lo que poner ", él está exento (de un juramento). Si uno dice: "Hasta el ziz" [un haz de la historia superior que se proyecta desde el interior de la casa], y el otro: "Hasta la ventana", él es responsable. [La regla: uno nunca es responsable de un juramento obligatorio de la Torá a menos que el reclamo sea por algo que se pueda medir, pesar o contar, y se admita parte de la medida, peso o recuento.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וכו' – as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “In all charges of misappropriation” – generalization; “pertaining to an ox, an ass, a sheep a garment,” – specification; “or any other loss” - he has returned and made a generalization. If a generalization is followed by a specification and this in turn, by a generalization, one must be guided by what the specification implies. Just as the specification is explanation by something that is movable and its essence is monetary, so also everything that movable and its essence is monetary, excluding real estate which are not movable ,excluding slaves which were compared to real estate, excluding documents for even though they are movables, their essence is not financial. For all of these we don’t impose oaths upon a thing dedicated [to the Temple] we don’t take an oath, as it is written, (Exodus 22:6): “When a person gives [money or goods] to another [for safekeeping,” and not of something dedicated [to the Temple].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
Mishnah five discusses cases where no oath is imposed because of the nature of the object in dispute.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
אין בהן תשלמי כפל – for in these, especially that we use an additional word for the purpose of intimating something not otherwise included (i.e., the widen the scope of a law), something like the specification as it is written in that portion (Exodus 22:8): “[he whom God declares guilty] shall pay double to his neighbor,” and not of something dedicated [to the Temple].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
And these are the things for which no oath is imposed: slaves, bonds, lands, and dedicated objects. [The law of] paying double, or four or five times the value, does not apply to them. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath, and a paid guardian does not pay. Rabbi Shimon says: “For dedicated objects for which he is responsible an oath is imposed and for [dedicated objects] for which he is not responsible an oath is not imposed. A person does not have to take an oath over any of the objects that are listed in this section. This means that if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him slaves, bonds or land, and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not swear over the rest. The laws of paying double, or four of five times the value also do not apply to these things. These are the penalties for one who steals, or one who steals and then sells or slaughters that which he stole. If Reuven steals a bond from Shimon and then sells it, Reuven is only obligated to restore the value of the slave, but not the double payment. If Reuven steals a sheep that had been dedicated to the Temple, and then sells the sheep, he is not liable to pay back to the Temple four times the value of the sheep. The laws of guardianship also do not apply to these things. If an unpaid guardian is watching a slave, and the slave runs away, the unpaid guardian need not swear that he was not negligent. A paid guardian does not have to pay if, while watching one of these objects, it is stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between dedicated objects for which a person is responsible and those for which he is not responsible. If a person says, “I dedicate this sheep to the Temple” and the sheep dies, he is not responsible to replace the sheep. Since this sheep is already considered Temple property, it is not subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship. If a person says, “I dedicate a sheep to the Temple” and he sets aside a sheep to bring to the Temple, and the sheep dies, he must replace the sheep with another sheep. Since the first sheep is still under his responsibility, and is therefore still his sheep, it is subject to the laws of oaths and guardianship.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמישה – for wherever that there is not’s double paymenr, he doesn’t pay four-times or five-times [the base amount], for since there isn’t double payment, the would have would have three-time or four-time [the base] payment, but the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 22:37): “[When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it,] he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep,” and not three or four-fold payment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
שומר חנם אינו נשבע – the unpaid bailee only has upon him an oath, as it is written (Exodus 22:7): “the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands [on the other’s property],” and the entire portion is stated concerning the unpaid bailee,. But he does not take an oath regarding slaves and real-estate and on documents, for we derive it from what is written (Exodus 22:6): “When a man gives…to another” – a generalization; “money or goods” – a specification; “”for safekeeping,”- he returns and makes a generalization; if a generalization is followed by a specification and this in turn, by a generalization, one must be guided by what the specification implies. Just as the specification is explained as something movable and its essence is money, even all things, etc., excluding real estate which are not movables, etc. But all of these that we stated regarding them, one does not take an oath, especially the oath of the Torah, but we require the oath of inducement.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
נושא שכר אינו משלם – theft and loss which is written in it, to be liable, as it is written (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” But slaves, and real estate and documents, he does not pay, as it is written regarding the paid bailee (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another” – a generalization; “an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal” – a specification; “to guard” – he returns and makes a generalization, etc., as we have stated above. The [term] רעהו/to another – is written with regard to an unpaid bailee and a paid bailee, that implies, “another person” and not dedicated [to the Temple], but the borrower and the renter (i.e., the other two bailees) are not mentioned here, to exlude from them slaves and real estate and documents and dedication [to the Temple], for a borrower does not belong with real estate and not with documents for the most part, and all the more so, renters do not belong with documents, and similarly, the borrower and renters do not belong with things dedicated [to the Temple] for it is forbidden to lend and to rent that which is dedicated [to the Temple].
