Shevuot 41

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 082018
 

Even though the Torah doesn’t demand one take an oath if one entirely denies a claim against him/her, the rabbis obligated one to take an oath (shvuat heset). The gemara tries to figure out the difference between an oath that the Torah demands and one that the rabbis instituted. In what cases can a creditor insist that the debtor return the money in front of witnesses and if one did not, then one’s claim that the money was already paid back is ignored completely. Two different versions of Rav Asi are brought as well as two different versions of Shmuel’s opinion are brought. Their opinions are questioned in light of our mishna and explained.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shevuot 40

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 072018
 

Study Guide Shevuot 40

Rav and Shmuel have a basic argument in explaining “a claim must be 2 ma’ah of silver” – is it referring to the amount of the case – meaning what the claimant’s side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant’s side – how much is he/she denying? Many cases in the mishna are brought to question one or the other opinion and they are each explained according to each opinion. Likewise, 2 braitot are brought for the same reason although the last one only supports Rav’s position. Several other halachot of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the another owes him/her 2 different items and one claims one only owes one of the items, one takes an oath of admitting part of the claim. Two versions are brought about whether Rabbi Yochanan agreed or disagreed with this opinion. Proofs are brought to prove Shmuel’s opinion but are proven to be inconclusive and likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shevuot 38

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 052018
 

Study Guide Shevuot 38

A braita is brought with a bit of a different version than the mishna regarding if one swears to a number of people under what circumstances is one obligated in a sacrifice for each person and in which cases just one sacrifice? The braita brings an argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and two amoraim bring different explanations as to which cases the argument relates to. What are the details regarding an oath taken in court when one admits to part of a claim?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shevuot 37

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 042018
 

An oath denying a pikadon does not apply to k’nas payments (fines). Rav Kahana questions whether there will be lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of a sacrifice in a case where there are witnesses who warned the person before he/she too0k the oath. Several attempts are made to answer his questions from various sources, but not prove conclusive. Raba then questions Rav Kahana’s question and suggests that there can never be a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay anyway. The gemara then tries to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of pikadon. Only at the very last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of pikadon relevant in a case relating to land?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shevuot 36

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 032018
 

Various words can have different meanings depending on their context. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether the use of God’s name in various contexts needs to be the actual name of God or some other nickname of God.  What are the details regarding an oath relating to a denial of a monetary claim.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shevuot 35

 Shevuot  No Responses »
Jan 022018
 

In which cases are people not obligated in an oath of testimony? What is the exact phraseology that can be used in order for it to be considered an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sacrifice? Does one need to include the name of God? Is a word that refers to God also considered using the name of God? The gemara tangents to places in the Tanach where it is unclear of a word is referencing God or someone else.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Newer Entries