Commentaire sur Shevouot 7:9

כל הנשבעין. נשבעין ולא משלמין – The Torah did not institute for the person making a claim to take an oath and to take/regain their due, but rather for the one investigated that he takes an oath and does not pay, as it is written (Exodus 22:10): “[an oath before the LORD shall decide between the two of them that one has not laid hands on the property of the other;] the owner must acquiesce, and no restitution shall be made.” Whomever that it is upon him to pay is the one who must take an oath.

Introduction The first six mishnayoth of our chapter discuss the exceptional cases in which a person takes an oath and thereby collects money from another person. All of the cases that we have seen in the mishnah until now have been examples of people who take oaths and are thereby exempt from paying.

ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין – that the Sages established for them to take an oath and to regain their due. And all of this is explained further on in our Mishnah.

All whom the Torah obligates to take an oath, take an oath, and do not pay. But these take an oath, and receive [payment]: the hired laborer, he who has been robbed, he who has been wounded, and he whose opponent is suspected of taking a false oath, and the shopkeeper with his account book. Under most circumstances the one who takes an oath is the defendant or the one who would potentially owe money. Usually he swears and is thereby believed and does not have to pay the claimant. However, there are five cases in which a claimant takes an oath and thereby collects. This section briefly lists these five cases. The mishnah through mishnah six will explain these cases one at a time.

השכיר – The Sages established for him to take an oath and to take his due because the owner of the house/employer is preoccupied with all of his workers and does not remember. And these words are when he makes a claim at the present time. The hired day laborer (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 9, Mishnah 12) his present time is all day long that is after him , but if they made a claim against him after his time, the owner of the house takes an equitable oath (which is applied if one is sued for a debt, denies the later entirely (כופר הכל), in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the time ( מודה במקצת) . It being presumed that nobody will go to the law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant (see Talmud Shevuot 40b) – that he paid him and departed, but if he had been hired without witnesses being present, also, the hired person cannot take an oath and take his due because he (i.e., the owner of the house/employer) can say to him: “I never hired you.” He also can say to him: “I hired you and gave you your wages.”

“The hired laborer” How so? [If] he says to him [his employer], “Give me my wages which you owe me,” and he replies, “I have given,” and the other says, “I have not received it,” he [the laborer] takes an oath and collects his wages. Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? If he says to him, “Give me my wages, fifty denarii, which you owe me,” and the other says, “You have received a gold denar (25 silver.” The first person who takes an oath and is thereby able to collect a debt is a hired laborer. If a hired laborer claims his wages and his employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer may take an oath and collect his wages. The Talmud explains that since employers have many employees, they may tend to forget whom they have paid and whom they have not. It is not unlikely that they have indeed forgotten to pay their employees. Therefore, the hired laborer is allowed to swear that he has not been paid, and thereby collect his wages. According to Rabbi Judah, the hired laborer is allowed to collect by swearing only if the employer admitted to owing him part of his wages. In the scenario that he presents, the employer admitted to owing him 25 denarii but denied owing him an additional 25 denarii. The laborer may swear that the employer owes him 25 and collect. If the employer had denied the entire debt the employee would not be able to take an oath and collect.

והוא אומר נתתי – but he said to him: “I stipulated/agreed upon two [Zuz] and he (i.e., the employer) says, “I stipulated for you only one (see Talmud Shevuot 45b). The owner takes the oath of the Torah that it is according to his words, and he only gives him one.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does Rabbi Judah believe there needs to be a partial admission in order for the claimant to swear and then collect?

למשכנו שלא ברשות – as in the case where witnesses saw that he entered into the house of his fellow, and there was nothing in his hand and he left from there with utensils inserted under his arms.

“He who has been robbed” How so?
If they testified of a man that he entered into another’s house to take a pledge without permission, and the other says, “You have taken my vessels, and he says, “I have not taken them,” he takes an oath, and takes back his vessels.
Rabbi Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, “You have taken two vessels,” and the other says, “I have taken only one.”
This mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been robbed. Through this oath the one who was robbed can recover his money from the robber.
The second type of person who is allowed to swear and collect is one who has been robbed. In the scenario presented in the mishnah Reuven enters Shimon’s home to take Shimon’s property as a pledge against Shimon’s debt to Reuven, but Reuven did not have permission, neither from Shimon nor from the court, to do so. Shimon claims that Reuven took his vessels when intruding into the house. If Reuven denies having done so, Shimon may swear and take from Reuven the value of the vessels that he has claimed. The reason that Shimon is allowed to swear and thereby collect is that Reuven is punished for having illegally entered Shimon’s house. Since he already broke the law, we do not trust him to deny having further broken the law.
According to Rabbi Judah, he is allowed to swear and collect only if Reuven denies part of the claim and admits to the other part. If Reuven denies the entire claim, Shimon cannot swear and thereby collect.

הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – for the words are proven that the witnesses testify that he had a pledge taken without permission,. And what he was carrying was something where one is believed to be wealthy. But if he was carrying a silver cup, or something like it, it is a matter that they would not have believed him to be wealthy. Is it not within his powers to take an oath and take his rightful due? But rather, the person whom the claim is made against should take an oath and be exempt.

הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – and specifically when the wound is in a place where it is possible that he wounded himself, and because of this, it requires an oath. But if it is in a place where he cannot wound himself, and it is recognized that others did it to him, as for example, when a bite occurred to him on his back, and there is no one else there, for he is able to say, perhaps another [person] did it, he takes [his compensation] without an oath [being administered].

Introduction This mishnah discusses the oath taken by one who has been wounded. Through this oath he can collect money from the one who wounded him.

“He who has been wounded,” How so? If they testified about a person that another went onto his property whole, and came out wounded, and he said to him, “You have wounded me,” and the other said, “I have not wounded you,” he takes an oath, and receives [damages]. R. Judah says: “[There is no oath] unless there is partial admission: How so? He said to him, you have inflicted on me two wounds,” and the other said, “I inflicted on you only one wound.” This mishnah discusses the third example of one who swears and thereby collects: a person who has been wounded. In this scenario witnesses testify that Shimon entered Reuven’s property without having been previously injured and that he came out wounded. Shimon claims that Reuven injured him and Reuven denies having done so. Since it is highly likely that Shimon is telling the truth and that Reuven did indeed injure Shimon, Shimon may take an oath and collect damages. Rabbi Judah states that Shimon may collect only if Reuven admits to part of the claim. For instance if Shimon claims that Reuven injured him twice and Reuven admits to having done so only once, then Shimon may swear and collect. This opinion of Rabbi Judah is consistent with his opinion in the two previous mishnayoth.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the law if there were no witnesses who testified that Shimon went onto Reuven’s property? Would Shimon still be able to collect?

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?

שניהם נשבעים ונוטלין מבעל הבית (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) – the storekeeper said to hi, the workers are not believable to me with an oath; you declare them as trustworthy for you did not say to me with witnesses, “give to them.” And similarly, the workers say to him: “The storekeeper is not believable to us with an oath.” But when both (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take an oath frand take from the owner of the house, they take an oath, one in the presence of the other, that just as that the storekeeper is frightened from the workers or the workers [are frightened] from the storekeeper.

