Talmud 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.]

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a kor⁶⁴Biblical and Accadic measure of volume, 30 seah. of grain;” “I am holding for you only a letek⁶⁵A biblical measure of volume, half a kor. of legumes;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a kor of produce;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is liable since legumes are subsumed under produce. If one sued for wheat and the other acknowledged barley, he is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon⁶⁶In all other sources, including the following Halakhah: Rabban Gamliel. He considers all grain to be of related kind. declares him liable. Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and the other admitted to pitchers, Admon says since he admitted of the kind of the claim he has to swear. But the Sages say, the admission is not of the kind of the claim⁶⁷Admon (an authority of pre-rabbinic times) holds that the content of the vessels is determining; the Sages give preference to the determination of the vessels of storage.. Rabban Gamliel said, I see⁶⁸To see = to accept as obvious. the words of Admon.
If somebody sued for both vessels and real estate; if [the other] admitted the vessels but denied the real estate, or the real estate and denied the vessels, he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. If he admitted part of the real estate he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. Part of the vessels he is liable since non-guaranteed property obligates guaranteed property to be sworn about⁷⁰Mishnah Qiddušin1:5, Note 474. If the defendant is liable to take an oath, the claimant can add to the oath all of his outstanding claims even if they in themselves would not force an oath. This is known as “rolling over of oaths.”
A property is guaranteed if the seller as a matter of routine must guarantee the title to the property; this is the case with real estate..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant