Commentary for Bava Metzia 11:2
ותו הא דתני רבי חייא שניהם נשבעין ונוטלין מבעה"ב נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא
— why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? Moreover, there is the case where R. Hiyya taught: Both of them swear, and receive payment from the employer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the shopkeeper and his creditbook. V. supra 2a, Shebu. 47b. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Metzia
As R’ Chiya taught in a Baraisa. See Rashi ד'ה שניהם who raises a question: Why is the Gemara quoting a Baraisa of R’ Chiya, when this ruling is clearly mentioned in a Mishna (Shavuos 44b)? Rashi asked: Why didn’t [the Gemara] cite the Mishna of Shavuos (44b), instead of R’ Chiya’s Baraisa? A Mishna is usually recognized as more authoritative than a Baraisa. We can answer: That Rebbe Yehudah the Prince, author of the Mishna, taught this Mishna as a result of his conversation with R’ Chiya, as is evident there (Shavuos 47b).
The Gemara in Shavuos 47b: We learned in a Baraisa: Rebbe said: The trouble of this oath is for what purpose? R’ Chiya said to [Rebbe]: We learned in a Baraisa: Both swear and collect from the householder. It seems that Rebbe had his doubts about this oath and was convinced by R’ Chiya to incorporate this ruling into the Mishna.
The Gemara in Shavuos 47b: We learned in a Baraisa: Rebbe said: The trouble of this oath is for what purpose? R’ Chiya said to [Rebbe]: We learned in a Baraisa: Both swear and collect from the householder. It seems that Rebbe had his doubts about this oath and was convinced by R’ Chiya to incorporate this ruling into the Mishna.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy