Jewish audio on chabad.org. This shiur will be in Maseches Shevuos דף מ\"ח. We will start seven lines from the top of the עמוד. And the Gemara here quotes from the Mishnah where it says, אמר לחנוני תן לי בדינר פירות כולי, that is, he says to the shopkeeper, give me fruit for a dinar, and he gave him the fruit, and afterwards he says, give me the dinar, and he says, I gave you the dinar already, and the Mishnah says that the baal habayis swears that he gave him the dinar, and he is patur. But the Gemara says Tanya, we learn in a beraisa, אמר רבי יהודה, Rabbi Yehuda said, אימתי, when is this din said? It means, when does the baal habayis have to swear? בזמן שהפירות צבורין ומונחין, when the peirot, the fruit, are piled up and laying there, ושניהם עוררין עליהם, and both are arguing over it, so then the baal habayis swears, and he is patur from paying. אבל אם שילשלן בקופסא לאחוריו, if he put it already into his packet and put it behind his back, then we say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. The one that's trying to take out from the other, he has to bring a ra'ayah. Since he already has the fruit in his possession and the shopkeeper wants to take the money out of him, so the shopkeeper is considered the hamotzi and the baal habayis is considered the muchzak, so we say to the shopkeeper המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, you have to prove it, and as long as you don't prove it you don't get your money, and the baal habayis doesn't even have to swear in order to be free. Then the Gemara continues, it said in the משנה אמר לשולחני תן לי כולי, that he says to a moneychanger, give me for a dinar maot, which means smaller money, exchange it to me for a dinar, and he gave it to him, then he says, well give me the dinar. So the baal habayis says to the שולחני, I gave it to you already and you put it away in your purse, so here again the din is the baal habayis swears that he gave him the dinar and he is patur from paying. So this is a similar case to the case of the shopkeeper with the peirot, and in both cases the din is that if the argument is whether he gave him the dinar or not, or in the case of the peirot, whether he gave him the money or not, so we say the baal habayis swears that he gave him and he is patur. If the argument is different, the baal habayit says, I gave you the money but you didn't give me the פירות, so then the shopkeeper has to swear that he gave him and he is patur. And in the case of the שולחני, if he says to the שולחני, I gave you the דינר but you never gave me the change, and the שולחני says, I did, so the שולחני has to swear and he is patur. And in both cases the Mishnah says that this is only the opinion of the Chachamim, but Rabbi Yehuda argues in both cases. And Rabbi Yehuda says in the case of the פירות that כל שהפירות בידו ידו על העליונה, that whoever has the פירות, his hand is on top. And concerning the case of the שולחני, Rabbi Yehuda says אין דרך שולחני ליתן איסר עד שיטול הדינר, which means that Rabbi Yehuda holds that in the case when he says, I gave you the פירות but you never paid me for it, and he says, I paid you for it, Rabbi Yehuda says that the one that's holding the פירות, which is the baal habayit, doesn't have to swear because ידו על העליונה. We are pretty sure that he already paid it because it's not a derech of the חנוני to give the פירות unless he would first get the money for it. And the same thing is in the case of the שולחני, that in the first case, when the שולחני says, I gave you the change but you never gave me the דינר, and he says, I did, Rabbi Yehuda says he doesn't have to swear, the baal habayit does not have to swear. And the reason is because we assume that the שולחני would not have given the change if he would not have first gotten the דינר, and therefore we assume that probably he already got his דינר. Here the Gemara says, tzricha, we have to have both. Lechora, both cases are the same: the case of the חנוני with the פירות and the case of the שולחני with the change. They're exact same cases, and in both cases the din is that if he claims that you didn't give me the money, the baal habayit swears, if he claims, the baal habayit claims you didn't give me the פירות or you didn't give me the change, the חנוני or the שולחני swear, in both cases Rabbi Yehuda argues on the first one, so it's the same thing, why does the Mishnah have to tell us both cases? The Gemara says that צריכא, we need both. דאי אשמועינן הא קמייתא, if the Mishnah would just tell us the din concerning the peirot, the first din, I would say דהכא קאמרי רבנן, in this case the Rabbanan say the din that the baal habayit swears and he doesn't have to pay משום דפירא עבידי דמרקבי, peirot could rot, fruit could rot, וכיון דמרקבי, since they could rot, לא משהי להו, he doesn't hold it, so therefore we are sure that the chanuni, the shopkeeper, tries to put it into the possession of the לקוח as soon as he can, and therefore it's even possible that he put it in before he got the money for it. So therefore the Rabbanan say that you have to swear. Even though we trust the baal habayit more than the chanuni, but at least the baal habayit has to swear that he already paid, because there is some reason to say that he didn't pay. Even though usually the shopkeeper does not give the fruit till he gets the money, but since it is peirot and he wants to get rid of it as fast as possible because it's able to rot, So sometimes he gives it even before he gets the money. That's why the baal habayit has to swear. אבל מעות, in the case of exchanging the money, דלא מירכבא, that it doesn't rot, אימא, I would say, מודה ליה לרבי יהודה, the רבנן מודה to Rabbi Yehuda, they admit to Rabbi Yehuda and say that the baal habayit would not even have to swear, because there is no reason to say that the שולחני gave the change before he got his dinar. So we should be 100% sure that he definitely gave the dinar. And therefore, the baal habayit shouldn't even have to swear. Still, the Mishnah tells us that even in the case of the שולחני, the Chachamim hold that the baal habayit has to swear. ואי איתמר בהא, if the Mishnah would just tell us the machloket in the case of the money changer, I would think, בהא קאמר רבי יהודה, that only in the case of the money changer Rabbi Yehuda said the baal habayit doesn't have to swear, because there we are sure that he did not give him the change before he got his dinar. Because since the change doesn't rot, there is no reason for him to rush and give it right away. So since the custom is that a person does not give the change till he gets the dinar, so we are sure that he did not give it to him first, so probably he got his dinar and therefore Rabbi Yehuda says he doesn't have to swear. אבל בהך, but in the first case, אימא, I would think, מודה להו לרבנן, that he admits to the Rabbanan. In the case of the fruits, maybe Rabbi Yehuda admits and says there is a possibility that the storekeeper gave it before he got his money, because he wants to get rid of this as fast as possible because it could rot, so I would think there Rabbi Yehuda would also admit that the baal habayit has to swear. צריכא, that's why it has to tell us the machloket there too, that even in that case, Rabbi Yehuda argues and holds that the baal habayit does not have to swear. Then the Gemara continues to quote from the Mishnah, it says:

כשם שאמרו הפוגמת כתובתה וכולי, וכן היתומים לא יפרעו. That just like the Chachamim said that if a woman is פוגמת כתובתה, which means she comes with a ketubah, but she admits that part of the ketubah was paid, and the husband says no, I paid everything, so then the ketubah is not valid anymore because she herself admits that the ketubah, what it says there is not 100%. So therefore the only way she could collect is if she swears. The din is also that if she comes to claim her ketubah, but one witness says that it was already paid, again, she has to swear before she collects. Also, when you want to collect מנכסים משועבדים, you want to collect from property that's not anymore in the possession of the one that owes you the money. Even though it is משועבד, it's mortgaged to you, but he sold it, so then you could collect from the person who bought it, but you also only have to swear. If you want to collect מנכסי יתומים, if you want to come to collect from the property of the orphans, which means the person who owes you the money is not alive anymore, and his children inherit it, and you want to collect from his estate, from his children, so also, you only collect if you swear, you got to swear first. Also, if you want to collect ketubah, for instance, from the husband when he is not here, you also have to swear first. So the Mishnah says, the same din is, if the יתומים want to collect, they only collect with a shevuah. That if the orphans, the children of the מלוה, of the lender, want to collect from the לוה, so they must swear before they collect. What can they swear? Since they don't know whether he really owes them or not, so the Mishnah says they have to swear, שלא פקדנו אבא ושלא אמר לנו אבא, that our father did not command us, did not tell us that this was paid, and also that we didn't find among the documents of our father that it was paid, we didn't find a receipt to this loan. And after they swear that, that's when the יתומים are able to collect, but without a shevuah, they cannot collect. That's what the Mishnah says. Then the Gemara asks: ממאן? From whom are we talking about that they want to collect? When we say that יתומים cannot collect unless they swear, whom are they trying to collect from? אילימא, if you're going to say מלוה, they're actually trying to collect from the borrower himself, אבוהון שקיל בלא שבועה, their father would have collected without a shevuah. If he would just come with a shtar where it says that that person owes him money, he would have collected, he wouldn't have to swear. ואינהו בשבועה? Do they have to swear? Why should they have to swear? Just like the father wouldn't have to swear that it was not paid, he just collects with a shtar, so the children who have the same shtar, why should they be worse than the father? Why should they have to swear when the father didn't? So therefore it couldn't be that when yesomim want to collect from the loveh himself, they have to swear. הכא קאמר, the Gemara says, this is the peshat: וכן היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה. That when yesomim want to collect from yesomim, if the loveh is not alive, and the malveh is not alive, the children from the malveh, from the lender, want to collect from the children of the loveh, of the borrower, so then they have to swear. Just like the malveh himself, the lender himself, when if he would want to collect from the children of the borrower, he would have to swear, so too, if the malveh's children want to collect from the children of the loveh, they also have to swear. The difference is, the malveh himself when he swears, he swears that he didn't get paid. The children of the malveh cannot swear that they didn't get paid because they don't know. But the thing that they swear is that their father never told them that this was paid, and also that they didn't find a receipt that this was paid. רב ושמואל דאמרי תרווייהו, but רב and שמואל, both of them say that לא שנו אלא שמת מלוה בחיי This din was only said if the malveh died in the lifetime of the loveh, which means the lender died before the borrower died. So then we say that afterwards, when the borrower died, and the children of the lender want to collect from the children of the borrower, then with a shevuah they would collect. אבל מת לוה בחיי מלוה, but if the loveh, the borrower, died in the lifetime of the malveh, which means he died before the malveh, so then the din is that they would not collect at all, not even with a shevuah. Why? Because כבר נתחייב מלוה לבני לוה שבועה. Since the loveh died and the malveh was still alive, so at that moment the malveh could only collect with a shevuah, as we learned before that when you come to collect from yesomim, you must swear. So the malveh, the only way he could have collected from the children of the loveh was with a שבועה, ואין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, and a person cannot make his children inherit a shevuah, which means that a person cannot make his children inherit a loan that the only way the loan was able to be collected was with a shevuah. That since the father was only able to collect with a shevuah, so now when the children inherit it from the father, they also are not able to collect it unless they swear. But they have to swear the same shevuah as the father, because if the father couldn't collect without the shevuah, they also have to first swear in order to collect it. But you can't say they should swear a different shevuah. In order for this loan to be collected, the shevuah that has to take place is that they should swear that we know that this loan wasn't paid. Because that was the way the father could have gotten his loan: he had to swear that he knows for sure it wasn't paid. Now, since the only way to collect that was with this shevuah, and the children cannot swear this shevuah, because they do not know if it was paid or not. They could swear that they were not told that it was paid, but they can't swear for sure that it was not paid. So since they can't swear it, they can't collect at all. Because since the father was only able to collect with this shevuah, the children are not better than the father, so the children also cannot collect unless they swear this shevuah, and this shevuah they cannot swear. And therefore, Rav uShmuel both say that if the לוה died first, before the מלוה, so the מלוה became obligated already to swear before he would collect from the children of the לוה, then when he dies and his children take his place, they cannot collect at all. Then the Gemara says, שלחו קמיה דרבי אלעזר, they sent that same question to Rabbi Elazar, and they asked, שבועה זו מה טיבה? What is the nature of this shevuah? Meaning, what is the din that if the לוה died before the מלוה, and then the מלוה died, could the children of the מלוה still swear to the לוה and collect their money? Because Rav uShmuel said that they cannot, because they are already obligated to swear the shevuah of the father, which they cannot swear, and therefore Rav uShmuel said they can't collect at all. So they asked the question by Rabbi Elazar: what does he say? What is the nature of this shevuah? In other words, would the din be that even in a case like that, that the yorshim of the מלוה still could swear and collect? שלח להו, so he sent to them, יורשין נשבעין שבועת יורשין ונוטלין, that the יורשין in this case also swear the shevuah of the יורשין and they take. That even though their father was obligated to swear that the loan was not paid, the yorshim of the מלוה cannot swear this shevuah because they don't know, so they still swear, but they swear a different shevuah. They swear the shevuah that their father never told them and that they didn't find a document saying that, and that's when they collect. In other words, Rabbi Elazar argues with Rav uShmuel. According to Rav uShmuel, in this case they cannot collect at all, and according to Rabbi Elazar, they swear the regular שבועת יורשין and they collect. Then the Gemara continues,

שלחו בימי רמי בר חמא, they also sent this question in the days of Rami bar Chama. אמר, so he said, כולי האי שוכא לווזלא, they're sending the question so many times, obviously they sent the question more than once, אי אשכחינן בה טעמא, if I would have found some reason, some inyan in it, מי לא שלחינן להו, wouldn't I have sent it to them? So why are they asking over and over again? אלא אמר רמי בר חמא, but Rami bar Chama said, הואיל ואתא לידן, since this question already came to our hands, we are already discussing it, נימא בה מילתא, I will say something about it. And he said a terutz like this: עמד בדין ומת, if the loveh died before the malveh, and then the malveh already went to Beis Din against the yorshim of the loveh to collect his loan, and he didn't manage to swear yet in order to collect it, and he died, so there we say כבר נתחייב מלוה לבני לוה שבועה. The malveh already became obligated to the children of the loveh a shevuah, because since he already was by Beis Din, and Beis Din paskened that in order for him to collect, he must swear that it wasn't paid, so he already was mechuyav a shevuah, then he died before he swore, so he is giving over to his children his חיוב שבועה, ואין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, and a person cannot make his children inherit a shevuah. Since in this specific case, the Beis Din already had paskened that he has to swear, and what was his shevuah? That it wasn't paid. So in order to collect this debt, you only could do it if you swear that shevuah. And since his children cannot swear that shevuah, so therefore you don't collect. But לא עמד בדין ומת, what happens if the loveh died first? But before the malveh managed even to call them to Beis Din, he died, so there we say יורשין נשבעין שבועת יורשין ונוטלין, that the yorshim do swear their shevuah, which is a shevuah that they didn't hear anything from their father, or they didn't find a document saying it was paid, and they collect. And we don't say that a person cannot make his children inherit a shevuah. Why? Because there never was an obligation of a shevuah yet in this case. Since he didn't manage to call them to Beis Din yet, so the Beis Din never paskened that he is obligated to swear, so there is no חיוב שבועה yet. Now when the children of the malveh come to collect, so we judge it from at this point on. And at this point, the din is that יורשין when they come to collect, they are able to collect with a שבועה that they are able to swear, the שבועת היורשין. So therefore in this case, we say that they swear the שבועת היורשין and they collect. מתיב רב נחמן, רב נחמן asked a question: וכי בית דינא קא מחייבי ליה שבועה? Is the בית דין the one that makes him obligated to swear? מעידנא דשכיב לוה, from the moment the לוה dies, איחייב ליה מלוה לבני לוה שבועה. That moment, the מלוה is obligated to the children of the לוה שבועה. What difference does it make whether he already called them to בית דין or didn't call them to בית דין? Even if he didn't call them to בית דין, the moment the לוה dies, and now there is an obligation between the children of the לוה to the מלוה, there is a חיוב שבועה on the מלוה. So, even if he didn't call them to בית דין yet, there is already a חיוב שבועה. So when the מלוה died, how can his children swear when אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו? אלא אמר רב נחמן, therefore Rav Nachman said that אי איתא לדרב ושמואל איתא. If we accept the opinion of Rav vaShmuel, if they are right, then they are right. Makes no difference whether they called them to בית דין already or not. If Rav vaShmuel is right, which means that in a case like this, the children cannot collect, then they cannot collect whether they were called already to בית דין or not. ואי ליתא ליתא. If Rav vaShmuel's words are not right, which means we don't hold of this sevara, אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, then it's not right, and even if he already called them to בית דין, and בית דין already paskened that the מלוה has to swear, and then he died, still the דין would be that the children swear the שבועת היורשין and they collect. And then the Gemara asks: אלמא מספקא ליה, from the expression of Rav Nachman it seems that he is in doubt whether we paskened like Rav vaShmuel or not, since he used the לשון: if Rav vaShmuel is right, then they're right all the way; if they are not right, then they're not right all the way. So משמע that he is not sure whether we pasken like Rav and Shmuel or not. והא אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי, didn't Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say: עבד רב נחמן עובדא יחלוקו, that Rav Nachman paskened the din יחלוקו? And this is concerning the case of the Mishnah where it says, שניהם חשודין על השבועה. If a person is obligated to swear, but he is suspected of swearing false, the din is שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל, that his opponent has to swear and collect his money. If they are both suspected of swearing false, so you find a machloket in the Mishnah between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, whether we say חזרה שבועה למקומה, the shevuah goes back to its place, or we say יחלוקו, that they divide. Now concerning the pshat in חזרה שבועה למקומה, what do we mean that the shevuah goes back to its place? So we had a machloket between, the Gemara said, רבותינו שבבבל and רבותינו שבארץ ישראל. That רבותינו שבארץ ישראל, they said that חזרה שבועה למחוייב לה, which means the shevuah goes back to the one that is obligated to swear, and since he cannot swear, so he has to pay. But רבותינו שבבבל said, חזרה שבועה לסיני, which means that no one pays, you don't swear and you don't pay. And the Gemara explains that who are this רבותינו שבבבל that holds that you don't swear and you don't pay either? This is Rav and Shmuel. And the Gemara explains how do we know that this is Rav and Shmuel? So the Gemara there brings our Gemara from here, where Rav and Shmuel say that in the case where the loveh died before the malveh died, so then the children of the malveh cannot collect at all, since they are mechuyav to swear the shevuah of their father, and since they cannot swear it, so they don't swear and they don't collect. So we see that Rav and Shmuel hold that in a place where none of them could swear, there's a chiyuv shevuah, but he cannot swear, so no one swears and no one collects. So from there the Gemara understood that the same din would be in the case of שניהם חשודין על השבועה, that if they are both suspected of swearing false, so here too there's a חיוב שבועה, and no one could swear that shevuah, so according to Rav and Shmuel, you don't swear and you don't collect. So that's how the Gemara knew that when we say רבותינו שבבבל said that in the case of שניהם חשודין על השבועה חזרה שבועה למקומה means that no one swears and no one collects, that must be Rav and Shmuel. But this is all explaining the opinion that חזרה שבועה למקומה means that no one swears, no one collects. But there was another opinion in the Mishnah that bichlal we don't say in the case of שנים חשודין על השבועה that חזרה שבועה למקומה. We say yachloku. This argues against the opinion that says חזרה שבועה למקומה. And Rav and Shmuel were the ones that explained the pshat in חזרה שבועה למקומה. Now, since Rav Nachman paskes concerning that case where שנים חשודין על השבועה that yachloku, that you divide, obviously Rav Nachman does not hold like that opinion that חזרה שבועה למקומה, so he doesn't hold like Rav and Shmuel who explain that in the case where both חשודין על השבועה you don't swear and you don't collect, but you divide. So obviously Rav Nachman had a concrete opinion in that case, that in a case where there is a חיוב שבועה and you cannot swear, that Rav Nachman holds yachloku. But the Gemara's question here is, how could Rav Nachman have said that if Rav and Shmuel are right, then they're right all the way, not like Rav Ami said that they are only right in the case where עמד בדין, but they are right all the way. If they are wrong, they are wrong all the way, even if there's לא עמד בדין? Which meant that Rav Nachman was not sure whether we pasken like Rav and Shmuel or not, when we know for sure that Rav Nachman had a firm opinion in this, that yachloku? We hold a different opinion, that if there is a חיוב שבועה and you cannot swear, you divide the money. So in the case of the יורשים too, when the לוה died before the מלוה, according to this, Rav Nachman should have paskened that the children of the מלוה would have to divide with the children of the לוה. And the Gemara answers, לדבריו דרבי מאיר קאמר ליה, וליה לא סבירא ליה. That Rav Nachman, when he said that he doesn't know whether the halacha is like Rav and Shmuel or not, he didn't mean the halacha how to pasken. What he meant was, since Rav and Shmuel said their pshat within the opinion of Rabbi Meir that holds that חזרה שבועה למקומה, so he says, I am not sure whether this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir or not. I bichlal hold like Rabbi Yosi, who holds that in a case where both are חשודין על השבועה, you divide. But Rav and Shmuel who are explaining the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that חזרה שבועה למקומה, so I'm not sure if they're right that this is what Rabbi Meir meant. And therefore there is no contradiction. The fact is that Rav Nachman paskened in that case yachloku, because he bichlal doesn't accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir that חזרה שבועה למקומה. He holds like Rabbi Yosi that you say yachloku. But when he said here to Rav Ami that if Rav and Shmuel are right, then they're right all the way, if they're wrong, they're wrong all the way, that is all within the opinion of Rabbi Meir. This is one girsa in the Gemara. The Maharshal's girsa is that לדבריו דרב אמי קאמר, וליה לא סבירא ליה. But it's the same idea, that he is saying it only according to Rav Ami. Rav Ami was discussing the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, which was pshat within Rabbi Meir. So he said to Rav Ami, you that are talking about the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, but you say that it depends whether עמד בדין or not עמד בדין, that doesn't make any sense. If Rav and Shmuel are right, then they're right all the way. If they're wrong, they're wrong all the way, which means according to you, who Rav Ami, who do go along with Rav and Shmuel, so then how could you make a difference between עמד בדין and not? If they're right, they're right, if they're wrong, they're wrong. I bichlal don't hold like Rav and Shmuel. I hold b'klal that in a case like that you would say יחלוקו. But you, who does hold like Rav v'Shmuel, how can you make a difference between עמד בדין and לא עמד בדין? Then the Gemara continues,

מותיב רב ששת. Rav Sheshet asks a question. We learned, מתה, יורשיה מזכירין את כתובתה עד עשרים וחמש שנים. If a woman was supposed to collect her ketubah, her husband died and she was supposed to collect her ketubah, and she never managed to collect the ketubah, and then she died, so then the yorshim, her children, are able to remind, to remember and claim the ketubah up to 25 years. Since there was an obligation to pay the ketubah, and now that she died, the obligation is passed down to her children, so they could claim the ketubah. But they could only claim the ketubah up to 25 years from when her husband died. But if 25 years passed already and they didn't claim it, so then they lose. Because it says in Ketubot in פרק הנושא, דף ק\"ד עמוד א', that כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה, as long as she is in the house of her father and she doesn't take food from the yesomim, which means she is not supported by the yesomim, she could collect her ketubah up to 25 years. And if she doesn't collect it by then, then it shows that she is mochel, she gave it up. If she is in the house of her husband and she is supported by the yesomim, then even more than 25 years she could collect, because she could always say, the reason I didn't ask for it until now because I was ashamed, since the yesomim are supporting me, I was ashamed to ask them for the ketubah. But if she is not being supported by them, so then there is a time limit up to 25 years. After 25 years she cannot collect. And so too with her children: if she dies, her children could continue claiming the ketubah up to 25 years from when her husband died. But one thing we do see from here is that her children do collect the ketubah. Now, how do they collect the ketubah? Since this is a real case of מת לוה בחיי מלוה, because the husband, he was the The one that owed the money to the woman. Now since we're talking in a case where there was an obligation to pay the ketubah because the husband died, so obviously the husband died before the wife. So the loveh, the one that owes the money, died before the malveh. And we say that now that the woman died, so it means the malveh died later, her children could collect the ketubah up to 25 years. Now had she wanted to collect the ketubah, how would she have collected it? She would have to swear, because the din is a woman cannot collect the ketubah from the yorshim unless she swears. Now that she died, the shevuah is passed down to her children, but her children cannot swear. So how can her children collect the ketubah? Obviously we see that we don't say this rule, that אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, that a person cannot make his children inherit the ketubah a shevuah, and the children do collect. They probably would have to swear. The shevuah they would have to swear is not the same shevuah that their mother would swear, because they don't know. The mother would have sworn that she never got it. They cannot swear that, so they would only swear that our mother didn't tell us that she got it, and we didn't find any document showing that she got it. But at least we see that even though the loveh died before the malveh, and the malveh was already obligated to swear, nevertheless the children could swear their shevuah, the shevuat hayorshim, and they could collect, is a kashya on Avi Shmuel. And the Gemara answers, דהכא במאי עסקינן, you know what we're talking about here, שנשבעה ומתה. The case is where she had sworn already. This case that the children could collect her ketubah is if she swore. She wanted to collect, and she swore. But before she managed to collect, she died. So here we say her children could come in her place and collect the ketubah. And in this case, definitely they could do it, because the whole reason that Avi Shmuel said that this cannot be done is because the children are obligated to swear for the father, and they cannot swear. But in the case where the father, or in this case the mother, swore already, then definitely they could collect. Then the Gemara says, תא שמע, come here, I will ask another question. We learn in כתובות, נשא ראשונה ומתה, a person marries his first wife, and she died. Now if she died before him, then there is no obligation of a ketubah. The ketubah is only to be given if the husband dies before his wife, so from his estate is supposed to be paid out the ketubah to the wife, or if he divorces her. So he married a woman and she died first, so then there is no חיוב כתובה. נשא שנייה, then he married a second woman, ומת הוא, and he died. So now to the second wife there is an obligation of a ketubah. Now what happened if the second wife dies afterwards? So her children take over her claim of the ketubah. So שנייה ויורשיה קודמין ליורשי ראשונה, so the second wife and her yorshim, her children come before the children of the first wife. If there is an inheritance to be inherited, and that would go to all the children, so first would come the obligation of the ketubah. Then whatever is left over, then the children, all the children would inherit, including the children of the first wife. So what it says here is that the first obligation to be paid is to the second wife, or to the second wife's children if she died afterwards, and then the rest of the money is divided. But meantime we see from here that the children of the second wife have a claim of the ketubah and collect the ketubah. But the question is, how? Since here the case is where the husband died before his second wife died, the husband is like the loveh, he owes the money. The wife is the one that is being owed, so she's like the malveh. The case is that the husband died, then his second wife died, so the children are able to collect the ketubah first. So we see clearly that if the loveh dies before the malveh, and then the malveh died, the children of the malveh are able to collect, even though after the husband died, before the wife died, had she wanted to collect the ketubah, she would have to swear. And then when she died, the shevuah is transferred to her children. And we don't say אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, but we say that the children do swear the shevuat hayorshim and they collect. So it's a kashya on Avi Shmuel. The Gemara answers, הכא נמי here too, שנשבעה ומתה. The case is that first she swore, and then she died. That is the only way her children are able to collect in her place. But if she would not have sworn and her children would have inherited her shevuah, then according to Avi Shmuel, the din would be that they couldn't. Then the Gemara says, ta shema, come here, I will ask you another... Then the Gemara continues, ta shema, come here, I will ask you another question. We learn in Kesubos, אבל יורשיו משביעין אותה ואת יורשיה ואת הבאים ברשותה. This is a seifa, an end of a Mishnah. In the Mishnah it says, כתב לה נדר ושבועה אין לי עליך ועל יורשיך, the husband writes his wife that there will be no neder or shevuah upon you or upon your yorshim, which means that I will never make you swear, or your yorshim should have to swear, in order to collect the ketubah. So he cannot make her swear, and cannot make her yorshim swear. Now what happens if he dies, and now she or her yorshim comes to collect the money from his yorshim, so then they could make her swear, or if she's not alive anymore, they could make her yorshim swear, and they collect the ketubah. But in the meantime we see here it says that her yorshim are able to collect with a shevuah from his yorshim. And here the case is where the husband died before the wife, because if the husband would have died after the wife, then there would be no obligation of a ketubah at all. So obviously the husband died before the wife. The husband is the loveh, the wife is the malveh. So here the case is where the loveh died before the malveh, and nevertheless it says that her children, her yorshim, are able to collect from his yorshim with a shevuah, even though had she want to collect in her lifetime, she would have to swear. And nevertheless we say when she dies, her children are able to collect, and it's a kashya on Rav and Shmuel who say in a case like this, the children cannot collect. And here we cannot answer that the case is where she had sworn already, as we had answered in the previous question, because here it says that his yorshim could make her swear or her children swear, so obviously she did not swear yet. Now if she did not swear yet, there for sure Rav and Shmuel hold that the children cannot inherit the shevuah, and they cannot collect. And nevertheless it says here that the children could collect with a shevuah from his yorshim. אמר רב שמעיה, Rav Shemaya said, סדורין קתני, this Mishnah is divided into parts, and it means like this: אותה באלמנה, when it says that his yorshim could make her swear and then she collect, is talking in the case of an almanah, where the reason she is obligated to get the ketubah is because her husband died. So what the case is: her husband died, so she's supposed to get the ketubah, and when she comes to collect the ketubah from her husband's yorshim, the yorshim could make her swear even though the husband wrote that he will never make her swear, but that's only the husband, his children could make her swear. So that part is taki talking in a case where her husband died. ויורשיה בגרושה, but when it says also in the Mishnah that his yorshim could make her yorshim swear, here we're talking in a case where the obligation for the ketubah was not because the husband died, but was because the husband divorced her. And the case was as follows: The husband divorced his wife, so now he is obligated to give her the ketubah, and there is no obligation of a shevuah on her part, because the only din of a shevuah is if she comes to collect from his yorshim, but when she wants to collect from the husband himself if he divorced her, then there is no חיוב שבועה. So now she is able to collect without a shevuah. Then she dies, so now her children, her yorshim, take her place, and they are able to collect also without a shevuah. Then the husband dies, so now the yorshim of the woman are coming to collect from the yorshim of the husband, but they don't inherit a shevuah from their mother, because their mother, when she was able to collect the ketubah, it was without a shevuah. So therefore they also take over the חיוב ממון, the obligation of money that was to their mother, so they took it over, now it's on them, so they have no חיוב שבועה מצד the mother, and that's why according to Rav v'Shmuel, they are able to collect. But nevertheless they have to swear, but that's for a different reason, because when yesomim come to collect from yesomim, they have to swear. But what kind of shevuah do they have to swear? A shevuah that they didn't hear from their mother that this was paid, or they didn't find a document that showed that this was paid. But the shevuah of the mother to be transferred to the children doesn't apply here, because the mother had no חיוב שבועה. According to Rav v'Shmuel, that's what the Mishnah there means, that the yorshim of the husband are able to make the yorshim of the wife swear. And the Gemara continues: מתיבי, רב נתן בר הושעיא, Rav Natan bar Hoshaya asked a question. We learned: יפה כח הבן מכח האב, the power of the son is stronger than the power of the father, שהבן גובה בין בשבועה ובין שלא בשבועה. When a son comes to collect a debt that was owed to his father from other yorshim, in other words, when the lender dies and the borrower dies, and the children of the lender, the son of the lender is coming to collect from the children of the borrower, so he's able to collect בין בשבועה בין שלא בשבועה. Sometimes he's only able to collect with a shevuah, and sometimes he doesn't have to swear, which means that if he has witnesses that heard his father say before he died that this debt was not paid, so then he doesn't have to swear, he just collects right away from the yorshim of the loveh. If there were no witnesses that say that, then he only could collect if he swears that his father didn't tell him and that he didn't find any documents stating that this debt was paid. והאב אינו גובה אלא בשבועה, but the father only could collect with a shevuah. If the father himself, the malveh himself wants to collect from the children of the loveh, he could only collect with a shevuah, because the din is that if you come to collect from the yorshim, you must swear. So the father, the מלוה himself, if he would want to collect from the יורשים, the only way he could do it is with a shevuah, but the son son, if he collects from the children of the לוה, so then, sometimes it could be without a shevuah, if he has witnesses that his father said that he was not paid. Now the question is היכי דמי? What's the case here? Definitely the case must be דמית לוה בחיי מלוה, that the לוה died in the lifetime of the מלוה. That when the לוה died, the מלוה was still alive. Since we're trying to show here the difference between the son of the מלוה and the מלוה himself, that the מלוה himself, when he would collect he would have to swear. The son of the מלוה doesn't necessarily have to swear. Now when is the case that the מלוה has to swear when he collects? When he's coming to collect from יורשים of the לוה. So obviously we're talking here when the לוה died before the מלוה. So then we say, now the מלוה himself when he comes to collect has to swear to the יורשים. The the מלוה's son who comes to collect doesn't have to swear necessarily. So we see definitely that we're talking here in a case where the לוה died before the מלוה. וקתני nevertheless it says, שהבן גובה בין בשבועה ובין שלא בשבועה, that the son of the מלוה was able to collect whether with a shevuah, and sometimes without a shevuah. Now when does he collect with a shevuah? That means שבועת יורשין, that he has to swear the שבועת היורשין, that his father didn't say anything to him and that he didn't find any document saying that this was paid. שלא בשבועה, when could he collect without a shevuah? That is keRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, just like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in our Mishnah, that if there are witnesses that say that they heard the father say before he died that he was not paid this debt, then the child of the מלוה does not have to swear. But in the meantime we see here clearly that even though we're talking in a case where the לוה died before the מלוה, nevertheless it says that the son of the מלוה is able to collect with a shevuah. So it's a kashya on Rav veShmuel who say that in a case like this, אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, and the יורשים of the מלוה cannot collect.

Amar Rav Yosef, so Rav Yosef said, הא מני, you know who said this din? Beit Shammai, this only goes according to Beit Shammai דאמרי, that they say שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי, a shtar that's ready to be collected is as if it's collected. It's a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in Masechet Sotah in פרק ארוסה. There it says like this, the din of a Sotah is that if a woman, her husband told her not to hide with a certain man, and she didn't listen to him, and she went and did hide with him, then the husband has to take her to the בית המקדש and gives her to drink the מים המאררים, and if she is guilty, she will die, if she is innocent, then she will not die, and she goes back to her husband. Now we know that the din is that a woman who is guilty of adultery loses her כתובה. Now the question is, what would be in a case when a woman was ready to drink the water because she was suspected of adultery, and her husband died before she managed to drink, so then the din is that she doesn't drink the water anymore, because the pasuk says והביא האיש את אשתו, that the man should bring his wife. Now since the man died, so we can't fulfill this pasuk, so therefore she doesn't drink anymore. Now the question is in this case, would she get her כתובה or not? Because since we don't know, maybe she is guilty, so then she doesn't deserve a כתובה. So it's a safek whether she deserves a כתובה or not. So Beit Hillel say that since she is the מוציא, she is the one that's trying to get the money out of her husband's children, and it's a safek whether she deserves it or not, so she would have to prove that she is innocent, and then she would collect it. But since there is no way to prove it, so then she doesn't collect the כתובה. But Beit Shammai say that she does collect it. Why? Because since there is a כתובה, there is this document, and when you have a loan on a document, or any debt on a document, so then the נכסים, the property, is mortgaged to that document, so we consider it as if it was collected already, and therefore she is not considered the one that's trying to take the money from them, on the contrary, they are trying to take it away from her, because it's as if it's in her possession already. And they are the one that are not that do not want to pay, so they're trying to take the money away from her. So Beit Shammai holds that a שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי, a shtar that is ready to be collected, it's as if it's collected already, and the person who's holding the shtar, he is the muchzak. So the Gemara is saying now that when we learned before that יפה כח הבן מכח האב, the child is more than the father, the father when he collects from the yorshim only collects with a shevuah, while his son sometimes could collect without a shevuah, with a shevuah, without, if there are witnesses that his father told him that I didn't get paid, he doesn't have to swear, but otherwise he has to swear. So from here we have a kashya on Rav and Shmuel, that we see that they do swear and collect, even though according to Rav and Shmuel they shouldn't. But the Gemara is saying now, this goes according to Beit Shammai, who says that שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי, that since there is a שטר it's as if it's collected, and therefore they are considered the מוחזקים. The father was considered the מוחזק in the money, and now that he died, the children are considered the מוחזק in the money, and that's why they're able to collect. And according to Beit Shammai, even Rav and Shmuel would admit that according to Beit Shammai, the children do collect. But when Rav and Shmuel said their דין, that in a case like this the children cannot collect, because Rav and Shmuel hold like Beit Hillel. And therefore, the fact that there is a שטר doesn't help, and the only way they could collect is if they swear the shevuah of their father, and since they can't swear it, because אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו, that's why they cannot collect. Then the Gemara says, איקלע רב נחמן לסורא, that Rav Nachman happened to be in סורא, על לגביה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא, so Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna went to see him. אמרו ליה, they said to him, ליתי מר נקרע להא דרב ושמואל. Come, sir, let's tear out what Rav and Shmuel said, which means let's change the ruling of Rav and Shmuel. That we should pask that even in a case where the לוה died before the מלוה, still the children of the מלוה should be able to collect with a shevuah. אמר להו, so he said to them, איכפלי ואתאי כולי הני פרסי, I bothered myself and I came all these פרסות, I traveled such a long trip, למיעקר להא דרב ושמואל, in order to overrule, to change the ruling of Rav and Shmuel? We can't do that. אלא what we could do is havu d'lo nosif alah, we should not add anything to it. We shall only accept the ruling of Rav and Shmuel in the exact case where Rav and Shmuel said it, but not in any other similar case. We should not extend their ruling to that case. כגון מאי, for instance, what other case? דאמר רב פפא, that Rav Pappa said, הפוגם את שטרו ומת, if someone makes a blemish on the שטר, which means, if somebody has a שטר where it says that he is owed a certain amount of money, and he admits that part of that was paid. So the דין is normally that he cannot collect the rest unless he swears. Even though he has a שטר, but this שטר is not valid anymore because he admits that part of it was paid, so the only way he could collect is if he swears. Now, what would happen in the case of ומת, first he was פוגם the שטר, so he was obligated to swear in order to collect. And then he died, יורשין נשבעין שבועת יורשין ונוטלין. His children would swear the שבועת יורשין and they would collect. If we would extend the din of Rav u'Shmuel, we would say that just like Rav u'Shmuel said concerning that when the יורשים come to collect from the יורשים, that since their father was already obligated to swear to the יורשים of the לוה, and then the father died, we do not transfer the shevuah to the children and they cannot collect. So, if we would extend that here, too, we would say the same thing here. Since he was only able to collect with the shevuah because he was a פוגם the שטר, now that he died, his children would inherit the shevuah, and we would say אין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו and they would not be able to collect. But we do not extend Rav u'Shmuel's din to this case, and in this case the din would be that the children would swear the שבועת היורשין, that their father never told them that this was paid, and they didn't find any documents saying this was paid, and they would collect. Then the Gemara says, ההוא דשכיב ושבק ערבא. There was a person who died and left an ערב. The case was, let's say, Reuven lent money to Shimon, and there was a third person, Levi, who was the ערב, he guaranteed the loan, and there was a שטר, there was a document. And the לוה, the borrower, Shimon, died before the מלוה died. So now already the מלוה, Reuven, is obligated to swear in order to collect. And then the מלוה died, and now his children are coming to collect from the ערב, from the one that guaranteed the loan. סבר רב פפא למימר, so Rav Papa thought to say, הא נמי דלא נוסיף עלה הוא. This is also included in this principle that we should not add to Rav u'Shmuel's din. That when did Rav u'Shmuel say that the יורשים cannot collect from the יורשים? If they are going to collect from the children of the borrower. But in this case the children of the מלוה are going to collect from the ערב, so here they could collect with a shevuah. אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא, so Rav Huna beriah deRav Yehoshua said to רב פפא, אטו ערב לאבוסי יתמי אזיל? Will not the ערב go to the יתומים? Even though the children of the מלוה are going to collect from the ערב, but what's the ערב going to do? He's going to come to collect from the children of the לוה. So really what the children of the מלוה are doing, they are going to collect from the children of the לוה. So this is not an extension to Rav veShmuel's דין, but this is exactly Rav veShmuel's דין, and therefore in this case the children of the מלוה cannot collect from the ערב. Then the Gemara says, ההוא דשכיב, there was a person who died, ושבק אחי. He