Shevuot 45

On yesterday’s daf, the beginning of a very long mishnah that continues most of the way down the first side of today’s daf stated that oaths required by Torah can exempt people from payment. By contrast, oaths instituted by the rabbis can compel a party to hand over property. The mishnah goes on to list a number of scenarios in which this can happen, including: a hired worker who sues his employer for unpaid wages (and then takes an oath and receives them), a victim of theft who sues the robber (and then takes an oath and recovers their stolen goods), someone who seeks compensation from another who injured them (who takes an oath and receives damages) and: “a storekeeper relying on his ledger.”
 
On today’s daf, the mishnah provides examples in each category. There are many variants on the storekeeper example. Today, we’ll explore a few.

If one said to a storekeeper: “Give me produce valued at a dinar,” and he gave him the produce, and later the storekeeper said to him: “Give me that dinar you owe me,” and the customer said to him: “I gave it to you, and you put it in your wallet,” the customer shall take an oath that he gave him the dinar. 

At first blush, this is not a good example of the principle stated in the mishnah. After all, a straightforward reading of these lines suggests the customer takes an oath and then is exempted from payment for the produce. But this means the oath doesn’t lead to money or goods changing hands. Commentators step in to explain: The storekeeper didn’t hand the produce directly to the customer, but placed it in the public domain, then demanded payment. Only once the customer swears an oath that they paid for that produce may they take possession of it. Thus, through a rabbinically-mandated oath, the customer acquires something.

Here’s the reverse example:

If, after he gave the storekeeper the money, the customer said to him: “Give me the produce,” and the storekeeper said to him: “I gave it to you and you transported it to your house,” the storekeeper shall take an oath that he has already filled the order, and he is exempt from supplying the produce. 

Again, commentators explain, we can make sense of this if we imagine the produce was temporarily in the public domain for the duration of the transaction and subsequent dispute. Here, there’s no question that the storekeeper received money. But when the buyer tries to collect the produce from the public domain, the storekeeper stops them and says they have already collected other produce for that payment. The storekeeper can swear that this is true and then recover the produce from the public domain.

Further examples in the mishnah explore when, instead of trading money for produce, a person trades money for money (of a different denomination). In this setting, coins are like any other kind of item for sale, and the mishnah provides examples similar to those above, in which one party claims not to have received what they were owed. The one who is accused utters a rabbinic oath and recovers what is rightfully theirs from the public domain. 

At this point, Rabbi Yehuda jumps in with a comment:

It is not a money changer’s way to give even an issar until he receives a dinar. 

We know from the New Testament and other sources that money changers — who made their living exchanging currencies — were often disliked. This is perhaps why Rabbi Yehuda somewhat acerbically remarks that a money changer would never hand over coins before receiving their payment. And therefore, the example in which a money changer gives a customer coins before receiving payment (and then must sue for that payment) is utterly implausible.

Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t carry the day: The Mishneh Torah holds like the anonymous Gemara and states: “If the money-changer admits to having sold the coins and he has not taken the dinar, the purchaser must support his claim by taking an oath while holding a sacred object and may then take the coins.” Indeed, the medieval codes agree across the board and follow what we examined above. Although money-changers may have been viewed with suspicion by the populace, that ultimately did not color the law which was enforced across all different sorts of storekeepers, whatever their wares.

Read all of Shevuot 45 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 15, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.