Shevuos Daf 49 חג השבועות דַף 49

The eighth Perek begins: ארבעה שומרין הן – there are four types of custodians: שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר – an unpaid custodian, a borrower, a paid custodian, and a renter. שומר חנם נשבע על הכל – A שומר חנם swears with regard to everything, meaning all types of loss described by the Torah for which other שומרין pay, and only pays for negligence. A שואל pays for any type of loss, including אונס. A שומר שכר and שוכר both swear על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה – when claiming the animal broke a limb, was captured by armed robbers, or died naturally (all of which are unavoidable אונסין), ומשלמין את האבדה ואת הגניבה - and pay for loss or theft, which are somewhat avoidable. Later, Rav Nachman quotes Rabbah bar Avuha that this Tanna, who says a שוכר pays like a שומר שכר, is Rebbe Meir. The Gemara objects that a Baraisa teaches the very opposite, that Rebbe Meir considers a שוכר like a שומר חנם, and Rebbe Yehudah considers him like a שומר שכר. The Gemara answers that Rabba bar Avuha teaches an opposite version of this Baraisa. Since there are only three categories of payments, the Mishnah means: ארבעה שומרין ודיניהם שלשה – there are four types of שומרים, and their laws are three categories.

The Mishnah proceeds to list many cases of false shevuos of שומרין, and teaches that the שומר is only liable for a korban אשם when his shevuah exempted him from the liability he would have had according to the truth (and he later admitted swearing falsely). This is summarized with a rule: כל המשנה מחובה לחובה – whoever changes from a liability to another liability (e.g., a borrower swore the borrowed animal died, and it actually was captured, and he was responsible anyway), ומפטור לפטור – or he changes from an exemption to another exemption (e.g., the above case with a שומר חנם, where he would be exempt for either event), ומפטור לחובה – or one who changes from exemption to liability (e.g., a שומר שכר swore it was stolen and he is liable, when it actually had died and he was exempt), פטור – he is exempt in all these cases from a korban אשם, because his shevuah did not exempt him from payment. However, מחובה לפטור – if his shevuah changed from liability to exemption (e.g., a שומר שכר swore it died, when it was actually stolen and he was responsible), he is חייב a korban.

Rebbe Ami said: כל שבועה שהדיינין משביעין אותה – any shevuah which the judges impose, אין בה משום שבועת ביטוי – does not have [a קרבן עולה ויורד obligation for[ a false oath of “utterance” (even where there is no korban אשם for denying money), because the passuk says: "או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים" – or “if” a person will swear, expressing with his lips, implying that he swore מעצמו – on his own, not one who was compelled by Beis Din to swear. This interpretation is based on Reish Lakish’s principle that the word "כי", usually translated as “because,” has four different meanings: אי, דלמא, אלא, דהא – if, perhaps, but, and because, and Rebbe Ami interprets it here as “if.” Rebbe Elazar disagrees, and says one is liable for a שבועת ביטוי even for shevuos imposed by Beis Din, except in cases where he is liable for a שבועת השומרין (e.g., a שואל who swore that he never borrowed), because he swore falsely to deny owing money.