Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 7

כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. וְאֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִים וְנוֹטְלִין הַשָּכִיר וְהַנִּגְזָל וְהַנֶּחְבָּל וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ. הַשָּכִיר כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָיה. כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי שְׂכָרִי חֲמִשִּׁים דֵּינָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הִתְקַבַּלְתָּ מֵהֶם דֵּינַר זָהָב: כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כול׳. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שְׁבוּעַת יְי תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאִם לֹא יִשְׁבַּע יְשַׁלֵּם. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלָקַח בְּעָלָיו וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ בְעָלִים שְׁבוּעָה הוּא פָטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לִי כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲפִילוּ כְרַבָּנִן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי אַסִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. וְלָקַח בְּעָלָיו וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. הָא אִם לֹא יִשְׁבַּע יְשַׁלֵּם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. מַתְנֶה שׂוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לִהְיוֹת כְּשׁוֹאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בִּלְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. מַה פְלִיגִין. בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֲסָקָיו מְרוּבִּין תִּיקְנוּ בְשָׂכִיר לִישָּׁבַע וְלִיטּוֹל. [אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן תִּיקְנוּ בְשָׂכִיר שֶׁיְּהֵא נִישְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל.] וְדִכְוָותָהּ תִּיקְנוּ בְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאִם עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁבָּע וְיִטּוֹל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ בִזְמַנּוֹ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שָׁנָה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר. תְּבָעוֹ בַיּוֹם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא יוֹם. לַיְלָה אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא לַיְלָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. בְּשֶׁתְבָעוֹ וְאָמַר. נָתַתִּי. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. אֶתֵּן. חֲזָקָה נָתָן. וְלָא יָדְעִין מָאן אָמַר דָא וּמָאן אָמַר דָא. מִמָּה דָמַר רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תְּבָעוֹ בַיּוֹם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא יוֹם. לַיְלָה אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא לַיְלָה. הֲוֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה דְאָמַר. בְּשֶׁתְבָעוֹ וְאָמַר. נָתַתִּי. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ. אֶתֵּן. חֲזָקָה נָתָן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. פְּעָמִים שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אַחַר זְמָן וְנַעֲשֶׂה בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. תְּבָעוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ. לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם נָתַתִּי. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם נַעֲשֶׂה כְמִי שֶׁהוּא אֶתְמוֹל. נוֹתֵן לוֹ שִׁיעוּר אֶחָד. הִקְדִּים לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ. בְּדָא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיָה הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בְּיָדוֹ. בְּדָא נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. הָיָה עֶבֶד. וּבֵית דִּין מוֹסְרִין שְׁבוּעָה לְעֶבֶד. הָיָה חָשׁוּד. וּבֵית דִּין מוֹסְרִין שְׁבוּעָה לְחָשׁוּד. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא. מֵת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַשָּׂכִיר נִשְׁבָּע לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וַאֲפִילוּ מֵת הַשָּׂכִיר יוֹרְשָׁיו נִשְׁבָּעִין לְיוֹרְשֵׁי בַעַל הַבַּיִת. כְּלוּם תִּיקְנוּ אֶלָּא בְשָׂכִיר. שֶׁמָּא בְיוֹרְשָׁיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. בְּשֶׁתְּבָעוֹ בְעֵדִים. [אֲבָל אִם תְּבָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָעֵידִים.] יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין אוֹמְרִים בְּמָמוֹן. מֵאַחַר. מְאַחַר דִּיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. נָתַתִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. לֹא נָטַלְתִּי. נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא נָטַלְתִּי. שָׂכַרְתָּנִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. בָּעֵדִים שָׂכַרְתָּנִי. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ. רִבִּי בָּא קַרְתֵּיגָנָא בָעֵי. יוֹם אֶחָד עָשִׂיתָ עִמִּי וְנָתַתִּי לָךְ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵי יָמִים עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לִי כְלוּם. פְּשִׁיטָא יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. שְׁנִיָה תַפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. סֶלַע אֶחָד פָּסַקְתִּי לְךָ וּנְתַתִּיהָ לָךְ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים פָּסַקְתָּה לִי וְלֹא נָתַתָּה לִי כְלוֹם. פְּשִׁיטָא סֶלַע רִאשׁוֹנָה נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. שְׁנִיָיה תַפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע הֵבִיא עֵדִים. הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בָּאֵבוּס. כְּבָר גְּזַלְתּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב הוּנָא. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְעֵדִים מְעִידִין שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. מַתְנִיתָא בְשֶׁאֲכָלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁבָּע לוֹ. מִמַּה דָּמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לוֹ וְאַחֲרֵיכֵן אֲכָלוֹ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא יָדַע. וְהָכָא אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְעֵין שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה לֹא יָדַע. בְּרַם הָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּעֵין שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה. מָהוּ לְגַלְגֵּל שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה עַל שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מְגַלְגְּלִין שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה עַל שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה. שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה עַל שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה עַל שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה עַל שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה. תַּמָּן זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. בְּרַם הָכָא זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְזֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם.