“And the shopkeeper with his account book,” How so? Not that he [the shopkeeper] says to him [the customer], “It is written in my account book that you owe me two hundred zuz”. Rather he [the customer] says to him [the shopkeeper], “Give my son two seahs of wheat,” or, “Give my laborer small change to the value of a sela” and then he says, “I have given,” and they say, “We have not received”; he [the shopkeeper] takes an oath, and receives [his due from the customer]. And they take an oath, and receive [their due].
Ben Nanas said: “How can both be permitted to come to a vain oath? Rather he takes without an oath, and they take without an oath.”
The mishnah which we will learn today discusses the fifth type of person who swears and collects: the shopkeeper with his account book.
This mishnah explains the fifth category of person who swears and thereby collects: the shopkeeper with his account book. The mishnah first explains that this is not a case where a shopkeeper claims that it is written in his book that so-and-so owes him money. In such a case the shopkeeper would not be able to swear and thereby collect from his customer. In that case the customer would be able to deny the debt without even having to take an oath.
Rather the mishnah describes a case where a customer requested that a shopkeeper give his son 2 seah of wheat or his worker coins the value of two sela. The customer promises to pay the shopkeeper back later on. We can see from here that in the time of the Mishnah shopkeepers, who usually had cash and produce on hand, functioned somewhat like a bank. Later on, the shopkeeper claims that he has paid the son or the workers. The son or the workers respond that they have not been paid. In other words, both sides are claiming that the customer/employer owes them money. According to the first opinion in our mishnah the shopkeeper can swear and collect from the customer. He is allowed to do so because he did not have any direct dealings with the son or the workers, direct dealings which would have implied that he trusts them to take an oath that they had not collected. There is no true business relationship between the son or workers and the shopkeeper. Rather there is a relationship only between the customer and the shopkeeper, and the customer and his son or workers.
The workers also may swear and thereby collect their wages from their employer. Since they have no business relationship with the shopkeeper, they need not trust him to swear that he did pay them. They may then swear and collect from their employer as all wage earners do (see mishnah one).
Ben Nanas points out a problem in this situation: if the shopkeeper swears that he did give the wheat or money and the son or employees swear that they didn’t receive, one of them is definitely swearing falsely. By the court mandating that both sides swear, the court is actually encouraging God’s name to be disgraced by a false oath. Rather, Ben Nanas rules that both sides collect without taking an oath.

אלו ואלו באין לידי שבועת שוא – for perforce, one of them takes a false oath and it is found that the name of Heaven is profaned. But rather, both of these (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take their money without an oath. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Nanos.

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.

הפוגמת כתובתה – she produces the document of her Ketubah/marriage contract and it admits that it has been partially received.

Introduction Mishnah seven teaches two more categories of people who swear and thereby collect.

לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – if the husband claims that she received all of it.

So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. The previous six mishnayoth listed five cases where a person could swear and collect from others. Our mishnah lists two other such cases. There is however a difference between the cases listed here and those listed above. In those above, the innovation of the mishnah was that the person might take an oath and thereby collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that the person could not have collected at all, since they could not prove their claim. In the cases in our mishnah, the mishnah is teaching that they must swear before they collect. Without the mishnah we would have thought that they could have collected without an oath, for as we shall see, these people can indeed prove their claims. The first section discusses women collecting their “kethubah” or marriage document, which has written in it an amount of money paid to the woman upon death or divorce. In normal circumstances the woman could collect without taking an oath, since she holds the actual document. However, there are several circumstances where in order to collect, she must take an oath: 1) a woman who has already received part of the kethubah money; 2) if one person testifies that she has already received her kethubah (two witnesses are needed for the husband to prove that she has already collected); 3) if she collects from property that the husband had already given to others (the kethubah creates a lien on all of the husband’s property) or from the husband’s children; 4) if she collects while not in front of him. In all of these cases, the woman must swear that she has not received her kethubah before she can collect from the husband or from his estate.

עד אחד אומר וכו'. ומנסכים משועבדים ומנכסי היתומים כו'. ונפרעת שלא בפניו – all of this is as it is exists., just as not one of these is collected other than through an oath, thus orphans do not collect other than through an oath. Orphans who collect from the orphans do not collect other than through an oath. But our Mishnah is speaking of a case where the orphans that come to collect from them state: “Se don’t know if our father paid off this lien or not,” but if they claimed: “Our father told us that he did not borrow these money and did not ever obligate himself in this lien, the orphans who produce a lien document on these orphans collect from them without an oath, for anyone who says, “I did not borrow” is like someone who says I did not pay the debt, and they are not able to contradict the witnesses who testify that their father borrowed these funds. And they did not teach that through an oath, at least, the orphans took from orphans, but rather that the lender/creditor died during the life of the borrower/debtor, but if the debtor/borrower died during the life of the borrower, the lender was already liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower that nothing had been received, that he had collected from the orphans even with a document that requires an oath, for a person does not bequeath money that he is liable for an oath to his children, for the children are not able to take an oath that their father had obligated himself to. And even though this is the law, if a judge decides that the orphans should take an oath that father did not give us instructions nor pay back from the monies that the other orphans through this oath. What is done is done.

So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.” Similarly, if orphans find amongst their fathers documents a bill that says that others owe him money they must swear that their father did not tell them, either verbally, in a will or in a separate document, that the bill had already collected. If they take this oath they may then collect the debt. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, even if the son was born after the father’s death, and therefore cannot swear that his father did not tell him that the bill had already been paid, he may still swear that he did not find amongst his father’s other documents a note stating that the debt had already been paid. After taking this oath the son may collect the debt. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel if there are witnesses who say that at the time of death the father said to them that the bill was not paid, the father’s heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath.

שלא פקדנו אבא – at the time of [his] death.

ושלא אמר לנו [that he did not tell us anything] prior to this, that this document was paid off.

הרי זה נשבע – that he did not find among his father’s documents that this document was paid off. And such is the Halakha.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר – And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel [that at the time of death, the document had not been paid off, the son may collect the debt without taking an oath].

שלא בטענה – without an evident/sure claim, but rather a possible [alternative] claim, for he claims that perhaps you withheld from me. But because of of these teach a permitted action for themselves because they were busy with property, because of this, the Rabbis placed an oath upon them.

Introduction Mishnah eight teaches five types of defendants who must take oaths even though the claimant’s claim is not certain.

והאפוטרופסים – that were in engaged in the money of a person to earn and to spend and to engage in business. But the guardian/administrator of orphans, if the Jewish court appointed him, he does not take an oath.

And these take an oath though there is no [definite] claim: partners, tenants, guardians, the wife who transacts the affairs in the house, and the son of the house. Generally, a person has to swear that he doesn’t owe the claimant, only if the claimant had professed to be certain that he was owed money. If the claimant is not himself certain, the defendant need not swear. Our mishnah lists several exceptions to this rule. 1. If one partner suspects another partner of not equally sharing the business costs or profits, he may impose upon him an oath. 2. If a landowner suspects that a sharecropper did not honestly report the amount of crops harvested, he may impose upon him an oath. 3. If a person suspects that someone who had been appointed as a guardian over his property, had withheld some of the property for himself, he may impose upon him an oath. 4. If a husband leaves his household and finances in the care of his wife, he may make her take an oath that she did not take any of his property. 5. Similarly, if one brother administers an inheritance, the other brothers impose upon him an oath that he did not take any of the property for himself.

והאשה הנושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית – her husband placed her as a storekeeper or administrator/guardian over his possessions.

[If] he said to him, “What do you claim of me?”, [and the other replied,] “I want you to swear to me”, he must take an oath. In all of these circumstances the claimant may request that the defendant swear that he didn’t take any of the property, without the claimant having to express a definite claim.

ובן בית – one of the brothers who was engaged with property when their father died.

If the partners or tenants had divided, he cannot impose an oath upon them. Once partners have already split up their partnership, one partner may not force another partner to swear that he didn’t take a part that didn’t belong to him while the partnership still existed.

חלקו – but they did not have him take an oath at the time of the division [of property].

If an oath was imposed upon him in another case, they impose upon him the whole. If a person already must take an oath to another person that he does not owe him something, the claimant may make him swear another oath, that under normal circumstances he would not have the power to impose.

נתגלגלה לו שבועה – with them afterwards. They impose nupon him als this [oath] upon him, in the same manner that impose upon the oath of the Torah and with an oath that is similar to that of the Torah; so they impose upon him the oath of inducement.

And the seventh year cancels the oath. The Sabbatical year cancels all debts. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him money, and Shimon admitted to owing part of the money and denied owing the rest, and then the Sabbatical year arrived, Shimon does not need to swear that he doesn’t owe the rest. Since the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, it also erases the need to swear with regards to the debt.

והשביעית משמטת את השבועה – this not referring to the oath of partners, for the Seventh Year does not release partners nor its oath, but rather, from a borrower/debtor and its oath [the Seventh Year] releases.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah rule that in these circumstances a person make another person take an oath without having a definite claim? Why under normal circumstances must there be a definite claim for an oath to be imposed?