As we have seen, defendants are usually the ones required to take an oath when their accuser has no proof of wrongdoing. But sometimes it is the claimant who takes the oath. The lengthy mishnah at the beginning of this chapter listed a number of scenarios in which this can happen. In all cases, regardless of who takes the oath, there is a clear accusation. But this is apparently not so in the mishnah’s last and most exceptional case:
And these people are sometimes required to take an oath that they do not owe anything even when there is no explicit claim: Partners, sharecroppers, stewards, a woman who does business from home, and the member of the household appointed to manage the household’s affairs. In a case where one of these people said to the other: “What is your claim against me?” If the other replied: “It is simply my wish that you take an oath to me that you have not taken anything of mine,” the former is liable to take that oath.
This is a list of people who are, in some way, managing someone else’s property: one partner handles another’s wares, a sharecropper works another person’s land, etc. This arrangement makes taking the other person’s property, whether through theft or accident, easy and convenient. According to the mishnah, the second party can ask the first to swear an oath that they have not stolen anything — even in the absence of a specific claim against the first. It seems that we’re either more suspicious that they might try and purposefully steal from the person whose property they manage or, more generously, we’re worried about mistakes.
The Gemara, commenting on this clause, is incredulous:
Is that to say that we are dealing with fools?!
The Gemara is incredulous that people would take an oath when there is no claim against them. How could this possibly be obligatory? And if it’s not obligatory, why would anyone agree to do it? To resolve this issue, the Gemara amends the mishnah slightly:
This is what the mishnah is saying: And these people take an oath without it being in response to a definite claim but only to an uncertain claim: Partners, sharecroppers, etc.
If the other partner, or the owner of the sharecropper’s field, or the person whose money a steward is managing, etc., has noreason to believe the other took their money, they cannot be made to take an oath apropos of nothing. However (and this is what distinguishes these cases from others), if the claimant believes they may have taken property, the other party can be made to take an oath denying it. This distinguishes this case from others in which the claimant is far more certain they have been robbed.
The Gemara asks an intuitive follow-up question:
And what is different about these people listed in the mishnah? It is because they tend to grant themselves permission to take for themselves from the property for which they are responsible.
These specific people — those who manage others’ property — have much more access and therefore it is simply easier to take from the other party, either with intention or through mistake.
In general, throughout Tractate Shevuot, we’ve seen the rabbis balancing a considerable tension: On the one hand, many oaths are only taken because two parties make contradictory claims, and it seems that one of them is lying. Therefore, oaths are a mechanism to deal with people who are not entirely trustworthy. On the other hand, the rabbis don’t assume that most Jews are regularly cheating and stealing from their fellows. In fact, if we assumed as much, most people would be rendered unfit to take an oath and the whole system would collapse! The rabbis walk a fine line, knowing that people do sometimes cheat and lie, but also not assuming most are unapologetic thieves.
In the cases listed above, where a person is putting in considerable effort managing another person’s property, the rabbis suggest that such a person might, to translate literally, “teach for themselves a permission about it.” They might think that, in exchange for the work they’re providing, it isn’t unreasonable to keep some quantity of the property. In their mind, this isn’t full-on theft, but a justifiable appropriation of (additional) compensation for their labor. Since the rabbis, according to the Gemara, believe such a self-justification would be common in these cases, and therefore the likelihood of them having taken property is higher than in most scenarios, they obligate an oath even when the claimant is uncertain.
Read all of Shevuot 47 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 17, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
