Shevuot 43: Exemption From Oaths, Swearing Regarding Lost Securities

The rabbis continue to consider who might be exempted from making certain oaths.  They speak about a shomer chinam, a volunteer guardian, and a shomer sachar, a paid guardian.  A shomer sachar is held to a higher standard regarding how the item they are responsible for is kept.  

Next, the rabbis consider what was meant when the the Mishna referred to oaths being restricted to things that can be measured.  The general rule is determined to be that one swears only when the claimant's oath and the denial are both quantified.  The rabbis note that this has come to include claims of "full" verses "empty", a large verses a small lamp, etc.  

We are introduced to a new Mishna regarding lost securities. We already know that a borrower is liable for an item that was lost while in his care. But what if the value of the lost item is in dispute?  Some of the points of this Mishna include:

• If the lender says that the security was worth two dinars and thus the borrower still owes two and the borrower claims that it was worth four, he is exempt
• If the lender says that the security was worth two dinars and the borrower claims that it was worth three dinars, each must swear
• If the borrower says that the security was worth eight dinars so that the lender owes him four dinars and the lender claims it was worth four, he is exempt
• If the borrower says that the security was worth eight and the lender claims it was worth five dinars, he must swear
• The one who was watching the security is the one who must swear
• the security might be shown to prove its worth

The Gemara debates which cases might be referenced by he suggestions of this Mishna.  One of the examples shows a part of life two thousand years ago.  Shmuel tells us that Levi lent 1000 zuz to Yehuda and took the handle of a shovel as security, which is worth less than one zuz.  If he loses the security, he forfeits the loan.  If two handles were taken for securities, he does not forfeit half of the loan if he loses one of them - but of course he forfeits the loan if he loses both of them.  Even this is debated, and Rav Nachman suggests that the value of the security lost could be subtracted from the loan.  Other examples are debated as well.