MISHNAH: All who must swear by Torah standards do swear not to pay. The following do swear and collect: The journeyman, a person robbed or injured, and one whose opponent is suspected of perjury, and the grocer on his account book. How does the journeyman do it? He tells him, “give me my wages which you are holding;” he says, “I gave.” He swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, “give me my wages of fifty denarii which you are holding;” but he says, “you received from these a gold denar . By biblical law, the employer would have to swear since he partially denied the journeyman’s claim. .” HALAKHAH: “All who must swear by Torah standards,” etc. One understands from what is said, an oath before the Eternal shall be between them . 22:10 . , would we not know that if he does not swear, he has to pay? Why does the verse say, its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay ? But from the moment the owner accepted his oath, he does not have to pay107a ; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 16, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai ad loc ., ( Tosephta 6:7 .) Probably this statement has to be interpreted following the parallels in the Babli and the Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai : The oath grants the trustee absolute immunity. Even if afterwards witnesses are found who prove that the trustee stole the deposit, he cannot be made to pay. This cannot be inferred from the first part of the verse quoted earlier. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin treats the statement as paradigm for all oaths prescribed in the Torah and sees in it proof for the statement that “All who must swear by Torah standards do swear not to pay.” . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this only following Rebbi Meїr or even following the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Assi say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meїr is the one who says that out of a negative one understands a positive? Its owner shall take it, and he does not have to pay , therefore if he does not swear, he has to pay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The unpaid and the paid trustees may stipulate to be like a borrower5:5 Note 81). The verse may be read: If the owner accepts the oath, the trustee does not pay; this leaves open the option that the owner stipulated that he would not accept the oath. . Rebbi Ḥanina said, everybody agrees that in the language of the Torah out of a negative one understands a positive; where do they disagree? In everyday speech. Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect9:13, Tosephta Bava meṣi`a 10:5. The journeyman is hired for the day. It is sinful not to pay the journeyman immediately after his work is done ( Deut . 24:15 ). Therefore one may assume that the laborer asked for his wages immediately and that he was paid since it is difficult to assume that the householder would sin in withholding the wages. But if there are witnesses that the laborer asked and was not paid, the presumption of permanence of the status quo ante requires one to assume that he was not paid until the opposite is proven. . Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects9:13, Tosephta Bava meṣi`a 10:5. The journeyman is hired for the day. It is sinful not to pay the journeyman immediately after his work is done ( Deut . 24:15 ). Therefore one may assume that the laborer asked for his wages immediately and that he was paid since it is difficult to assume that the householder would sin in withholding the wages. But if there are witnesses that the laborer asked and was not paid, the presumption of permanence of the status quo ante requires one to assume that he was not paid until the opposite is proven. even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night7:1) but at most are from daybreak to nightfall. Therefore, a day laborer must be paid between the end of his working day and the end of the following night; a worker hired for the night must be paid before the end of the next day. . But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure. If he paid him in advance; in that case he swears and collects. If a pledge was in his hand; in that case he collects without swearing. If he was a slave. Would the court admit a slave to an oath? If he was suspect? Would the court admit a suspect person to an oath? If both were suspect, it is the dispute between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If both were suspect, the oath returns to its origin, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split the difference2:1 Note 9 , Bava qamma 5:1 Note 4 ). .” It is obvious: If the householder dies, the journeyman swears to his heirs. Even if the journeyman dies, do his heirs swear to the householder’s heirs? They made this ordinance only for the journeyman. Maybe for his heirs? Rebbi Eleazar said, if he claimed evidence that the employer did not fulfill the commandment “to pay on his day”, the employer must be given the benefit of doubt and the option of swearing to deny his debt. before witnesses. [But if he claimed without witnesses and Noam Yerushalmi ). , he can tell him,] I paid your wages. Rebbi Joḥanan said, does one not in money matters argue “because?” Because he can say to him, I did not hire you, he can tell him, I hired you and paid your wages. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “When was this said? If he said, I gave, but the other said, I did not take; I gave you your wages, but he says, I did not take. You hired me, but he says, I did not hire you. The burden of proof is on the claimant. a dispute whether such a relationship existed at all must be adjudicated by the general principle that the burden of proof is on the claimant. It seems clear that this situation cannot occur if the hiring was documented. ” It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if he hired him before witnesses, how can this one say, I did not hire you? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked: “You worked for me one day and I paid you.” But the other says, “I worked for you for two days and you did not give anything to me.” It is obvious that he takes for the first day without oath. The second is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. “I hired you for a tetradrachma and gave it to you.” But the other says, “you hired me for two tetradrachmas and did not give me anything.” It is obvious that he takes the first tetradrachma without an oath. The second is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it106a , a statement of Ilfa (Hilfai) endorsed by Rav Huna in the name of Rav] holds that the oath effects a transfer of property rights; if the claimant accepts the oath, the defendant later ate his own animal, not the claimant’s. However, since here the acquisition is qualified as robbery the claimant can bring a new action for robbery whereas in the Babli Rav Huna in the name of Rav qualifies this as acquisition and denies any obligation on the part of the defendant. . A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There6:7 . In R. Jehudah’s opinion an arsonist has to pay for everything he destroyed even if he could not have known of its value. he says, even if he does not know. But here he says, not unless he knows. There since it is not in the form of a biblical oath even (about a biblical oath) he does not know. But here it is in the form of a biblical oath there is no oath. Here R. Jehudah requires partial admission to base the administration of an oath on biblical grounds even though the oath itself is a rabbinic institution. . May one roll over a biblical oath on a biblical oath2:6 Note 167 , Qiddušin 1:5 Note 520 . If a person is required to swear in court, the opposing party can add to the text of the oath any other oath he might have cause to let the other party swear without having to prove every case separately. For biblical oaths this is proven from biblical texts in the places quoted. For an obligation to swear by biblical standards to add an oath which is a rabbinic institution seems to be a natural consequence. The only problem is whether the obligation to swear a rabbinic oath is cause for the opposing party to add biblical oaths without presenting sufficient proof for that obligation. ? Let us hear from the following: One rolls over a biblical oath on a biblical oath, an instituted oath on an instituted oath, a biblical oath on an instituted oath. An instituted oath on a biblical oath? There, one swears and pays, but here in one case he swears and collects, in the other he swears and does not pay10:3 ) are not obligations but privileges; there is no reason to pile obligations on top of these. The Babli (49a , top) agrees for the oaths described in the Mishnah. The answer of the Babli has to be more nuanced since it introduces an Amoraic institution of שְׁבוּעַת הֵיסֶת “an oath of instigation”, unknown to the Yerushalmi, if judgment is given by a preponderance of evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt. These rabbinically instituted oaths are obligations and can be used as pegs to pile on other obligations. .

הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת. אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי כֵּילַיי שֶׁנָּטַלְתָּה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָיה. כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵילַיי נָטַלְתָּה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד: הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד כול׳. לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. לֹא לְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירוֹ. לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ. לֹא מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וּבִלְבַד בָּעֵדִים. נִכְנְסוּ שְׁנַיִם לְמַשׁכְּנוֹ. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. יָצָא חָבוּל מִבֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶן. שְׁנֵיהֶן רְאוּיִין לְמַשְׁכְּנוּ. וּמַה חֲמֵי לֵיהּ. בְּשֶׁרָאוּ שְׁנַיִם חוֹבְטִין עָלָיו בְּמַקְלוֹת. רָאוּהוּ זוֹרֵק צְרוֹרוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ שָׁם כֵּלִים שְׁבוּרִין נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. מָהוּ מִיטְעֲנִינֵיהּ מִילִּין מַפְלִגִן. יָיבֹא כִדְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּר נַשׁ עֲתִיר גַּו שׁוּקָא וּמִסְכֵּן גַּו בֵּיתָא. עֲתִיר גַּו בֵּיתָא וּמִסְכֵּן גַּו שׁוּקָא. יֵשׁ מִתְעַשֵּׁר וְאֵין כֹּל מִתְרוֹשֵׁשׁ וְהוֹן רָב. רִבִּי בָּא מִשְׁתָּעֵי. עוֹבְדָא הֲוָה בָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא דְּאַפְקִיד גַּבֵּי חַד בַּר נַשׁ לִיטְרָא דְהַב. מִית בַּר זִיזָא וָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר. וּמָאן לֵימָא לָן דְּכָל מַה דַהֲוֵי לָאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּבַר זִיזָא לָאו דְּבַר זִיזָא אִינּוּן. יִתְיְיהָבוּן לִבְנוֹי דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲתוֹן בְּנוֹי דְּבַר זִיזָא. אֲמַר. יִסְבּוֹן בְּנִין רַבְרְבִין פַּלְגָּא וּמִן דַּקִּיקִין רַבּוֹן יִסְבּוֹן פַּלְגָּא. דְּמָךְ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. אֲמַר. אִין מֵהָדָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּלָא בָעֵי מְפַרְסֵם נַפְשֵׁיהּ. יִתְיְיהָבוּן לִבְנוֹי דָּאֲרִיסָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ דְּפִיקָּדוֹנָא. כְּבָר יְהָבִית פַּלְגָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מַה שֶׁנָּתַתָּ עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין נָתַתָּה. וּמַה שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין אַתָּה נוֹתֵן. מָהוּ דְיֵימְרוּן בְּנֵי אֲרִיסָא לִבְנֵי בַּר זִיזָא. הָבוּ לָן מַה דִנְסַבְתּוֹן. יָכְלִין מֵימַר לוֹן. מַה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין נַעֲשָׂה. מָהוּ דְיֵימְרוּן דַּקִּיקַיָיא לְרַבְרְבַיָיא. נַחֲלוֹק עִמְּכוֹן. יָכְלִין מֵימַר לוֹן. מְצִיאָה מָצָאנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אֵין בֵּין רַבְרָבַיָיא לְדַקִּיקַיָיא אֶלָּא כְמִי שֶׁנִּיתָּן לָהֶן מַתָּנָה.

MISHNAH: How about a person robbed? There were witnesses that he entered another’s house to take a pledge without authorization. 24:10–11 ). The witnesses did not see what he took. The debtor swears and takes based on this prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by the creditor. . He said to him, give me my vessels which you took but he answers I did not take; this one swears and takes. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there is partial admission. How is this? He tells him, you took two of my vessels but he says, I took only one. HALAKHAH: “How about a person robbed,” etc. “In another’s house,” not in his courtyard. 24:10 only forbids to enter the debtor’s house to take a pledge. This condition does not appear in the Babli; in Ṭur Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 90 ( Bet Yosef Note 9) there is an extended discussion about the validity of this statement. . “To take a pledge,” not for another purpose. Rebbi Issac said, and only by witnesses evidence of illegal entry has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. . If two entered to take pledges from him? It should come like the following: “If he was injured between the two …” But if both were entitled to take pledges? What should be seen there? If they saw two [men] hitting him with sticks. If they saw him throwing pebbles and broken vessels were found there, he collects without oath. 6:7 (Notes 111–115 ) and Alfasi Bava qamma No. 125. It is clear that R. Joḥanan and the editors of the Yerushalmi endorse R. Ḥiyya’s judgment and reject R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s. May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as rich and has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth . 13:7 . . Rebbi Abba told texts, makes it questionable whether a real case is recounted here. : Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold. with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

הַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד הָיָה מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל וְאָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּה בִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָיה. כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִי שְׁתַּיִם וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אַחַת: הַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד כול׳. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הָיָה קוֹרֵא חֲבָטִי. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן חוֹכְכִין זֶה בָזֶה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיָה נָשׁוּךְ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישּׁוֹךְ עַצְמוֹ נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. לְאַחַר זְמָן זֶה אוֹמֵר. חָבַלְתָּ בִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. לֹא חָבַלְתִּי. הֲרֵי זֶה כִשְׁאָר הַטַּעֲנוֹת.

MISHNAH: The injured one, how? They were testifying against him that one came to his hand whole and left injured. He says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure; this one swears and collects. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there was a partial admission. How is this? He said to him, you injured me twice but the other says, I injured you only once. HALAKHAH: “The injured one, how,” etc. 9:28 (S. Lieberman Tosefta kiFshutah Bava qamma p. 109.) “Rebbi Jehudah was calling them beaters. Any time they are rubbing one another, he swears and collects. If he was bitten at a place where he could not bite himself, he collects without oath. At a later time if one says, you injured me, but the other says, I did not injure, this is like any other claim.”

וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כֵּיצַד אַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְאַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְשַׂחֵק בַּקּוּבְיָא מַלְוֶה בָרִיבִּית מַפְרִיחַ יוֹנִים וְסוֹחֵר שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יַחֲלוֹקוּ: וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כול׳. אֵילּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין. הַמְשַׂחֵק בַּקּוּבְיָא. זֶה הַמְשַׂחֵק בִּפְסֵיפָסִין. אֶחָד הַמְשַׂחֵק בִּפְסֵיפָסִין וְאֶחָד הַמְשַׂחֵק בִּקְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וְרִימּוֹנִים לְעוֹלָם אֵין מְקַבְּלִין עֵדוּתָן עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁבֵּר פְּסֵיפָסָיו וְיִבָּדֵק וְיַחֲזוֹר בָהֶן חֲזָרָה גְמוּרָה. הַמַּלְוֶה בָרִיבִּית אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּקְרַע שְׁטָרוֹתָיו וְיִבָּדֵק וְיַחֲזוֹר בָהֶן חֲזָרָה גְמוּרָה. וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים. זֶה הַמַּמְרֶה יוֹנִים. אֶחָד מַמְרֶה יוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מַמְרֶה בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁבֵּר פְגִימָיו וְיִבָּדֵק וְיַחֲזוֹר חֲזָרָה גְמוּרָה. סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. זֶהוּ תַּגָּר שְׁבִיעִית. אֵי זֶהוּ תַּגָּר שְׁבִיעִית. יָשָׁב לוֹ כָּל שְׁנֵי שְׁבִיעִית וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית הִתְחִיל נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ שְׁבִיעִית אֲחֶרֶת וְיִבָּדֵק וְיַחְזוֹר חֲזָרָה גְמוּרָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שְׁנֵי שְׁבִיעִיּוֹת. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר. חֲזָרַת מָמוֹן לֹא חֲזָרַת דְּבָרִים. שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם. הֵא לָכֶם מָאתַיִם זוּז וְחִלְּקוּם לָעֲנִיִים שֶׁכָּנַסְתִּי מִפֵּירוֹת עֲבֵירָה. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן הָרוֹעִין וְהַחַמְסָנִין וְהַגַּזְלָנִין. וְכָל הַחֲשׁוּדִין בְּמָמוֹן עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. בְּרוֹעֵי בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. מָאן תַּנִּיתָהּ מַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנָן. מַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים פְּסוּלִין לָעֵדוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְעוֹד מֵהָדָא דְסַנְהֶדְרִין כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. הָכָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ שֶׁהָיָה פָסוּל מֵעֵדוּת מָמוֹן. וּמַה בָא לְהָעִיד. אֶלָּא כְשֵׁם שֶׁפָּסוּל מֵעֵדוּת מָמוֹן כָּךְ פָּסוּל מֵעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. וְעֵידֵי הַחוֹדֶשׁ כְּעֵידֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְשֵׁירָה לָהּ אַף הֵן אֵינָן כְשֵׁירִין לָהּ. מָאן תַּנִּיתָהּ. רַבָּנִין. רַבָּנִין כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. מוֹדִיין לֵיהּ וּפְלִיגִין עֲלוֹי. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּנָה. כּולְּהוֹן כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אַתְיָין אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא כְאִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא. דְּתַנֵּי. עֵד זוֹמֵם פָּסוּל מִכָּל עֵדִיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּמְצָא זוֹמֵם בְּעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא זוֹמֵם בְּעֵדוּת מָמוֹן אֵינוֹ פָסוּל אֶלָּא לְאוֹתָהּ עֲדוּת בִּלְבַד. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרַבָּנִן וּדְרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. הֶחָשׁוּד בִּשְׁבוּעָה מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. מִשֶׁיָבוֹא בְבֵית דִּין וְיֹאמַר. חָשׁוּד אָנִי. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בָּהוּא דְקָאִים חַיָיב לְחַבְרֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה. וּבֵית דִּין מוֹסְרִין שְׁבוּעָה לֶחָשׁוּד. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בָּהוּא דַאֲזַל מֵידוֹן בְּבֵית דִּין דְּלָא חָכְמִין לֵיהּ וְיֵימַר לוֹן. הַהוּא גַבְרָא חָשׁוּד הוּא. אַף בָּהוּא דְקָאִים וְחַיָיב לֵיהּ שְׁבוֹעָה וּמְחָלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר קַמֵּי רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לְסִינַי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִבְעָלִין. מָאן דָּמַר. חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לְסִינַי. כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עֵדוּת. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. וּמָאן דָּמַר. חָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִבְעָלִין. מִמַּה דַהוּא גַבְרָא חָשׁוּד וְלָא יְכִיל מִישְׁתְּבַע לִי קוּם שְׁלֵם לִי.

MISHNAH: And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury, how? Equally oaths about testimony, or oaths about deposits, or even vain oaths, if one of them was a dice-player, a lender on interest, a participant in pigeon contests, or a dealer in sabbatical produce3:6 (Notes 44–47 .) , the opposing party swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split. HALAKHAH: “And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury,” etc. 1:9 and Sanhedrin 3:6 , explained in Sanhedrin Chapter 3, Notes 51–69 The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates) do not have shells but skins. Perhaps the reference is to Greek ῥύμβος, ῥόμβος, “magic wheel, instrument used in pagan mysteries; rhomb”, from ῥόμβέω “to spin, cause to whirl” (E. G.) one does not accept unless he break his stones, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance.” One who lends on interest one does not accept unless he tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out, and repent in complete repentance. Participants in pigeon contests, that is one who bets on pigeons. Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he break his tools of the catch and repent in complete repentance. Dealers in sabbatical produce, that is the sabbatical trader. “Who is a sabbatical trader? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. In the sabbatical year he becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept him before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” Rebbi Yose stated, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, shepherds of small animals. Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer. When does one accept one who is suspect in matters of oaths? From when he comes to the court and says, I am suspect. Where do we hold? If one who stands here and is obligated to swear for another, does the court deliver an oath to a suspect person? But we must hold about one who has a suit at a court where he is unknown and tells them, this man is suspect. Also about one who stands and another owes him an oath and he forgives it. Rav Hoshaia said before Rebbi Immi in the name of the rabbis there: the oath returned to Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: the oath returned to the parties. He who said, the oath returned to Sinai, it is as if there was no testimony; the burden of proof is on the claimant. He who said, the oath returned to the parties, since that man is suspect and cannot swear for me, get up and pay me.

וְהַחֶנְוָונִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ כֵּיצַד לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ כָּתוּב עַל פִּינְקָסִי שֶׁאַתְּ חַיָיב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּים וּלְפוֹעֲלִי בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לֹא נָטַלְנוּ הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל וְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. אָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס כֵּיצַד אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: וְהַחֶנְוָונִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ כול׳. חֶנְוָונִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ לֹא בְמַקִּיף אָמְרוּ. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. כָּתַבְתָּ בָזֶה מְחוֹק בָזֶה. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁיְּהוּ אֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין בִּפְנֵי אֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי הַבּוּשָׁה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַיָיב כְּלוּם. כְּהָדָא דָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם. סָמְכוֹן כַּתָּפַיָיא גַבֵּי קַפֵּילַיָיא. אֲתוֹן. וְאַפְקוֹן דְּלָא יְהַב לוֹן. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. מִמָּה דְאִילּוּ הֲווֹן קַפֵּילַיָיא יֵימַר מְסַבּוֹת לֵית סוֹפֵיהוֹן דְּאִילֵּין וְאִילֵּין מֵיסַב אֶלָּא יִסְבּוּן מִכְּבָר.

MISHNAH: The grocer on his account book, how? Not that he says to him, it is written in my account book that you owe me 200 denars, but he said to him, give my son two se’ah of wheat, or my worker small change for a tetradrachma. He says, I gave, but they say, we did not take. He swears and collects, and they swear and collect. Ben Nannas said, how? Both are induced to swear falsely1, Note 3.) Since the person who gave the instructions incurred a liability both with the grocer and the workers, both parties can collect since both offer to swear but under the circumstances cannot be allowed to. ! But he takes without an oath and they take without an oath. HALAKHAH: “The grocer on his account book,” etc. “Was ‘the grocer on his account book’ not said about one extending credit? For he can tell him, you wrote with this [hand], erase with the other [hand]”. Rebbi says, I am saying that these have to swear in the presence of those because of the embarrassment. That is to say, only if he did not introduce them. But if he introduced them, the householder has no liability, following what Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom said: One did introduce the porters to the food merchants. They came, but they sent them away without giving them anything. The case came before Rebbi Shammai. Since if the food merchants had said that they took, would at the end not these and those collect? Therefore, they shall collect immediately.

אָמַר לַחֶנְוָונִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר פֵּירוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאָנְפָּלֵי יִישָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהוֹלַכְתָּן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ יִישָּׁבַע הַחֶנְוָונִי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיָדוֹ יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אַָמַר לַשּׁוּלְחָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר מָעוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאָנְפָּלִי יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסֶךָ יִישָּׁבַע הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי לִיתֵּן אִיסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת הַדֵּינָרִין: אָמַר לַחֶנְוָונִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר פֵּירוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה הַקּוּפָּה מוּנַחַת בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶן. עוֹד הִיא בַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. הָדָא דַּתָּ מַר בָּאַכְסְנַאי. אֲבָל בְּבֶן עִיר דַּרְכּוֹ לִיתֵּן אִיסָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל דֵּינָרוֹ.

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē “felt socks.” This meaning is inappropriate here. A better explanation is ἀμφελόνη “garment, throw-around” (E. G.) or one might read with the Tosephta (6:4 ) אונכלי explained by Kohout as ἀνάκωλος [χιτωνίσκος] “a short sleeved outer garment.” : the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged. He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar ; that one delivered and said, give me the denar . He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē : the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi ; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii , a quarter (or fifth) of an obolos , without first being paid. . HALAKHAH: “He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar ;” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is to be differentiated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If the container was lying between them. But if it was in the possession of one of them …. A similar text is quoted in the Babli, 48a . Five different explanations of the text are offered by the commentary Sifte Cohen ( Šulḥan Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 91:1, Note 33) in more than 4 folio pages. Rashi does not comment on the text; the author of Šulḥan Arukh follows Maimonides who explains the expression “at a time when the container was lying between them” to mean that the transaction occurred in the public domain. If the container full of produce was in a private domain, the owner of that domain is in possession and there can be no oath; any claimant will have to produce proof according to the regular standards of civil trials. Sifte Cohen disagrees with this explanation since he reads בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת as “in dispute”; meaning that R. Jehudah disagrees with the anonymous Tanna. But this is the simple meaning of the Mishnah; if R. Ḥanina notes that the statement of R. Jehudah has to be interpreted following the Tosephta, he clearly states that the text has to be read as an explanation of the opinion of the anonymous Tanna as given in the translation. ” Also this needs to be differentiated. It is said about a stranger. But to a fellow town dweller he will give an as before he takes his denar .

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וּמִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִין לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פִיקְּדָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ. הֵעִיד רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֲפִילּוּ נוֹלַד הַבֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. כּוּלְּהוֹן כְּעֵין שְׁבוּעַת תּוֹרָה יָרְדוּ לָהֶן. וּכְתובַּת אִשָּׁה לֹא הוּחְזְקָה בְיָדָהּ לְהַגְבּוֹת. אֶלָּא כְמִי שֶׁגָּבַת מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ. וְהוּא בְתוֹבְעָהּ שְׁטָר שֶׁלְּמָאתַיִם פָּרוּעַ וְאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מְנָה. נִפְרַעַת בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז וְאָמַר לָהּ. הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתוּבָּתִיךְ. וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת. לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי אֶלָּא מְנָה. לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. תְּנֵּי. הַפּוֹגֶמֶת וְלֹא הַפּוֹחֶתֶת. רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. בְּגִין דְּהָלַךְ תַּרְתֵּין פְּסִיעֲתָא הוּא. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּגָמוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אַתָּ מַר. אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. וְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה כול׳. רִבִּי יוּחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין קְטַנִּים אֶלָּא בְשֶׁרִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. אַף לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִפְּנֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיא. מָאן חַיָישׁ לִמְזוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בִּנְקֵיבָה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. מַאי כְדוֹן. מִשּׁוּם חֵינָה. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ קּוֹפְצִין עָלֶיהָ לִישָּׂאֶנָּהּ. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. אַף לִגְזֵילָה וְלִנְזִקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַף נָן תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן. לִגְזֵילָה מֵהָכָא. אִם הָיָה דָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת חַיָיב לְשַׁלֵּם. לִנְזִקִין מֵהָכָא. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין קְטַנִּים אֶלָּא מִזִּבּוּרִית. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין קְטַנִּים לִנְזִקִין אֶלָּא מִזִּיבּוּרִית. וְהָתַנֵּי. יַעֲמֹד הַבֵּן תַּחַת הָאָב. הַנְּזִקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיבּוּרִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּהָדָא דִּיָיתֵיקִי. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֶרֶשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִין לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. בְּנִפְרָעִין מִנִּיכְסֵי קָטָן. וְנִפְרָעִין מֵאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁרִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. וּבֵית דִּין גּוֹבִין רִבִּית. תִּיפְתָּר בְּעָרַב לוֹ מִגּוֹי. לֶיכְסָה אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲנָן עָבְדִין טָבוֹת סַגִּין מִינְּכוֹן. אֲנָן מְשַׁלְּחִין דִּיָאטַיגְמָטִין. אִין אֲתַא הָא טַבּוֹת. וְאִין לָא אֲתַא אֲנָן מַחְלִטִין נִיכְסוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אוֹף אֲנָן עָבְדִין כֵּן. מַכְרִזִינָן ל׳ יוֹמִין. אִין אֲתַא טַבּוֹת. וְאִילָא מַחְלִטִינָן נִיכְסוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דַּהֲוָה בְזָוִוי רְחִיקֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָן מְשַׁלְּחִין ג׳ אִיגְרוֹת. חָדָא גַו ל׳ יוֹמִין. וְחָדָא גַו ל׳ יוֹמִין. וְחָדָא גַו ל׳ יוֹמִין. אִין אֲתַא הָא טַבּוֹת. וְאִילָא מַחְלִטִינָן נִיכְסוֹי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין וּבָרַח. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין לֹא מַחְלִטִינָן ולֹא מַכְרִזִינָן. אַשְׁכָּחַ תֵימַר. חָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. הֵיךְ מַה דְתֵימַר. הֲלָכָה כְחָנָן. וְדִכְוָותָהּ הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה כול׳. רַב אָמַר. מֵת הַלֹּוֶה הַמַּלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וַאֲפִילוּ מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּעִין לְלוֹוֶה. אֲבָל אִם מֵת לוֶֹה תְחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַמַּלְוֶה כְּבָר נִתְחַיָיב הַמַּלְוֶה לִבְנֵי לוֶֹה שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָתוֹ לְבָנָיו. שָׁמַע רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאָמַר. יֹאכַל הַלָּה וַחֲדִי. רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. שְׁטָר הַיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ פָּסוּל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִתְעַסֵּק הָיִיתָ בִשְׁטָרוֹתֶיךָ. הָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי אַבִינָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לְעוֹלָם פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִידֵי הַמַּלְוֶה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי לֹוֶה. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּדְיָיתֵיקִי.

MISHNAH: 9:7 , explained there in Notes 159–163. The ketubah (the marriage contract intended to provide financial support for the woman if the marriage is dissolved by divorce or the husband’s death) is compromised if not the full amount is due since the wife has signed a receipt for partial payment. The testimony of a single witness can be contradicted by an oath of the opposing party by biblical rule. If the ketubah has to be paid by the heirs from the estate, the estate is diminished; one requires the widow to swear that the entire amount is due her. The same holds if the rights of a mortgage holder whose claim is posterior to the lien created by the ketubah are diminished by the payment, or if a divorcee claims payment from the property of her absentee former husband. If she had compromised her ketubah , she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah ] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, or from orphans’ property, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath; “an oath that our father did not instruct us, our father did not tell us, and we found nothing in our father’s documents that this note of indebtedness was paid.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa testified that even if the son was born after the father’s death he swears and collects. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses that the father said on his death bed that this note of indebtedness was not paid, he collects without oath. HALAKHAH: Rebbui Ze`ira said, this came down in the manner of biblical oaths. And a woman’s ketubah is not from the start in her hand for collection, but only for collection from now on and in the future. Since she claims a document about 200 paid and she says, it is only one mina , she collects without oath 9:7, Note 166 , in a number of details opposing the opinions given there. As explained in Note 87 , the oath of a woman who wants to collect her ketubah when a single witness asserts that it already was paid is biblical. R. Ze`ira notes that the oaths required in the other cases are formulated on the model of that oath. The rules for collecting a ketubah are not identical with the rules for enforcing an IOU since it may be assumed that a woman does not marry in order to be divorced or become widowed; if she is widowed she may prefer not to claim the ketubah but to be permanently supported by the heirs. This means that the woman acquires the ketubah not with the intent of presenting it for collection. The ketubah becomes an enforceable claim only by the owner presenting it for collection. In Ketubot , it is stated that if the ketubah is presented with an attached receipt, and the woman claims that the receipt is only for half of the amount and the other half is still due her, this is a compromised ketubah and she may collect only by swearing to the validity of her claim. But here she presents a ketubah for the standard 200 denars but declares that she only claims 100 denars (a mina ); therefore she collects without an oath. This is not a compromised but a diminished ketubah ( Note 94 ). . There, we have stated 9:9 . : “If she had compromised her ketubah , she shall not be able to collect without an oath. How is this? If her ketubah was a thousand denars and he says to her, you received your ketubah , but she says, I received only one mina , she cannot collect without an oath.” It was stated, one who had compromised, not one who had diminished 9:7 Note 167 , Sanhedrin 8:6 Note 69 ; Babli Ketubot 87b . . 9:7 (Note 185 ) Sanhedrin 8:6 (Note 72 ): “Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?” It refers to a statement by R. Abin (or Ba) not quoted here and not related to the topics of the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, because he went two steps … Because he compromised it in court you say, he cannot collect? “Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Chapter 9. The first paragraph is from 9:8, Notes 185–197 (and Giṭtin 5:3 Note 52 .). Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah 22a . . Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female and Giṭtin reads: “on the collection,” i. e., on the woman’s decision whether to ask for payment of the ketubah or for upkeep (lodging, food, and clothing) from the estate. . What about it? For attraction84a . , that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.10:1 . ” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.5:3 . ” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions 1:7. . Here you say, “one does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor.” But there you say, “one swears for a minor and the Temple.” If one pays from the minor’s property. 9:9–10, Notes 201–204. But can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile50b s.v . יתומין . . 9:9–10, Notes 205–212. Alexis said before Rebbi Mana: We act much better than you do. We send edicts. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He answered him, we also act in this way; we have the heralds announce for thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. He said to him, think of it, if he was in a distant place. He said to him, we send three letters88a, s. v . ורבא . , one after thirty days, one after the next thirty days, and one after the next thirty days. If he comes, it is good. If he does not come, we irrevocably give away his properties. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is, if he was present at the trial and then fled. But if he was not present at the trial, we cannot irrevocably give away (nor)“but only”. This reading is confirmed by a Geonic responsum (S. Assaf, Responsa Geonica , Jerusalem 1942, p. 103) which declares the statement to represent (Babylonian) general practice. announce. 9: 9–10, Notes 213–216. You find that one may say that Ḥanan and Rebbi Simeon said the same thing88b . . Just as you say that practice follows Ḥanan, so practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rav said, if the debtor died, the creditor swears to his heirs. Even if the creditor died, the creditor’s heirs swear to the debtor. But if the debtor died first and after him the creditor, the creditor already was obligated for an oath to the debtor’s sons and nobody makes his sons inherit his oath. Rebbi Joḥanan heard and said, should that one eat and enjoy it? 1:8 (Notes 113–115); two different name traditions are reported in Sefer Ha`iṭtur 1, 41b (Notes 49–51). Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document“to write”, usually used for documents of indebtedness. The statement is in the Babli, Bava meṣi`a 20b. produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

וְאֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשְׂאָה וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וּבֶן הַבָּיִת. אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵינִי רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּישָּׁבַע לִי חַיָיב. חָלְקוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַּׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה בְּנוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֲבָל בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן לֹא בְדָא. וְאָהֵן בֵּן בַּיִת עוֹד הוּא בְּנוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. רִבִּי זֵירָא כְהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אֲזַל לְמֵידָן קַמֵּי רִבִּי זֵירָא וְחִיְיבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה עַל תְּרֵין דֵּינָרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָאו תְּרֵין דֵּינָרִין אֲנִי חַיָיב לָךְ. הָא טְרֵיפִין לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וּמִילַת פַּלָּן וּפַלָּן. אֲמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. אוֹ הַב לֵיהּ כָּל דִּתְבַע לָךְ אוֹ אִישְׁתְּבַע לֵיהּ כָּל דִּמְגַלְגֵּל עֲלָךְ. עַד כַּמָּה מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה כֹהֵן וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. וְכִי יֵשׁ עֶבֶד בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שְׁמָרָהּ. דִּלֹא כֵן מַה נָן אָמְרִין. שְׁמָרָהּ. לֹא בָטְלֵיהּ. הִיא בַּעַל בַּעַל. מַה בַּעַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מַשְׁמִיט אַף כָּאן מַשְׁמִיט. דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ וּמְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. וְשֶׁאֵין מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ אֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ לֹא אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. כָּל שֶׁשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ.

MISHNAH: The following have to swear without a claim: Partners, and sharecroppers, and trustees, and a wife trading in the house, and a family member. If he says, what do you claim from me? “I want you to swear to me,” he is liable. After partners or sharecroppers distributed, he cannot force them to swear. If an oath was rolled over to him for another cause, one may roll everything over to him2:6, Notes 166–168 . If a person is required to swear, the one demanding the oath can add to the text of the oath any claim he might have against the person swearing even if totally unrelated to the matter before the court and for which he could not force a separate oath. A precondition for rollover, which is a biblical rule, is that the original oath must be by biblical standards; a purely rabbinic oath cannot be extended. This implies that the oath required by the Mishnah is considered biblical since the person acting for others in money matters automatically agrees that he is responsible and thereby fulfills the requirement of partial admission (Mishnah 6:1). . The Sabbatical year remits an oath10:1), the creditor cannot after the Sabbatical year ask for any oath regarding the remitted debt (Tosephta Ševi`it 8:6). . HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose1, 43a (Note 81): R. Yose bar Bun. said, this means if he trades without account; it does not apply if there are accounts. Also the family member trades without accounts. Rebbi Ze`ira agrees with Rebbi Yose3:1 Note 20, that it is the free choice of a person to swear or to pay up and that a person willing to swear is free to change his opinion if too many other items are added to the oath. . A man came for judgment before Rebbi Ze`ira who required him to swear for two denars . He told him, do I not owe you two denars ? Here they are thrown to you. He answered him, and cloth of fine wool X and Y. Rebbi Ze`ira said, either you give him everything he claims from you or you swear to him everything which he rolls over to you2:6, Notes 166–168 . If a person is required to swear, the one demanding the oath can add to the text of the oath any claim he might have against the person swearing even if totally unrelated to the matter before the court and for which he could not force a separate oath. A precondition for rollover, which is a biblical rule, is that the original oath must be by biblical standards; a purely rabbinic oath cannot be extended. This implies that the oath required by the Mishnah is considered biblical since the person acting for others in money matters automatically agrees that he is responsible and thereby fulfills the requirement of partial admission (Mishnah 6:1). . How far does one roll over? Rebbi Joḥanan said, until he say to him, you are my slave28a . . Think of it, could he be Cohen and Hebrew slave. 21:6 ) but a Cohen with a pieced earlobe is barred from service in the Temple; no court could tolerate that a Cohen would be sold as a Hebrew slave. ? Is there such a slave today p. 3 ). ? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, watch it for it is otherwise. What do we say? Watch it, for it is not negligible. “Owner,” “owner.. 24:14 anybody having a law suit is called בַּעַל; in the laws of annulment of debts ( Deut . 15:2 ) the creditor is called בַּעַל. This sets up the argument of “equal cut” indicating that the person going to court is one subject to the laws of the Sabbatical. ” Since the owner mentioned there is subject to annulment, so also here he is subject to annulment, R. Abraham Abba Schiff, to Sefer Yere’im §164 Note 17). The Babli 49a has a different interpretation of Deut . 15:2 . . The Sabbatical annuls things which are his hand’s loans. 15:2 . and annuls the corresponding oaths; the Sabbatical does not annul things which are not his hand’s loans, nor does it annul the corresponding oaths. “For anything which the Sabbatical annuls it annuls the corresponding oath; anything which the Sabbatical does not annul it does not annul the corresponding oath8:6. There is no redundancy here. The preceding sentence was the argument, the last sentence is the tannaitic formulation. .”