Comentario sobre Shevuot 7:4

שבועת שוא – needless to say/not only t an oath of testimony and an oath of deposit which have in them the denial of money which is bad/evil for Heaven (k.e., God) and for humanity, but even an oath taken in vain, which is only bad regarding Heaven, for corresponding to it, he takes an oath and takes [his payment]. But the oath on a statement (i.e., taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story) is not taught, for the oath on a statement is regarding the future, as for example, “I will eat or I won’t eat,” one could say that when he took the oath, he took that oath truthfully, for it was his intention to fulfill it, and even though his inclination compelled him and he transgressed upon it, he is not suspected upon this through the oath. But [an oath] of statement of the past [action], “I ate, I ate,” it is similar to an oath taken in vain, for he pronounced a false oath form his lips.

Introduction This mishnah discusses an oath taken by one person in order to collect from another person who is not allowed to take an oath because he is suspected of taking false oaths.

היה אחד מהן משחק בקוביא – {The Mishnah] taught those who are ineligible from the Torah and also taught those who are ineligible according to the Rabbis (see Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 8 and Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3, for similar listings to that found in our Mishnah).

“He whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath,” How so? Whether it be the oath of testimony, or the oath of deposit, or even a vain oath. The fourth category of person who swears and thereby collects is one whose opponent is suspected of taking false oaths. The mishnah explains that this is true no matter what type of false oath he took, even a vain oath.

ומפריחי יונים – there are those who interpret, if your dove will come before my dove, I will give you such-and-such, which is equivalent to gambling, and there are those who explain that he raises a knowledgeable pigeon who to bring pigeons to the house of its owner, and there with these theft because of the ways of peace.

If one [of the litigants] was a dice-player, or usurer, or pigeon-flyer, or dealer in the produce of the seventh year, his opponent takes the oath and collects [his claim]. The mishnah now expands the list of those who are suspected of taking false oaths. This category includes all those who are forbidden from testifying (see Sanhedrin 3:3). Since these people are gamblers or otherwise do not respect the normal societal rules for money, they are not trusted when another claims a debt from them.

וסוחרי שביעית – they do business with Seventh-year produce, and the Torah stated (Leviticus 25:6): “[But you may] eat [whatever the land during its sabbath will produce,” but not for business.

If both are suspect, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Meir says: “They divide [the claim].” If both sides are not trustworthy, Rabbi Yose says that the normal rules return to their place. This means that the defendant, the one who had a claim made against him, takes an oath and is thereby exempt from paying money. Rabbi Meir disagrees. If both are suspected of taking false oaths, the court cannot allow either of them to swear. This would be in essence encouraging people to take false oaths. Rather they split the claim, meaning that the defendant will have to pay half the claim.

חזרה שבועה למקומה – There are those who interpret in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 47a) that it returned to Sinai, to the oath at Mount Sinai that the Holy One, Blessed be He caused the Isralites to swear that they would not steal , and he He will collect from the indemnity the money for his fellow, but the Jewish court has no need neither for the an oath nor for collection. But there are those who interpret that the oath returned to the one liable for it, on that he admitted to part, and since he cannot take an oath, he is suspect and he must pay.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah say “even a vain oath”? Why might you have thought that if he took a vain oath he would still be trustworthy with regards to other oaths? Why is he not trustworthy with other oaths after having taken a vain oath?
• Why doesn’t Rabbi Judah disagree on this mishnah, as he has on the three previous mishnayoth in our chapter?