Shevuot 47: When One Cannot Swear

Continuing their deliberations about who is required and who is not required to make oaths, the rabbis continue to speak of those who cannot swear.  They wonder why gamblers are discussed.  If they Torah law excluded them, their cases are disqualified based on rabbinical law.  

The rabbis are unsure about the correct text of the Mishna and the halacha.  Perhaps the disputed money is divided.  Rabbis in Bavel argue that G-d will punish the guilty party for transgressing the oath made on Sinai (which included that we should not steal).  Rabbi's in HaAretz argue that the defendant must pay because s/he cannot swear.  

In addition to learning about orphans' oaths, we learn the example of a man who is accused of taking another man's property when that other man with the only witness.  He agrees that he took the item, saying that it belonged to him.  But two witnesses are required to exempt him.  He only had one witness.  The rabbis explain that because he took the item from the hands of the other, he is not believed.  As a thief he is unable to swear for he is not trustworthy.  And if one is required to swear but he cannot, he must pay restitution.

Does an oath settle a dispute between any two parties?  The rabbis suggest that this is not the case when it comes to heirs.  An heir might know that his father owed 50 but did not know whether or not he owed more.  He cannot swear because he is uncertain.  This moves into a conversation about how we are influenced by each other.  Namely, the consequences of an oath affect both parties.  The rabbis connect the verse that teaches this point with other verses that teach us that if one touches someone anointed with oil, the oil touches him as well.  The slave of a king is called a king.

What about when a person is definitely lying?  Our Mishna had spoken of one who swears based on his ledger but the proof against him was evident.   Why would both he grocer and the workers have to swear?  The rabbis determine that the workers swear to the employer in from to the grocer, who knows the truth.  His presence would keep them from swearing falsely due to embarrassment.  The grocer would also swear and collect from the employer.

We learn that if two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, either pair is permitted to testify by itself in a another case.  We don't know which is lying, and we cannot follow either's testimony. The rabbis have different opinions about what should be the protocol if each pair has signed different contracts.