Halacha
הלכה א
וְאֵלוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַר וְטָעַן טַעֲנַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) "כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ" פְּרָט לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים פְּרָט לְקַרְקָעוֹת וְלַעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. וְכֵן יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן כְּכֶסֶף וּכְכֵלִים וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא לָרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. וְעַל כֻּלָּן נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת אִם הָיְתָה שָׁם טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי. חוּץ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶם כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזְלוּ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת:
כסף משנה
1.
An oath is not taken on claims concerning the following according to Scriptural Law: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even though a defendant admitted a portion of a claim or a witness testified against him, or he served as a watchman and sought to free himself on the basis of one of the claims according to which a watchman is freed of liability, he is not required to take an oath. These concepts are derived from Exodus 22:6, which, with regard to the obligation to take an oath, states: "When a person will give his colleague" - this excludes consecrated property - "money or utensils..." - this excludes landed property. And it excludes servants, which the Torah associated with landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, for their actual substance is not of financial value like money or utensils. They only serve as proof of an obligation.With regard to all of these matters, the defendant must take a sh 'vuat hesset if the plaintiff issues a definite claim with the exception of consecrated property. In that instance, even though a person is not liable to take an oath concerning them according to Scriptural Law, our Sages ordained that the defendant take an oath resembling a Scriptural oath. This requirement was instituted so that people would not treat consecrated property lightly.
הלכה ב
שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת מָכַרְתָּ לִי לֹא מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁטָר אֶחָד אוֹ עֶבֶד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר חָצֵר זוֹ אוֹ עֶבֶד זֶה אוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הוּא וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי וְהַנִּטְעָן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵד אֶחָד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵן הַחוֹפֵר בִּשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וְהִפְסידוּה והרי הוּא חיּב לְשַׁלֵּם בֵּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ שֶׁחָפַר שְׁתֵּי מְעָרוֹת וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי אֶלָּא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁחָפַר וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָפַרְתִּי כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל הַכּל:
כסף משנה
2.
Accordingly, when a plaintiff claims: "You sold me two fields," and the defendant responds: "I sold you only one," or he claims: "I entrusted two servants..." or "...two promissory notes to you," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted only one," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset.Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This courtyard, this servant or this promissory note that is in your possession is mine; you sold it to me," and the defendant denies the existence of the matter entirely, he is required to take merely a sh'vuat hesset. This applies whether the plaintiff brings a witness to support his claim or not.
A similar law applies when a person digs cisterns, trenches or caves in his colleague's property, reducing its value, and the owner of the field claims that the digger is liable to make financial restitution. Regardless of whether the owner claimed that a defendant dug such caves, and the defendant responded: "I did not dig anything," the owner claimed: "You dug two caves," and the defendant answered, "I dug only one," or one witness testified that he dug caves and the defendantresponded: "I did not dig anything," the defendant is required to take only a sh'vuat hesset regarding the claim.
הלכה ג
טְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּכָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַכֵּלִים. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. אֲבָל אִם הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כֵּלִים וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן עִם כָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַל מִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן נִשְׁבָּע אַף עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ עִמָּהֶן שֶׁהַכּל טַעֲנָה אַחַת. וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּטְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וַעֲבָדִים אוֹ כֵּלִים וּשְׁטָרוֹת הַכּל דִּין אֶחָד הוּא:
כסף משנה
3.
The following laws apply when the plaintiff claimed both utensils and landed property. Whether the defendant: acknowledged owing all of the landed property, but denied owing any of the utensils, acknowledged owing all the utensils, but denied owing any of the landed property, acknowledged owing some of the landed property, but denied owing the remainder as well as all of the utensils, he must take a sh'vuat hesset.If, however, the defendant acknowledged owing some of the utensils and denied owing the remainder, as well as all of the landed property, since he is required to take an oath with regard to the utensils that he denied, he must also take an oath concerning the landed property that he denied together with them, for it is all one claim.
Similar laws apply when the plaintiff claims utensils and servants, or utensils and promissory notes, for all such claims are governed by the same legal process.
הלכה ד
טְעָנוֹ עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִבָּצֵר וּתְבוּאָה יְבֵשָׁה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְהִקָּצֵר וְהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָתָן וְכָפַר בְּמִקְצָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עֲלֵיהֶם כִּשְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְהוּא שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹמֵד לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָצוּר לְעִנְיַן כְּפִירָה וְהוֹדָיָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ צְרִיכִים לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא הֶסֵּת:
כסף משנה
4.
When a plaintiff lodges a claim concerning grapes that are ready to be harvested, or grain that has dried and is ready to be reaped, and the defendant accepts a portion of the claim and denies a portion of the claim, he must take an oath concerning those he denied, as is required with regard to other movable property, provided they no longer require the nurture of the ground. The rationale is whatever is ready to be harvested is considered as though it has been harvested with regard to the denial and admission of claims.If, however, the crops require the nurture of the ground, they are considered to be landed property in all contexts, and only a sh'vuat hesset is required concerning them.
הלכה ה
הַטּוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים שָׁכַנְתָּ בַּחֲצֵרִי וְאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי שְׂכַר שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא שָׁכַנְתִּי אֶלָּא חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת. וְאִם הָיָה שְׂכַר הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ שָׁוֶה שְׁנֵי כֶּסֶף נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵין הַטַּעֲנָה בְּגוּף הַקַּרְקַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׂכָרָהּ שֶׁהוּא מִטַּלְטְלִין:
כסף משנה
5.
When a person lodges a claim against his colleague, saying: "You dwelled in my courtyard for two months, and you owe me two months rent," and the defendant responds, "I dwelled there for only one month," he is considered a person who denied a portion of a claim.Thus, if the rent for the month that he denied owing is equivalent to two silver me'in, he must take an oath. The rationale is that the claim does not focus on the land itself, but on the rent for it, and that is movable property.
הלכה ו
שְׁטָר מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ וַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין הָיוּ לִי בּוֹ רְאָיָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. הָפַךְ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בּוֹ רְאָיָה לַעֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים וְאָבְדוּ בַּאֲבֵדַת הַשְּׁטָר וְיִטּל. וְאִם אָמַר הַנִּתְבָּע אֱמֶת מָסַרְתָּ לִי וְאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ פָּשַׁע בּוֹ וְאָבַד פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת חוֹבֵל:
כסף משנה
6.
When a plaintiff claims: "I gave you a promissory note that served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim," and the defendant denies the matter entirely, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.If he reverses the obligation for the oath, requiring it of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must take a sh'vuat hesset that the note served as proof of a debt of ten dinarim, which he lost when the promissory note was destroyed. Afterwards, he may collect his claim.
If the defendant admitted: "It is true that you gave me the promissory note, and it was lost," he is not liable, even to take a sh 'vuat hesset. For even if he was negligent in its care and it was lost, he would not be liable, as we have explained in Hilchot Chovel.
הלכה ז
הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ זְכוּת יֵשׁ לִי בּוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי מוֹצֵא שְׁטָרִי אוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ בּוֹ רְאָיָה אוֹ לֹא כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ:
כסף משנה
7.
When a person tells a colleague: "The promissory note in your possession mentions a factor that is advantageous to me," and the colleague states: "I will not produce my promissory note," or "I do not know if it states anything that serves as support for your position," we compel him to produce the promissory note and bring it to court.הלכה ח
טָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר מַחְרִימִין אוֹתוֹ חֵרֶם סְתָם. טָעַן זֶה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בּוֹ זְכוּת אֶצְלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ וְשֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי:
כסף משנה
8.
If the holder of the promissory note claims that it was lost, we issue a conditional ban of ostracism against him.If, however, the person who desires to see the promissory note claims that he is certain that his colleague is holding a promissory note that mentions a factor that is advantageous to him, his colleague must take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note is no longer in his possession and it is lost. My teachers ruled in this manner.
הלכה ט
אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. אֶחָד הַבָּא בְּטַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ אוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת אָבִיו. לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה הַמִּקְצָת שֶׁהוֹדָה בּוֹ לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה. וְכֵן אִם כָּפַר בַּכּל וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. שֶׁזֶּה עֵד אֶחָד וְאֵין שָׁם תּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁתְּבִיעַת קָטָן אֵינָהּ תְּבִיעָה גְּמוּרָה. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר קָטָן שֶׁאָמַר לְגָדוֹל מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ. אוֹ אַבָּא הָיָה לוֹ בְּיָדְךָ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמַר לְקָטָן וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִין לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה. וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּף לְקָטָן אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עָלָיו יַעֲמִידוּ בֵּית דִּין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַקָּטָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַשֻׁתָּף וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּטַעֲנַת שֶׁמָּא:
כסף משנה
9.
An oath is never administered because of claims issued by deaf-mutes, mentally or emotionally incapable individuals and minors. In the latter instance, this principle applies regardless of whether the minor's claim involves his own issues or those of his father. For admitting a portion of a claim owed to a minor is like returning a lost article.Similarly, if the defendant denied the entire debt, and one witness came and testified on behalf of the minor, the defendant is not required to take an oath. For it is as though there were one witness, but no plaintiff, because a claim lodge by a minor is not a substantial claim.
