Book of Desire (Sefer ḥefets)

Summary of the Gemara: [ . . . ] The property of an informer [i.e., a Jew who informs on Jews to a non-Jewish court] is subject to a dispute between R. Huna and R. Judah. One says: It is permitted to destroy it, and the other says: It is prohibited to destroy it actively. The one who says that it is permitted argues that his property should not be valued more than his body. And the one who says that it is prohibited argues that it is always possible that he might have worthy children, and it is written: The wicked may prepare it, but the just shall put it on (Job 27:17). [See b. Bava Kamma 119a.]

Sefer ḥefets: R. Paltoy, the head of the academy, said as follows: An informer is disqualified from giving testimony, and this applies not only to an actual informer but even if it became known that a man who had a dispute with another declared to him, in the presence of witnesses, “I will go and inform on you.” If he shouts such matters in public, he has harmed himself with his speech and is disqualified from giving testimony. This is the law of the informer, as ruled in two academies. [ . . . ]

Summary of the Gemara: R. Ḥiyya said that if someone says, “There is a maneh [a coin] of mine in your possession,” and the other replies, “There is nothing of yours in my possession,” and witnesses testify that he has fifty [dinars, equal to half a maneh] in his possession, he gives him that fifty and takes an oath concerning the remaining sum. This is derived by an a fortiori inference, for the admission of his own mouth should not be considered greater than the testimony of witnesses. [See b. Bava Meẓi‘a 3a.]

And R. Ḥiyya further said that if someone says, “There is a maneh of mine in your possession,” and the other replies, “Only fifty dinars of yours are in my possession, and here you are,” [handing him the money,] he is obligated to take an oath on the remainder. Why? One who says “Here you are” is as though he admits to part of the claim. But R. Sheshet says that he is exempt.¹ [See b. Bava Meẓi‘a 4a.]

Sefer ḥefets: Now, R. Sheshet’s opinion is not accepted. For R. ‘Amram Ga’on said that the law is in accordance with R. Ḥiyya, as R. Yoḥanan follows his opinion. For he said that this oath is an enactment of the sages, and they instituted it to conform with oaths that apply by biblical law. Furthermore, the mishnah also supports him: “If two people came holding a robe . . . ” [m. Bava Meẓi‘a 1:1]. Since each one is grasping half the garment, it is clear that what each grasps belongs to him, [and it is] as though the other had said to him, “Here you are”—and yet the mishnah [still] rules that he takes an oath.

There was a certain shepherd to whom people would give their animals every day in the presence of witnesses. On one day, they gave him their animals without witnesses. At the end of the day, he said to them, “It never happened.” Witnesses came and testified that the shepherd ate two of the animals. R. Zera said: If R. Ḥiyya’s first halakhah is correct, the shepherd must pay the value of those two animals, and he takes an oath with regard to the remainder. Abaye said to him: But he is a robber [and his oath cannot be accepted]. R. Zera said to him: I meant that the opposing party takes the oath [and collects payment].

The Gemara asks: Now too, we should also obligate the shepherd in an oath, based on a statement of R. Naḥman. As we learned: If someone says to another, “There is a maneh of mine in your possession,” and the other replies, “There is not,” he is exempt from taking an oath [m. Shevu‘ot 6:1]. And R. Naḥman said: Even so, he is made to take an oath of inducement [which is required when one denies a monetary claim], imposed by the rabbis. The Gemara answers that the oath of R. Naḥman is a rabbinic enactment, and we do not institute one enactment upon another. The Gemara asks: But let R. Zera derive that he is disqualified from taking an oath because he is a shepherd, and R. Judah says that a regular shepherd is disqualified from testimony. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult. Here it is referring to a case where he herds his own animals [with that status of a robber],² and there it is referring to a case where he herds animals that belong to others. For if you do not say so, how do we ever give our animals to a shepherd? Wouldn’t we thereby violate the command: You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind (Leviticus 19:14)? Rather, there is a presumption that a person does not commit a sin for something that is not his.