Kiddushin 55

שלא ניתנה להתבע בעד אחד מגלגלין ממון שניתן להתבע בעד אחד אינו דין שמגלגלין

though it [the oath] cannot be demanded of her on the evidence of one witness [only];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least two witnesses must testify to her closeting herself (v. Sotah 2a) .');">¹</span> then in the case of a monetary claim, where a demand [for an oath] can be made on the evidence of one witness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A claims money from B and produces one witness to support his claim, B must swear that it is false; Sheb. 40a.');">²</span>

אשכחן בודאי ספק מנלן

it surely follows that we superimpose [an oath]. Now, we have thus learnt this of a positive claim; how do we know it of a case of doubt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., A and B are partners in a business; when they come to dissolve partnership, A cannot demand that B shall swear that he did not purloin anything from the business, in order to satisfy his doubts. If, however, B is bound to swear on account of another matter, he must swear on this too. Now, it cannot be argued that this too follows a fortiori from sotah, where the charge of adultery is likewise only doubtful. For the principal oath in connection with sotah is entirely due to doubt; hence the superimposed oath is likewise. But in money matters the principal oath is imposed for a positive claim only.');">³</span>

תניא רשב"י אומר נאמרה שבועה בחוץ ונאמרה שבועה בפנים מה שבועה האמורה בפנים עשה בה ספק כודאי אף שבועה האמורה בחוץ עשה בה ספק כודאי

- It was taught: R'Simeon B'Yohai said: An oath was ordered without [the Temple Court],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All oaths provided for in Scripture were taken without the Temple Court, except the oath of a sotah.');">⁴</span> and an oath was ordered within [the Temple Court]: just as in the oath decreed within, doubt was made equal to certainty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of swearing a superimposed oath.');">⁵</span>

עד היכן גלגול שבועה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דא"ל הישבע לי שאין עבדי אתה

so also in the oath decreed without, doubt was made equal to certainty. How far does the superimposed oath [go]? - Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Even if he demands of him, 'Swear to me that you are not my slave.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he must in any case swear on another matter, he must swear on this too.');">⁶</span>

ההוא שמותי משמתינן ליה דתניא הקורא לחבירו עבד יהא בנידוי ממזר סופג את הארבעים רשע יורד עמו לחייו

But he indeed is placed under the ban! For it was taught: If one calls his neighbour 'slave',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably as a result of his liaison with a heathen bondmaid.');">⁷</span> let him be placed under the ban; 'mamzer',.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bastard; v. Glos.');">⁸</span>

אלא אמר רבא הישבע לי שלא נמכרת לי בעבד עברי האי טענתא מעלייתא היא ממונא אית ליה גביה רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא עבד עברי גופו קנוי

he receives forty [lashes]; 'wicked', [rasha'] he may strive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'descend'.');">⁹</span> against his very livelihood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi, V. also MGWJ. Festschrift, 1934, p. 127, n. 1; also the whole art. a.l. Buchler, Familienreinheit u. Sittlichkeit im zweiten Jahrundert, which discusses this Baraitha at considerable length.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי היינו קרקע מהו דתימא קרקע הוא דעבדי אינשי דמזבני בצינעא אם איתא דזבין לית ליה קלא

- But, said Raba: [He may demand of him:] 'Swear to me that you were not sold to me as a Hebrew slave'. But that is a proper claim?

האי אם איתא דזבין קלא אית ליה קמ"ל:

he owes him money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is really claiming his service, which is an ordinary monetary claim, and there is nothing remarkable in the defendant's having to take a superimposed oath. Hence this is not a fitting answer to the question, 'How far does a superimposed oath go?'');">¹¹</span> - Raba follows his general view.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הנעשה דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפיו כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפיו:

For Raba said: A Hebrew slave belongs bodily [to his master].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 70, n. 2. Hence it is not an ordinary claim of money.');">¹²</span> If so, it is the equivalent of land?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a heathen slave, belonging bodily to his master, ranks as real estate (v. supra 22b) and the same will apply to a Hebrew slave according to Raba's dictum. But then it is already stated in the MISHNAH:');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> חליפין מאי ניהו מטבע שמע מינה מטבע נעשה חליפין אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל הנישום דמים באחר

- I might have thought, Only land is it usual for people to sell secretly: had he sold it, it would not be generally known; but as for this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The claim under discussion.');">¹⁴</span> had he sold himself, it would have been known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'It has a sound.' Hence the claim is prima facie false, and no superimposed oath is taken, for this too requires some verisimilitude');">¹⁵</span> Therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WHATEVER CAN BE USED AS PAYMENT FOR ANOTHER OBJECT, AS SOON AS ONE PARTY TAKES POSSESSION THEREOF, THE OTHER ASSUMES LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the halipin, or barter thereof.');">¹⁶</span> HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX, AS SOON AS ONE PARTY TAKES POSSESSION, THE OTHER BECOMES LIABLE FOR WHAT IS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before it actually reaches his hands.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the barter? Money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is assumed that WHATEVER CAN BE USED AS PAYMENT refers to, or at least includes, money. Hence the Mishnah teaches: If A exchanges a cow for B's money, the money not being given as payment but as barter, just as an ox might have been given, immediately A receives the money, B accepts the risks of anything that may happen to the cow, which is now in his possession. That is so, notwithstanding that had the money been given as payment, A's receipt thereof would not have transferred ownership of the cow to B.');">¹⁸</span> Then this proves that coin can become [an object of] barter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is disputed by Amoraim in B.M. 46a, hence the Mishnah refutes the opposing view.');">¹⁹</span> - Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: Whatever is assessed as the value of another object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., anything but money, which needs no assessment.');">²⁰</span>