Non viene prestato giuramento sulla pretesa di un cheresh, uno shoteh (un imbecille) o un minore. [("cheresh" :) come quando il cheresh afferma gesticolando, poiché il "cheresh" di cui parlano i saggi in tutti i luoghi è uno che non sente né parla. ("un minore" :) scritto (Esodo 22: 6): "Se un uomo dà al suo vicino, ecc.", e il "dare" di un minore non è sostanziale. E cheresh e shoteh sono come minori in questo senso. Ed è solo con un giuramento della Torah che non si giura sulla pretesa di un minore, ma uno shvuath esita è imposto per la sua pretesa.] E un minore non è consumato, ma uno è consumato per un minore e per hekdesh (dedicato proprietà). [Se si arriva al pagamento esatto dalla proprietà di un minore, può farlo solo con un giuramento. Allo stesso modo, se uno rende hekdesh la sua proprietà e viene emessa una fattura contro di essa e il titolare della fattura arriva al pagamento esatto da quella proprietà, richiede un giuramento.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
אלא ליטרא כסף פטור – for there isn’t here a homogeneity of the admission with the claim [of the defendant].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Introduction
This mishnah explains the second rule mentioned in mishnah one: the denial and the claim must be of the same “kind”. Our mishnah discusses what does “kind” mean, so that we will know when the person who admits to part of the claim must take an oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
לתך – one-half Kor fifteen Se’ah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“You have of mine a litra of gold”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a litra of silver,” he is exempt. “You have of mine a golden denar”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a silver denar, or a tresis, or a pundion, or a perutah”, he is liable, for all are one kind of coinage. A litra is a measure of volume (liter in English). If Reuven claims from Shimon a litra of gold and Shimon admits to owing a litra of silver he need not swear since gold and silver are two different kinds. However, if Reuven claims gold money, and Shimon admits to owing silver money of any coinage, he is liable to swear since all money is of the same kind.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
“You have of mine a kor of grain”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans”, he is exempt. “You have of mine a kor of produce”, [and he replies], “I have of yours only a letek of beans,” he is liable, for beans are included in produce. If Reuven claims from Shimon a kor (a unit of weight) of grain and Shimon admits to owing a kor of beans, he need not swear that he does not owe the difference (grain is worth more than beans) since grain and beans are two different “kinds”. If Reuven claims a kor of produce and Shimon admits to beans, then he is liable to swear that he does not owe the difference, because beans are a form of produce.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If he claimed from him wheat, and the other admitted barley, he is exempt. But Rabban Gamaliel makes him liable. If Reuven claims wheat and Shimon admits to barley the first opinion in our mishnah considers these different kinds and therefore Shimon need not swear that he doesn’t owe the difference. Rabban Gamaliel does think that Shimon needs to swear.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
הואיל והודה במקצת הטענה – for it is to him like his claim was for wheat and barley and he admitted to him in one of them. And the Halakha is according to Admon, but the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel that obligates in his claim wheat and he (i.e., the defendant) admitted to him regarding barley.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
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 same kind as the claim, he must swear. But the sages say, the admission is not of the same kind as the claim. Rabban Gamaliel said, “I approve the words of admon. 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 Shevuot
פטור – from the oath from the Torah, not on the land and not on the utensils,f or the admission of land does not bring him to [requiring taking] an oath, for there is no law regarding an oath regarding land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
If he claims from him vessels and lands, and he admits the vessels, but denies the lands; or admits the lands, but denies the vessels, he is exempt. If he admits a portion of the lands, he is exempt; a portion of the vessels, he is liable because properties for which there is no security bind properties for which there is security to take an oath for them. If Reuven claimed that Shimon owed him land and vessels and Shimon admitted to owing the land and not the vessels or the vessels and not the land, Shimon is exempt from swearing. This mishnah teaches that oaths are not taken on land (we will learn this again in mishnah five). Therefore, even if he admits that he owes land, he need not swear with regards to the vessels which he denies. If Shimon admitted owing part of the land, he is still not liable to swear, for the same reason mentioned above. If, however, he admitted to owing some of the vessels, then he must swear with regards to both the other vessels that he denies owing as well as the land that he denies. He must swear with regards to the vessels because he admitted to owing part and he denied owing part. He must also swear with regards to the land because property for which there is no security (meaning property that cannot be used as a lien, namely movable property) can force one to swear on property for which there is security (land and slaves). This means that once someone is liable to swear to another person with regards to movable property the other person can force him to swear about land as well, even though in general one doesn’t swear about land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
הודה במקצת כלים – for there is admission and denial [with things] that are not property.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
Questions for Further Thought: • Section two: How do you know that this mishnah assumes that grain is more valuable than beans? • Section four: Upon what basis might Rabban Gamaliel disagree with the first opinion?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
חייב – to take an oath even on property through an oath by implication (i.e., the rule permitting the court to insert in an oath an affirmation to which the person concerned cold not have been compelled directly).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
זוקקין – causes, affects.(i.e., binds – movable chattel binds the immovable with the reference to the obligation of making oath, the two claims peferrred in one suit are considered as one lawsuit, and theoath must refer to both).
