Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : If the robber took a false oath concerning the robbery of the leavened bread, what is the halakha? Do we say that since, if it were to be stolen from the robber, the robber would need to pay the initial value of the bread to the robbery victim, as he can no longer say: That which is yours is before you, and therefore he has denied a claim of a monetary matter to the robbery victim and must consequently pay the additional one-fifth payment and bring a guilt-offering? Or perhaps we say that now, in any event, it is resting in the robber’s possession and it is considered as mere dust, since it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and as such he has not denied a claim of a monetary matter, and the halakhot concerning a false oath do not apply.
נִשְׁבַּע עָלָיו, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנֵב בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ – מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת הָא מַנַּח וְעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְלָא כָּפַר לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara comments: The matter that was a dilemma for Rava is obvious to Rabba, as Rabba says that in a scenario where one says to another: You stole my ox, and the other says: I did not steal it.
מִילְּתָא דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה – דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: ״שׁוֹרִי גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״;
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The first asks: What is the nature of its presence in your possession? The second responds: I am an unpaid bailee over it. If the defendant then takes a false oath to that effect, after which he confesses that he stole the ox, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for denying a claim of a monetary matter, as he exempted himself from liability in cases of theft and loss.
״מָה טִיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִגְּנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : If he responds instead: I am a paid bailee over it, and takes a false oath to that effect, after which he confesses that he stole the ox, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for denying a claim of a monetary matter, as he exempted himself from liability in cases of breakage and death.
״שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִשְּׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : If he responds instead: I am a borrower of it, and takes a false oath to that effect, after which he confesses that he stole the ox, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for denying a claim of a monetary matter, as he exempted himself from liability in cases where the ox died due to ordinary labor.
״שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּטַר עַצְמוֹ מִמֵּתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : In all of these cases, the ox is in the possession of the one who took the false oath, and he admits that it belongs to the other. The Gemara analyzes Rabba’s statement: Apparently, Rabba holds that even though the ox is now extant and can be returned to its owner, since, if it were to be stolen, the robber would be found to be denying a claim of a monetary matter, as according to his claim he would then be exempt from paying, he is now considered to be denying a claim of a monetary matter as well. Here, in the case of the bread also, even though it is considered mere dust, since, if it were to be stolen, he would be required to pay the robbery victim full-fledged monetary restitution, he is now considered to be denying a claim of a monetary matter as well.
אַלְמָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָא קָאֵים – כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנֵיב מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מִיגְּנִיב בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא מְעַלְּיָא, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מָמוֹנָא קָא כָפַר לֵיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava sat and said this halakha, that one who protected himself from potential liability for payment by taking a false oath that he is a bailee is liable to pay the additional one-fifth payment and bring a guilt-offering. Rav Amram raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: The verse states concerning one who is liable for taking a false oath concerning a monetary matter: “And deals falsely with it” (Leviticus 5:22); this serves to exclude one who admits to the primary feature of a claim.
יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרָבָא: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The baraita continues: How is this so? In a scenario where one says to another: You stole my ox, and the latter says: I did not steal it.
כֵּיצַד? ״שׁוֹרִי גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״;
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The first asks: What is the nature of its presence in your possession? The second responds with any of the following replies: You sold it to me; you gave it to me as a gift; your father sold it to me; your father gave it to me as a gift; it chased after my cow and entered my domain; it came to me on its own; I found it straying on the road and I brought it home; I am an unpaid bailee over it; I am a paid bailee over it; or I am a borrower of it; and the second takes a false oath to that effect, and then admits that he had done so; one might have thought that he should be liable. The verse states: “And deals falsely with it,” which serves to exclude one who admits to the primary feature of a claim. The baraita states explicitly that one who takes a false oath that he is a bailee is not liable; how can Rava state otherwise?
״מָה טִיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״; ״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״; ״אָבִיךָ מְכָרוֹ לִי״; ״אָבִיךָ נְתָנוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״; ״אַחַר פָּרָתִי רָץ״; ״מֵאֵלָיו בָּא אֶצְלִי״; ״תּוֹעֶה בַּדֶּרֶךְ מְצָאתִיו״; ״שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֲנִי עָלָיו״; ״שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר אֲנִי עָלָיו״; ״שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי עָלָיו״ – וְנִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה; יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ״ – פְּרָט לְמוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said to him: Fool, when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a case where the robber said to the owner: Here you are, and presented the ox to him immediately, so that he did not profit by claiming that he was a bailee. When I spoke, I was referring to a case where the ox was standing in a different place, such as a swamp, and was not returned to the owner.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּדוֹרָא! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ״, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – דְּקָיְימָא בַּאֲגַם.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Several examples of an oath in which the robber admits to the primary feature of a claim were cited in the baraita above. The Gemara analyzes some of these examples. When the robber says: You sold the ox to me, he has asserted that it belongs to him, so what admission to the primary feature of the claim is there? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this in a case where he said to him: You sold the animal to me, but I did not give you the money, take your ox and go.
״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״ – מַאי מוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר אִיכָּא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא נָתַתִּי לְךָ דְּמֵי, שְׁקֹיל תּוֹרָךְ וְזִיל״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : When the robber says: You gave it to me, or: Your father gave it to me, he has asserted that it belongs to him, so what admission to the primary feature of the claim is there? The Gemara explains: It is a case where he said to him: It was given to me on the condition that I will afford you satisfaction, and I did not do anything for you; take your ox and go.
״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי״; ״אָבִיךָ נְתָנוֹ לִי״ – מַאי מוֹדֶה בָּעִיקָּר אִיכָּא? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל מְנָת דְּעָבֵידְנָא לָךְ נְיָיח דְּנַפְשָׁא, וְלָא עֲבַדִי לָךְ, שְׁקֹיל תּוֹרָךְ וְזִיל״.