פירוש על שבועות 7:8

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?