Thus, if a minor said to an adult: "You owe me..." or "You owe my father a maneh," and the defendant said: "I owe you only 50," or "I do not owe you anything" and there was one witness who corroborates the minor's claim, the defendant is not liable to take a Scriptural oath.
If, however, a person acted as a watchman for a minor and claimed that the entrusted article was lost, he is required to take the oath required of a watchman. The rationale is that this oath is not taken because of a claim.
Similarly, if a person admitted that he was a partner or a sharecropper of a minor, the court should appoint a guardian for the minor, and the partner or the like should take an oath despite the fact that there is only an indefinite claim against him.
הלכה י
הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת קָטָן שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֲבָל שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת נִשְׁבָּעִין. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָרִיף לְעִנְיַן מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן נִשְׁבָּעִין הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה זֶה נוֹטֵל מָמוֹנוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא קָטָן וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ בְּחִנָּם. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה וְתִקּוּן עוֹלָם הוּא. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַקָּטָן שֶׁטָּעַן עַל הַגָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת בֵּין שֶׁכָּפַר בַּכּל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם עֵד. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲפֹךְ עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן כְּלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ חֵרֶם סְתָם אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עֹנֶשׁ הַשְּׁבוּעָה:
כסף משנה
10.
My teachers ruled that although a Scriptural oath is not taken because of the claim of a minor, a sh'vuat hesset must be taken. This applies even when the minor is not resourceful with regard to financial matters. The rationale is that an opportunity should not be granted for a person to take money belonging to a minor, and depart without paying him at all. I also favor this approach, and think that it will lead to the improvement of society.Thus, if a minor lodges a claim against an adult, whether the adult admits a portion of the claim or denies it entirely, whether there is a witness who supports the plaintiff or not, the defendant is required to take a sh'vuat hesset. He cannot reverse the responsibility for the oath, placing it on the minor, because an oath is never administered to a minor. Even a conditional ban of ostracism is not imposed upon the minor, for he does not know the severity of the retribution received for taking a false oath.
הלכה יא
קָטָן שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל. אִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן כְּגוֹן עֵסֶק מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְהוֹדָה הַקָּטָן נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסָיו. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ וִישַׁלֵּם. וְאִם כָּפַר הַקָּטָן מַמְתִּינִין עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לְקָטָן הֲנָיָה כְּגוֹן נְזָקִין וְחַבָּלוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹדֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם פָּטוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁהִגְדִּיל. וְאִם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּגוֹן הַשָּׂכִיר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ הֲנָיָה לַקָּטָן שֶׁיִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לוֹ שָׂכִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. אֲבָל חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַקָּטָן. שֶׁאֵין לַקָּטָן בָּזֶה הֲנָיָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חַיָּב לִתֵּן לְפוֹעֲלָיו וְנִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנּוּ. וְזֶה הַחֶנְוָנִי הִפְסִיד עַל נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן מָמוֹנוֹ עַל פִּי קָטָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
11.
The following rules apply when an adult lodges a claim against a minor. If the claim involves a matter that will benefit the minor - e.g., a claim involving business transactions - and the minor admits his liability, we expropriate payment from the minor's property. If the minor does not possess any resources, we wait until he gains such. Then he must pay. If the minor denies the obligation, the plaintiff must wait until the minor attains majority. At that point, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset.The following rules apply when a person lodges a claim against a minor in a matter that will not benefit the minor - e.g., damages or personal injury. Even though the minor admits his responsibility and he has resources with which he could pay, he is not liable even after he attains majority. If the plaintiff was one of those who takes an oath and collects the money that he claims - e.g., an employee and the like - since the minor benefits from the fact that an employee will work for him, he may take an oath and collect from the minor. A storekeeper who takes an oath because of his account book, by contrast, may not take an oath and collect from a minor. The rationale is that the minor does not derive any benefit from this. For regardless, he must pay his workers who take oaths and collect from him. Thus it is the storekeeper who caused himself a loss, because he gave his money because of a minor's word. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
הלכה יב
הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן לְכָל טַעֲנָה לֹא לְטַעֲנָתָן עַל אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לְטַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים עֲלֵיהֶן. לֹא לִשְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה אוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמִין. אֲבָל הַסּוּמָא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָרִיא לְכָל דָּבָר בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ וְנִשְׁבָּע כָּל מִינֵי שְׁבוּעוֹת וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ:
כסף משנה