THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW 
Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean 

Lesson # 79 - Matters exempt from Torah oaths 

With this lesson we will conclude our current discussions of oaths in the Beth Din. That is not to say that we have exhausted the topic. I just thought that we could get on to something new IYH next lesson. 

This, the last lesson for now with oaths, will concern those situations where the subject matter of the litigation provides for an exemption from taking an oath.

As in the prior lessons, it is assumed that the plaintiff lacks the required two witnesses or documentary proof to prove his case. In the following cases the defendant will win the case without having to take an oath if the plaintiff does not produce the requisite proof required of him. (i) In those cases where the plaintiff is the Holy Temple; (ii) where the claim is for real estate. It does not matter whether the real estate is in the Land of Israel or outside the Land of Israel, or whether the real estate belongs to a Jew or a Gentile; or (iii) the claim is for an instrument of indebtedness, as where the plaintiff sues to recover a note showing that the debtor owes money to a creditor. The instrument of indebtedness itself has no intrinsic value. 

The burden to take an oath of denial is not shifted to the defendant, as it is in cases where the plaintiff is a private party and the claim is for money or a chattel having intrinsic value.

The laws of the Holy Temple do not apply as I am writing this lesson. May it please Hashem that by the time this lesson appears in print next week, that the Holy Temple will be in existence. Cases in which the plaintiff is a synagogue, religious school, a charity for the poor, or for the purchase of a Torah scroll, and similar cases are treated the same as any other plaintiff regarding the Torah oaths to be taken by a defendant.

Examples of real estate claims, the plaintiff (without adequate proof) sues the defendant to recover two parcels of real estate that the plaintiff claims the defendant sold to him. The defendant admits selling one parcel and denies selling the second parcel. In this case, since the claim is for real estate, the defendant does not have to take a Torah oath of partial denial regarding the second parcel. Had the plaintiff sued to recover two automobiles that the claims the defendant sold to him and if the defendant admitted selling one automobile, the defendant would have to take an oath of partial denial or he would lose the case regarding the second automobile. 

The result is the same if the plaintiff sues to recover one parcel of real estate from the defendant who denied the sale. The plaintiff produces one witness to support his claim. The defendant need not take a Torah oath to contradict the one witness, and the defendant will win the case without taking the oath. Had the plaintiff sued for money or for a chattel and produced one witness to support his claim, the defendant would have to take a Torah oath and win the case or refuse to take the oath and lose the case. 

Land and everything attached to the land is in the category of real estate. This includes things that at one time were detached and are now attached to the land, such as houses, fence, pipes, and built-in barbecues. Growing crops, trees, fruit on trees, vegetables and everything else that grows from the ground is included in real estate while they are attached to the ground. For example, the owner gives a watchman ten vines to guard and he returns six to the owner and the owner sues for ten and the watchman admits that the owner gave him six to watch and denies that the owner gave him four more to watch. The watchman need not take an oath of partial admission.

Reuven sues Shimon to recover two automobiles and two vines. Shimon admits he took two vines to guard, but denies taking the automobiles to watch. Or Shimon admits that he took two automobiles but denies taking two vines to guard. Or Shimon admits that he took one vine and denies taking automobiles. In all these events Shimon does not have to take a Torah oath to win the case regarding the items he denies. The vines are treated as real estate. The denials and admissions regarding the vines are not considered for the Torah oath of partial admissions to apply. It is only when the denial and admission apply to chattels, the automobiles in this case, that the laws of partial admission and partial denials applies. Thus if Shimon admits that he took one automobile and denies that the took a second automobile, and denies that he took one or both vines, he takes a Torah oath of denial regarding the second automobile and a special oath called a revolving oath regarding the vines that he denies. 

The landlord sues the tenant for two months’ rent. (The landlord does not have the requisite proof to prove his case.) The tenant admits that he occupied the dwelling for only one month. This is a partial denial and partial admission and the tenant may elect to take a Torah oath of denial to win the case. The landlord having sued for money made this into a money case and not a real estate case. Thus the laws of Torah oaths apply. However, if the landlord sues to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent for two months and the tenant admits he owes rent for one month and denies that he owes rent for the other month, then this is a real estate case and the tenant will win the case regarding the second month without the necessity to take a Torah oath. 

Regarding instruments of indebtedness a case may arise as follows: Reuven pleads that he gave Shimon a note of indebtedness to hold, which note evidenced that Levi owed Reuven $100. Shimon denies that Reuven gave him the note to hold. If Reuven’s plea is true, Shimon caused Reuven $100 in damages in not returning the note. (This assumes that without the note Reuven cannot collect from Levi.) Shimon does not have to take a Torah oath to win the case. 

The foregoing does not reflect the current status of the halachah since the Rabbis of the Talmud in the fourth century of the Common Era did institute a hesseth oath in some of these situations that the defendant must take to win the case although he need not take a Torah oath to win the case.

IYH, with the next lesson we shall start the topic of collection of debts according to halachah.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Vol. III, Ch.95 A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint, published by Jason Aronson, Inc. and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. 

Questions to quint@inter.net.il