left a brother, he didn't have any children, he left a brother. The case was also where the לוה died before the מלוה, and then the מלוה died, but the מלוה did not have any children, so the one that inherited him was his brother. So now the brother of the מלוה wants to come to collect from the children of the לוה. סבר רב חמא למימר, so Rav Chama thought to say, הא נמי דלא נוסיף עלה הוא. This is also included in the principle not to add, to extend the דין of Rav veShmuel. Because Rav veShmuel said their דין when the children of the מלוה are coming to collect from the children of the לוה. But in a case where the brother of the מלוה is coming to collect from the children of the לוה, maybe here we do not accept Rav veShmuel's principle. אמר ליה רבא, so Rava said, מאי לי שנא לא פקדני אבא ומאי לי שנא לא פקדני אחי. What difference does it make whether the שבועה that they're going to swear is that my father did not tell me that it was paid or my brother did not tell me it was paid? The principle of Rav veShmuel was that any יורש of the מלוה cannot collect from the יורשים of the לוה if the לוה died before the מלוה. Now it makes no difference whether the יורשים of the מלוה are his children or his brother, because the only difference would be what the expression of the שבועה would be. The שבועת היורשין that they would have to swear, if it would be a son he would say, \"My father didn't tell me it was paid.\" If it's a brother then he says, \"My brother didn't tell me it was paid.\" But the idea is the same and therefore the הלכה of Rav uShmuel applies. אמר רב חמא, so Rav Chama said, השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כרב ושמואל ולא כרבי אלעזר, now that we did not learn anywhere that the הלכה is not like Rav uShmuel, and we also didn't learn that the הלכה is like Rabbi Elazar Elazar. As we learned before, Rabbi Elazar argued with Rav uShmuel. He holds that even in a case where the לוה died before the מלוה, the children of the מלוה are able to collect with the children of the לוה with a שבועת היורשין. So we didn't learn whether the הלכה is like Rav uShmuel, or the הלכה is like Rabbi Elazar, so therefore, האי דיינא דעביד כרב ושמואל עביד, if a דיין, a judge, will do like Rav uShmuel, then he did it good, it's valid, דעביד כרבי אלעזר עביד, if he did like Rabbi Elazar, he did also good, it's also valid. אמר רב פפא, Rav Pappa said, האי שטרא דיתמי, this שטר of the יתומים, in other words, if a case like this happens, when the לוה died before the מלוה and then the מלוה died, and the children of the מלוה have the שטר, and they're coming to claim from the לוה, so what do we do? לא מיקרע קרעינן ליה, we do not tear this שטר, ולא אגבויי מגבינן ביה, but we cannot make him collect with it. And the reason is, אגבויי לא מגבינן ביה, we cannot have the יורשים of the מלוה collect with this שטר from the יורשים of the לוה, דילמא סבירא לן כרב ושמואל, maybe the halacha is like Rav uShmuel, where they say that you cannot collect in such a case. ומיקרע לא קרעינן ליה, we also don't tear it, because the האי דיינא דעביד כרבי אלעזר עביד, since if a judge would paskan like Rabbi Elazar that you could collect, then it is also valid. So maybe the yorashim of the malveh will find a judge that will paskan like Rabbi Elazar, and they will be able to collect with that shtar, so that's why we cannot tear the shtar either. Then the Gemara says, ההוא דיינא דעביד כרבי אלעזר, there was this judge who actually paskand like Rabbi Elazar. הוה צורבא מדרבנן בדוכתיה, there was this talmid chacham in his city, אמר ליה, he said to him, אייתי לך איגרתא ממערבא דלית הלכתא כרבי אלעזר, I will bring you a letter from Ma'arav, which means from Eretz Yisrael, that the halacha is not like Rabbi Elazar. אמר ליה, so he said to him, לכיתיתי, when you'll bring it. If you'll bring it and you'll show me, then I'll accept it, but as long as you don't bring it, I don't accept. אתא לקמיה דרב חמא, he came to רב חמא, אמר ליה, so he said to him, האי דיינא דעביד כרבי אלעזר עביד, if a judge does like Rabbi Elazar, it is valid, and therefore we cannot say the halacha is not like Rabbi Elazar, so therefore if he paskand like Rabbi Elazar, it was good. Then the Gemara continues, it says in the משנה, ואלו נשבעין, these are the ones that swear, שלא בטענה, without any claim, and they are השותפין והאריסין והאפוטרופין והאשה הנושאת והנותנת בתוך הבית ובן הבית. So the Gemara asks,

אטו בשופטני עסקינן, are we talking about fools, that a person who is not claimed, and nevertheless he's going to swear? But the Gemara says, הכא קאמר, this is the פשט, ואלו נשבעין שלא בטענת ברי אלא בטענת שמא, these are the ones that have to swear even if the claim is not a definite claim, but a claim of a doubt. Hashutafin veha'arisin. If it's a shutaf, for instance you have two partners, and one partner tells the other partner, I suspect you of stealing some of the money from our partnership, so even though he doesn't have a definite claim, nevertheless the other partner has to swear. Or an aris, a person who works in someone else's field, and he gets a share in the crop, a sharecropper, so if the owner tells him, I suspect that you stole some of my money, he has to swear even though it's not a definite ta'anah. And one of the other things mentioned there was a בן בית, a בן בית is a member of the household, that if the owner of the house says to him that, I suspect that you stole, he also has to swear even if it's not a definite טענה. The Gemara says, תנינא, we learned in a Beraita, בן בית שאמרו, when we say a בן בית would have to swear, לא שנכנס ויוצא ברגליו, it doesn't mean just a person who comes in and out with his feet, אלא מכניס פועלים ומוציא פועלים, he's a member of the household who does business for him, he brings in workers, takes out workers, מכניס פירות ומוציא פירות, he takes in fruit and he takes out his fruit, so a person like that would have to swear even if it's not a definite טענה. But then the Gemara asks, מאי שנא הני, what is the reason, why are these different? Why are these mentioned in the Mishnah different, that even if it's not a definite claim, nevertheless they have to swear? And the Gemara answers, משום דמורו בהיתירא, these are the ones that are able to find a היתר for themselves. Since they're helping out in the work, so they can always claim to themselves, ah, I deserve to get a little bit more, even though they're not allowed to take it, but they it find an excuse for themselves, and therefore we suspect them more. So if there is just a suspicion, even if it's not a definite one, they have to swear. Then the Gemara says, אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן, רב יוסף בר מניומי said in the name of רב נחמן, והוא שיש טענה ביניהו שתי כסף, that when are they obligated to swear for a טענת שמא, if there was at least a טענה of שתי כסף. Because we learned in the beginning of the previous פרק, that concerning a מודה במקצת, when does he have to swear? Only if the טענה is שתי כסף, if the claim is at least in two כסף. And there itself we had an argument between Rav and Shmuel. Shmuel says that it means that when he claims, there has to be at least a came a claim of שתי כסף, and within that שתי כסף, if he admits at least to a פרוטה, or denies at least to a פרוטה, then he has to swear the שבועה of מודה במקצת. But Rav says that he has to deny at least שתי כסף, which means the claim has to be at least שתי כסף and one פרוטה, and he has to admit at least to a פרוטה and deny at least to שתי כסף. So what he's saying here is, that when these people are supposed to swear בטענת שמא, it also means that there has to be a מודה במקצת, and there has to be at least a טענה of שתי כסף, which means that he comes and he says, I suspect you of stealing at least שתי כסף, and he says, \"Well, I only took a little bit and not everything that you say,\" so he's a מודה במקצת. But really, he's not a real מודה במקצת, because the whole טענה is only a שמא. But nevertheless, since in these cases they are מורה היתרא, the Chachamim said that even for a טענת שמא, if he is a מודה במקצת, he has to swear. That's what Rav Nachman said. But then the Gemara asks, כמאן, כשמואל? Then according to who does this go, according to Shmuel? Because Shmuel holds that the דין of מודה במקצת is if the טענה was two כסף. But as we said before, according to Rav, there has to be at least a denial of two כסף. So therefore the טענה has to be at least of two כסף and one פרוטה. והתני רבי חייא סיוע לרב, didn't Rabbi Chiya learn that there is a ראיה to Rav? Now if there's a ראיה to Rav, this means the הלכה is like Rav. If the הלכה is like Rav, so how could he have said that this case in the Mishnah is when there was a טענה of two כסף, which seems to indicate like Shmuel? The Gemara answers, אימא כפירת טענה. פירוש, when Rav Nachman said that this דין in the Mishnah is if there's a טענה of at least two כסף, he didn't mean a טענה of two כסף, but he meant a denial of the טענה should be of two כסף, like Rav. When he says two כסף, he meant the denial should be at least of two כסף, which means that the claim should be at least of two כסף and one פרוטה. Then the Gemara says, חלקו השותפין והאריסין, if the partners or the אריסין divided, and after they divided and they broke up the partnership, that's when he comes to them and says, \"Well, I suspect you maybe that you stole,\" so then we say they don't have to swear. But if later on he finds a reason to make him swear for a different type of taanah, so then you are megalegel that he would also have to swear for this also. The Gemara says, איבעיא להו, the Gemara asks the question, מהו לגלגל מדרבנן? What would be the din if he is now obligated to swear a shevuah only mi-derabbanan, is that strong enough that that should be megalegel that he should also have to swear for the shevuah concerning the suspicion while they were שותפין? The Gemara says, תא שמע, come hear, I will answer your question. We learned, לוה הימנו ערב שביעית, ולמוצאי שביעית נעשה לו שותף, if he borrowed money before shemitah, and after shemitah he became his partner, או אריס, or a sharecropper, אין מגלגלין, then you are not megalegel. The case was where he borrowed money before shemitah, and he denied it. So he's patur from a shevuah, because a כופר הכל is patur from a shevuah. Even though there is a shevuah of Rav Nachman, שבועת היסת, but that was instituted later. But in the time of the Mishnah there was no shevuah. So he was a כופר הכל. Then, after shemitah, he became his partner. And now when he became his partner, and he suspected him in stealing, so he could make him swear that he didn't steal during the partnership, as we learned in our Mishnah. So it says he cannot automatically be megalegel on him and say, \"Ah, now already I want you to swear for that other taanah that you claimed that you didn't owe me anything, where you were patur from a shevuah, I want to swear that as a gilgul from the shevuah you have to do now.\" So the din is that you don't do it. So we say, טעמא דלוה הימנו ערב שביעית, the reason why you don't do it in this case, because the loan took place before shemitah. So דאתאי שביעית אפקעתיה, because shemitah came, and it dropped the loan. So therefore that loan doesn't exist anymore, and that's why you can't make him swear for that loan through what he's swearing now. הא שאר שני שבוע, the same thing would happen other years of shemitah, not in the year of shemitah, מגלגלין, we would make him swear even for that. Which means that because he is going to swear now this שבועה of שותפין with a טענת שמא, he will automatically already have to swear for the other טענה which he denied completely the loan. Now the שבועה he is obligated to swear now in the case of the שותפין for a טענת שמא is only שבועה דרבנן. And nevertheless, we say that this could be מגלגל him to swear for the כופר הכל. So we see clearly that a שבועה דרבנן does have the power to be מגלגל another שבועה. So the Gemara answers, לא תימא, do not say that the דיוק is that הא שאר שני שבוע מגלגלין, that only if it happened the loan was before shemitah and the שותפות was after shemitah, that's when you are not מגלגל. But if it would happen in the regular years of shemitah, which means sometimes during the seven years, מגלגלין, we would be מגלגל, and you want to prove from that that a שבועה דרבנן, the שבועה of the שותפין here, is מגלגל another שבועה. אלא אימא, say the peshat is like this: that the דיוק we have to make is that נעשה לו שותף או אריס ערב שביעית, ולמוצאי שביעית לוה הימנו אין מגלגלין, that only in the case where the loan was before shemitah and the שותפות was after shemitah, that's where we say you are not מגלגל. But if it was the reverse, that שותפות became before shemitah, and the loan took place after shemitah, and the case is where he became מחוייב שבועה מדאורייתא for the loan, let's say it was a loan where he was a מודה במקצת, so he's obligated to swear מדאורייתא for that, so we say that since he already has to swear for this loan because he's a מודה במקצת, he also has to swear already for the שותפות, because the דין is that even though the שותפות is broken up already, but we said that when you have to swear for something else, you have to swear for the שותפות also. And the חידוש would be that even though after the שותפות broke up, שמיטה came, nevertheless, שמיטה doesn't drop the חיוב שבועה for שותפין. שמיטה only drops a loan, but שמיטה does not drop the חיוב שבועה for a שותף, and therefore if the loan took place later and he's מחוייב שבועה for the loan, he's able to be מגלגל him on a שבועה for the שותפות also. But the Gemara asks, הא בהדיא קתני לה! This says מפורש! We learned נעשה לו שותף או אריס ערב שביעית, became a שותף or אריס before שמיטה, ולמוצאי שביעית לוה הימנו, and he borrowed from him after שמיטה, מגלגלין, you are מגלגל the שבועה for שותפות through the שבועה of the loan. So that says מפורש, so we can't say that the previous part teach us this דיוק. So what must we say? That the previous part is to teach us that only because of שמיטה, that's why you cannot be מגלגל the שבועה of the loan, but if it would be not שמיטה, be in middle of the seven years, then you would be מגלגל, which means that even though the obligation of the שבועה now is the שבועת השותפין, you would be מגלגל on him the שבועה for the loan. שמע מינה מגלגלין מדרבנן, שמע מינה. That's a proof that even through a שבועה דרבנן, you are מגלגל other שבועות also. Then the Gemara says, אמר רב הונא, רב הונא said: לכל מגלגלין, any shevuah that you have to swear, we can מגלגל other שבועות, חוץ משכיר, except the shevuah that a hired worker has to swear, because we learned in the Mishnah that if a worker says to his בעל הבית that you didn't pay me, and he says I did pay you, so the worker has to swear. So that שבועה, שאין מגלגלין, you're not מגלגל any other shevuah for this shevuah. And the reason is because we learned in the Gemara earlier that be'emet the שכיר would not have to swear at all. The only reason he swears is to appease the בעל הבית, as the Gemara said there. So therefore, it's not a real shevuah, so you cannot be מגלגל anything else with it. רב חסדא אמר, רב חסדא says: לכל אין מקילין חוץ משכיר דמקילין. Concerning other shevuot we are not מקיל, which means that if he swears already another shevuah, we pull always other shevuot along. Except this the shevuah of a שכיר, of a worker, then we are מקיל, that even though he has to swear this shevuah, we don't make any other shevuot come. And the Gemara asks: מאי בינייהו, what is the difference? Aren't they saying the same thing? And the Gemara answers: איכא בינייהו, the difference is לפתוח לו, whether we open. Which means that if he doesn't ask him to swear for the other things also, whether we say to him: you know, he is already swearing for you, why don't you make him swear for the other things also? And that is the difference between the two opinions. According to the one that says לכל מגלגלין חוץ משכיר שאין מגלגלין, that means that we are מגלגל ourselves, that if he doesn't claim let him swear for the other things, we say it for him. But according to the one that says לכל אין מקילין, we are not מקיל, that means that if he asks to be מגלגל other things, we are not מקיל, but we ourselves don't ask for it. Then the Gemara says, it said in the Mishnah: אף השביעית משמטת וכולי, that שמיטה is משמט also a shevuah. מנא הני מילי, how do we know that when Shemitah comes, he's not obligated to swear anymore? אמר רב גידל אמר רב, רב גידל said in the name of Rav: דאמר קרא, because the pasuk says: וזה דבר השמיטה, this is the thing of Shemitah. So we darshan the word davar as if it would say dibbur, which means words. ואפילו דיבור משמטת, that even words, the obligation of a shevuah, Shemitah is משמט, you don't have to swear. הדרן עלך הנשבעין, הדרן עלך הנשבעין, הדרן עלך הנשבעין, ארבעה שומרים הן וכולי.