Shevuot 39

We’ve been discussing oaths people must take in court — for instance, that they do not owe someone else money. On today’s daf, the Talmud instructs the court to impress upon the oath-taker the seriousness of their words and the consequences of swearing falsely:

Before he takes the oath, the judges say to him: “Be aware that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be God, said at Mount Sinai: You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless one who takes God’s name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)

This is the beginning of what turns out to be an extensive speech designed to put the fear of God into the oath-taker. The following is also among the warnings issued:

And when the judges administer the oath to him, they say to him: “Be aware that we administer an oath to you not according to your understanding, but according to the understanding of the Omnipresent and according to the understanding of the court.” Why does the court need to say this to him? It is due to the reed in Rava’s court.

The first warning was clear: At Mount Sinai, God forbade all from swearing false oaths. This warning is a less straightforward. It asserts that the court, and God, will be the final arbiter of the meaning of the oath the person is about to make. But shouldn’t the meaning of any oath in this context be relatively clear? Why would we need an arbiter at all?

This particular warning, the Talmud asserts, was a late addition to the speech, included because of something that happened in Rava’s court: an incident involving a reed. But it doesn’t explain further.
The episode of the reed in Rava’s court is referred to a handful of times in the Talmud, but the details are not provided. It is an event that the Talmud assumes we know. Luckily for us, some early commentators, including Rashi, seem to know of it.

One time, in Rava’s court, a debtor, who claimed to have returned a loan, in fact hid the money that he owed within a reed. When he was called upon to swear that the money had been returned, the clever debtor asked the creditor to hold the reed for him while the oath was administered. After swearing that the money had been returned, the debtor took back the reed with the hidden money. When the debtor’s subterfuge came to light, he stood by his oath. After all, at the time that he swore the funds had been returned, the creditor was in fact holding the money.

While that creditor in Rava’s court may have stumbled on a legal loophole, he was obviously underhanded. To prevent similar trickery in future, the rabbis thereafter required the court to add an additional admonishment to all those who take oaths: It is not the oath-taker who determines the meaning and truthfulness of their oath, but rather it is the judges — both human and divine — who make that determination. Because just as the meaning of a verse, beraita, or rabbinic teaching is open to debate, so too might be the meaning of even a simple oath.

Read all of Shevuot 39 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 9, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.