Comentario sobre Shevuot 7:6

ולא נתן לו – and the produce are piled up and placed in the public domain and are not held in possession either by he storekeeper nor by the house owner.

Introduction Mishnah six continues to discuss the oath of the shopkeeper.

ונתתו באנפליא (in the merchant’s money chest into which receipts are dropped through a slit) – a casing/sheath that is made for money.

If he said to a shopkeeper, “Give me fruit for a denar,” and he gave him, and then the shopkeeper said to him, “Give me the denar”, and he replied to him, “I gave it to you, and you placed it in the till”, the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the fruit,” and the shopkeeper says to him, “I have given it to you, and you took it to your house,” the shopkeeper takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “He who has the fruit in his possession, has the advantage.” Reuven asks Shimon the shopkeeper to sell him a denar’s worth of fruit, and Shimon gives him the fruit. When Shimon claims the denar from Reuven, Reuven responds that he has already paid him, and that Shimon put it in into the till. The mishnah rules that Reuven may swear that he gave Shimon the denar and be exempt from paying. Since Shimon cannot prove that he did not receive the denar, he cannot recover the alleged debt. In the second scenario in this section, Reuven gives the denar before getting the fruit. When Reuven claims the fruit, Shimon responds that he has already paid him and that Reuven put the fruit into his house. In this case Shimon is allowed to swear that he has already paid, for the same reason that Reuven was allowed to swear in the first case. Rabbi Judah says that whoever holds the fruit has the advantage. According to Rashi, Rabbi Judah disagrees with the ruling in section one. Since the customer already has possession of the fruit he is believed when he says that he gave the denar without taking an oath. Even though it is not unusual for shopkeepers to give their produce on credit, Rabbi Judah still believes the customer who claims to have paid since he has possession of the goods.

ישבע בעל הבית – an oath like that of the Torah, and he will take [the money], for since the storekeeper admits that he sold , and the produce are outside of his store, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes it.

If he said to a money-changer, “Give me change for a denar,” and he gave him; and said to him, “Give me the denar,” and the other said, “I have given it to you, and you placed it in the till,” the customer takes an oath. If he gave him the denar, and said to him, “Give me the small change,” and the other said to him, “I have given it to you, and you threw it in your purse,” the money -changer takes an oath. Rabbi Judah says: “It is not usual for a money-changer to give [even] an issar until he receives the denar.” This section is basically the same as the previous one, accept that it discusses a money-changer and not a shopkeeper. Rabbi Judah’s opinion differs slightly, at least in the way he phrases it. Rabbi Judah again disagrees with the first part of the section (according to Rashi). When the customer has already received the change and the money-changer claims that he has not received the denar, the customer is believed to have given the denar even without taking an oath. Since money-changers generally do not give coins without having received other coins, we can assume that the other person did indeed give the coin.

רמק לו נתתים לך. והלכתן לתוך ביתך – and this piled up produce that is left [in the public domain] are mine, that I gave here to sell them, and the other claims, they are the produce that you sold me for a Denar. Since the purchaser admits to the transaction/sale and the storekeeper denies that he sold those [particular produce], the storekeeper takes an oath aan other like that of the Torah and takes [the money].

Questions for Further Thought:
• How are the two scenarios in the two halves of this mishnah different?

רבי יהודה אומר וכו' – Rabbi Yehuda is disputing the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], and stated, whether this or whether that, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes [his produce]. For since the produce are outside of the store, they are as if the produce are in the hands of the owner of the house, and whomever has the produce in hand – his hand is on top/has the advantage and he takes an oath and takes [them].

אמר לשולחני וכו' – The Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] comes to tell us that the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, whether with regard to the money of the money changer, or with regard to produce of the storekeeper, for if [the Mishnah] had taught [only] the dispute regarding the storekeeper, , I would state that the Rabbis spoke of the produce, and when he (i.e., the storekeeper) said to him (i.e., the purchaser, the house owner), “I gave them to you, and you took them into your house,” the storekeeper should take an oath and take [his money], because the storekeeper customarily gives the produce prior to taking the Denar, but the money changer does not customarily give the Issarim prior to taking the Denar, I would say that he agrees with Rabbi Yehudah, that the house owner always takes an oath and takes [his produce]. And if it was said with this, it was with this that Rabbi Yehuda stated it, for always the house owner takes an oath and takes [his produce], because the money changer does not customarily hand over Issarim until he takes the Denar. But the storekeeper, who customarily gives the produce prior to his taking the Money, I would say that he agrees with the Rabbis. Both [opinions] are necessary. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.