Mishnah
Mishnah

Commentaire sur Ketoubot 13:4

הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ כַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, וְהוֹדָה בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין זוֹ הוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן:

Si l'on réclame de son ami des pichets d'huile, et qu'il admet des pichets [vides], [sans huile, comme quand son ami dit: "Tu me dois dix pichets d'huile"], Admon dit: Puisqu'il admet une partie de la réclamer, il jure. [La réclamation évoque l'huile et les pichets, de sorte que son admission à des pichets vides constitue une admission partielle, ce qui implique un serment. ] Et les sages disent: Cela ne constitue pas un aveu similaire à la nature de la réclamation. [La réclamation évoque l'huile seule à raison de dix pichets, de sorte que lorsqu'il admet des pichets vides, "ce qui est réclamé n'est pas admis et ce qui est admis ne l'est pas", de sorte qu'il n'y a pas d'admission similaire à la nature de la réclamation, et un serment n'est pas impliqué. ] R. Gamliel dit: Je souscris aux paroles d’Admon. [La halakha est conforme à Admon.]

Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot

והודה בקנקנים – empty [jars] without oil as for example where his fellow made a claim against him for ten pitchers of oil that I have that are with you.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot

If he claims from his neighbor jars of oil, and he admits [his claim to the empty] jars, Admon says, since he admits to him a portion of the claim, he must swear. But the Sages say: the admission is not of the same kind as the claim.
Rabban Gamaliel said: I agree with the words of Admon.

In chapter six of Shevuoth we learned that one who admits to part of a debt, must take an oath that he does not owe the rest. Our mishnah deals with the case where Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him jars of oil and Shimon admitted only that he owes empty jars. The question is, is this a case of partial admission. The same mishnah was brought in Shevuoth 6:3.
In this scenario Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him jars of oil. Shimon admitted that he owed Reuven jars but denied that he owed the oil. According to Admon, an early Sage, this is considered a partial admission to the claim: Reuven claimed jars and oil and Shimon admitted only to the jars but denied the oil. Therefore Shimon must swear that he doesn’t owe the oil. The other Sages who disagree with Admon say that Reuven really only claimed oil. The fact that Reuven said “jars of oil” was in order to express the amount of oil that he was claiming from Shimon. Since the claim and the admission were of different kinds, Shimon does not swear. Rabban Gamaliel says that he agrees with Admon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot

Admon states that there is an implication in this claim [for] oil and pitchers, and when he admitted to him about the empty pitchers, that is a partial admission of guilt and he requires taking an oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot

But the Sages state that there is no implication in this claim other than the oil alone which is the measure of ten pitchers, and when he admitted to him regarding the empty pitchers, what he claimed against him was not admitted to him, and what he admitted to him was not claimed against him, and there is no partial admission from the kind of a claim and he is not liable to take an oath, but the Halakha is according to Admon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant