Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 8, 2016 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Kiddushin 28

When one is obligated to swear about something, we can have him swear about something else that if it stod on its own, he would not be obligated to swear. ย What is the derivation of this lawย and inย what cases does it apply? ย Items acquired through bartering are discussed. ย Can this be done with money? ย Produce? ย Or onlyvessels? ย Items acquired by the temple treasury have different laws than regular items. ย Regular items can only be acquired through pulling while temple items are acquired with money. ย Designating something with words for the treasury is as if it was pulled.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื”ืชื‘ืข ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ืชื‘ืข ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ

where an oath cannot be imposed by one witness, as two witnesses must testify that the wife secluded herself with the man concerning whom she was warned in order for her to be obligated to take the oath of a sota, and yet one can extend her oath, is it not logical that with regard to a claim involving money, where an oath can be imposed by the testimony of one witness, that one can extend the oath?

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืื™ ืกืคืง ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the extension of an oath in the case of a definite claim, i.e., when the plaintiff is certain of his claim. From where do we derive that this halakha of the extension of an oath applies also to uncertain claims, when the plaintiff is not sure the defendant owes him money but merely suspects this to be the case?

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™ ืืฃ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™

The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: The Torah states an external oath, i.e., an oath administered outside of the Temple, and it states an internal oath, an oath administered inside the Temple courtyard, i.e., the oath of a sota. Just as with regard to an oath stated in the Torah that is taken inside the Temple, the Torah rendered uncertainty like certainty, as in the case of a sota the husbandโ€™s claim is based on suspicion and yet he can extend that oath; so too, with regard to an oath stated in the Torah that is taken outside the Temple, the Torah rendered uncertainty to be like certainty, i.e., all oaths can be extended to include even uncertain claims.

ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืืชื”

ยง The Gemara asks: Until where does the extension of an oath reach? It has been established that a plaintiff can attach other claims to the oath that the defendant is required to take, even if they do not relate to the current claim submitted in court. To what extent can the plaintiff impose additional oaths? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is that a plaintiff can even say to a defendant: Take an oath to me that you are not my Canaanite slave. If the defendant is required to take an oath, e.g., concerning denial of a debt, he can be forced to take an oath about this matter as well.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืžื•ืชื™ ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืงื•ืจื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขื‘ื“ ื™ื”ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืกื•ืคื’ ืืช ื”ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืจืฉืข ื™ื•ืจื“ ืขืžื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But the court ostracizes one who says this to another, as it is taught in a baraita: One who calls another a slave shall be ostracized. One who calls another a mamzer incurs the punishment of forty lashes. If one calls another a wicked person then the insulted person may harass him in all aspects of his life. In light of this halakha, it is clear that the court will not force the accused to respond to this insult by taking an oath.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ ืฉืœื ื ืžื›ืจืช ืœื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื™ ื˜ืขื ืชื ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื’ื•ืคื• ืงื ื•ื™

Rather, Rava said that the plaintiff can extend an oath by stating: Take an oath to me that you were not sold to me as a Hebrew slave. In this case the plaintiff is not questioning the manโ€™s lineage, as he is simply claiming that he was sold to him as a slave and must work for him. The Gemara asks: But there is nothing novel about this halakha, as this is a proper claim that there is money owed to him by the accused. The sale and service of a Hebrew slave can be assessed in monetary terms, and is analogous to all claims of debt, which can be imposed by extension of an oath. The Gemara answers: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: The Hebrew slave himself is acquired by his master. Consequently, this claim involves not just money but ownership over his person as well.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงืจืงืข ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืงืจืงืข ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงืœื

The Gemara asks: If so, this is similar to a claim concerning ownership of land, and the mishna already taught that an oath can be extended to include a claim concerning land. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary lest you say: It is land that people are likely to sell privately, and if it is so that the plaintiff had sold it to him, the sale would not have generated publicity, and the public would not know about it. Therefore, the plaintiffโ€™s claim that the defendant sold land to him is reasonable.

ื”ืื™ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

By contrast, in this case, where the plaintiff claims that he purchased the defendant as a Hebrew slave, if it is so that he purchased him as a slave, the sale would have generated publicity. Since this supposed sale is not common knowledge, one might have thought that the defendant cannot be forced to take an oath to deny this claim. Therefore, Rava teaches us that despite the absence of public knowledge, one can extend an oath to this claim as well.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืื—ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ื•

MISHNA: The mishna discusses a transaction involving the barter of two items. With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. Therefore, if it is destroyed or lost, he incurs the loss. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

ื’ืžืณ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžื˜ื‘ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืื—ืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the item given in exchange mentioned in the mishna? If it is referring to a coin, for which property is usually exchanged, can one learn from the mishna that a coin can effect exchange, i.e., it is possible to perform the act of acquisition of exchange, either a standard exchange or a symbolic exchange, using coins? This is problematic, as the halakha is that coins cannot be used for this act of acquisition. Rav Yehuda said: The phrase: All items used as monetary value for another item, is not referring to a coin. Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all items that can be appraised when used as monetary value for another item, i.e., that their value can be appraised relative to the value of another item, excluding a coin, whose value is apparent,

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the same is the halakha with regard to coins. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches afterward: How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara summarizes: Learn from this clause that the mishna is referring to acquisition through the exchange of items, not money.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that a coin effects symbolic exchange, what is the meaning of the clause: How so, if one exchanged an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that this is what the mishna is saying: Not only can a coin be used in for the act of acquisition of exchange, but produce can also effect exchange. How so? If one exchanged meat of an ox for a cow, or the meat of a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the item that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says: Produce effects exchange, i.e., the mode of acquisition of exchange applies not only to vessels but also to produce and animals. But according to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman, who says: Produce does not effect exchange, what can be said?

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ืžื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื“ืžื™ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ

The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna is dealing with money alone, and this is what the mishna is saying: There is a transaction involving money that is like an exchange. How so? If one exchanged the monetary value of an ox for a cow, or the monetary value of a donkey for an ox, the transaction is effective. In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืžืขื•ืช ืงื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืืžืจื• ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืงื•ื ื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ื ืฉืจืคื• ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืš ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ื”

What is the reason for this ruling in light of the halakha that one cannot acquire movable property by means of money alone? The Gemara explains that Rav Naแธฅman holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said: By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And what is the reason that the Sages said that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the loft. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.

ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The reason that the mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money is because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Naแธฅman is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. With regard to a common occurrence, the Sages issued a decree, whereas in the case of an uncommon occurrence, the Sages did not issue a decree. Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.

ื•ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืชืจืฅ ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช

The Gemara asks: And how is the mishna explained according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who disagrees with Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and says that pulling is explicitly stated in the Torah? Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. This works out well if Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says that produce effects exchange. If so, he can explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžื˜ื‘ืข ืœื ืงื ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

But if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman, who says that produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition by Torah law or by rabbinic law, in what manner does he establish the mishna? The Gemara answers: Perforce Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

MISHNA: The authority of the Temple treasury effects acquisition by means of money to the seller. And the authority, i.e., the mode of acquisition, of a commoner [hedyot] is by possession. Furthermore, oneโ€™s declaration to the Most High, i.e., when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person, and the item is acquired by the Temple treasury through his mere speech.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื ืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืฉื•ืš

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): How does the authority of the Temple treasury effect acquisition by means of money? With regard to the Temple treasurer who gives coins for an animal, even if the animal is at the other end of the world, he acquires it immediately. And with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire the animal until he pulls it.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื–ื” ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืงื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื ืงื ื”

How is oneโ€™s declaration to the Most High equivalent to transferring an item to a common person? With regard to one who says: This ox is a burnt-offering, or: This house is consecrated property, the Temple treasury acquires these even if they are at the other end of the world. There is no need for a further act of acquisition, as that statement alone is sufficient. Whereas with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire property in this manner

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 28

ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœื”ืชื‘ืข ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ืชื‘ืข ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ

where an oath cannot be imposed by one witness, as two witnesses must testify that the wife secluded herself with the man concerning whom she was warned in order for her to be obligated to take the oath of a sota, and yet one can extend her oath, is it not logical that with regard to a claim involving money, where an oath can be imposed by the testimony of one witness, that one can extend the oath?

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืื™ ืกืคืง ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the extension of an oath in the case of a definite claim, i.e., when the plaintiff is certain of his claim. From where do we derive that this halakha of the extension of an oath applies also to uncertain claims, when the plaintiff is not sure the defendant owes him money but merely suspects this to be the case?

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื ืืžืจื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™ ืืฃ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืกืคืง ื›ื•ื“ืื™

The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: The Torah states an external oath, i.e., an oath administered outside of the Temple, and it states an internal oath, an oath administered inside the Temple courtyard, i.e., the oath of a sota. Just as with regard to an oath stated in the Torah that is taken inside the Temple, the Torah rendered uncertainty like certainty, as in the case of a sota the husbandโ€™s claim is based on suspicion and yet he can extend that oath; so too, with regard to an oath stated in the Torah that is taken outside the Temple, the Torah rendered uncertainty to be like certainty, i.e., all oaths can be extended to include even uncertain claims.

ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื’ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืืชื”

ยง The Gemara asks: Until where does the extension of an oath reach? It has been established that a plaintiff can attach other claims to the oath that the defendant is required to take, even if they do not relate to the current claim submitted in court. To what extent can the plaintiff impose additional oaths? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is that a plaintiff can even say to a defendant: Take an oath to me that you are not my Canaanite slave. If the defendant is required to take an oath, e.g., concerning denial of a debt, he can be forced to take an oath about this matter as well.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืžื•ืชื™ ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืงื•ืจื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขื‘ื“ ื™ื”ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ื•ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ืกื•ืคื’ ืืช ื”ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืจืฉืข ื™ื•ืจื“ ืขืžื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But the court ostracizes one who says this to another, as it is taught in a baraita: One who calls another a slave shall be ostracized. One who calls another a mamzer incurs the punishment of forty lashes. If one calls another a wicked person then the insulted person may harass him in all aspects of his life. In light of this halakha, it is clear that the court will not force the accused to respond to this insult by taking an oath.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืœื™ ืฉืœื ื ืžื›ืจืช ืœื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื™ ื˜ืขื ืชื ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ืžืžื•ื ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื’ื•ืคื• ืงื ื•ื™

Rather, Rava said that the plaintiff can extend an oath by stating: Take an oath to me that you were not sold to me as a Hebrew slave. In this case the plaintiff is not questioning the manโ€™s lineage, as he is simply claiming that he was sold to him as a slave and must work for him. The Gemara asks: But there is nothing novel about this halakha, as this is a proper claim that there is money owed to him by the accused. The sale and service of a Hebrew slave can be assessed in monetary terms, and is analogous to all claims of debt, which can be imposed by extension of an oath. The Gemara answers: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: The Hebrew slave himself is acquired by his master. Consequently, this claim involves not just money but ownership over his person as well.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงืจืงืข ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืงืจืงืข ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงืœื

The Gemara asks: If so, this is similar to a claim concerning ownership of land, and the mishna already taught that an oath can be extended to include a claim concerning land. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary lest you say: It is land that people are likely to sell privately, and if it is so that the plaintiff had sold it to him, the sale would not have generated publicity, and the public would not know about it. Therefore, the plaintiffโ€™s claim that the defendant sold land to him is reasonable.

ื”ืื™ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

By contrast, in this case, where the plaintiff claims that he purchased the defendant as a Hebrew slave, if it is so that he purchased him as a slave, the sale would have generated publicity. Since this supposed sale is not common knowledge, one might have thought that the defendant cannot be forced to take an oath to deny this claim. Therefore, Rava teaches us that despite the absence of public knowledge, one can extend an oath to this claim as well.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืื—ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ื•

MISHNA: The mishna discusses a transaction involving the barter of two items. With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. Therefore, if it is destroyed or lost, he incurs the loss. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

ื’ืžืณ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžื˜ื‘ืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ืื—ืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the item given in exchange mentioned in the mishna? If it is referring to a coin, for which property is usually exchanged, can one learn from the mishna that a coin can effect exchange, i.e., it is possible to perform the act of acquisition of exchange, either a standard exchange or a symbolic exchange, using coins? This is problematic, as the halakha is that coins cannot be used for this act of acquisition. Rav Yehuda said: The phrase: All items used as monetary value for another item, is not referring to a coin. Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all items that can be appraised when used as monetary value for another item, i.e., that their value can be appraised relative to the value of another item, excluding a coin, whose value is apparent,

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืงื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the same is the halakha with regard to coins. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches afterward: How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara summarizes: Learn from this clause that the mishna is referring to acquisition through the exchange of items, not money.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื–ื›ื” ื–ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that a coin effects symbolic exchange, what is the meaning of the clause: How so, if one exchanged an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that this is what the mishna is saying: Not only can a coin be used in for the act of acquisition of exchange, but produce can also effect exchange. How so? If one exchanged meat of an ox for a cow, or the meat of a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the item that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says: Produce effects exchange, i.e., the mode of acquisition of exchange applies not only to vessels but also to produce and animals. But according to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman, who says: Produce does not effect exchange, what can be said?

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ืžื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืื• ื“ืžื™ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ

The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, the mishna is dealing with money alone, and this is what the mishna is saying: There is a transaction involving money that is like an exchange. How so? If one exchanged the monetary value of an ox for a cow, or the monetary value of a donkey for an ox, the transaction is effective. In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืžืขื•ืช ืงื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืืžืจื• ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืงื•ื ื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ื ืฉืจืคื• ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืš ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ื”

What is the reason for this ruling in light of the halakha that one cannot acquire movable property by means of money alone? The Gemara explains that Rav Naแธฅman holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said: By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And what is the reason that the Sages said that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the loft. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.

ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื ื’ื–ืจื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The reason that the mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money is because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Naแธฅman is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. With regard to a common occurrence, the Sages issued a decree, whereas in the case of an uncommon occurrence, the Sages did not issue a decree. Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.

ื•ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืžืชืจืฅ ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช

The Gemara asks: And how is the mishna explained according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who disagrees with Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and says that pulling is explicitly stated in the Torah? Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. This works out well if Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says that produce effects exchange. If so, he can explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžื˜ื‘ืข ืœื ืงื ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

But if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman, who says that produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition by Torah law or by rabbinic law, in what manner does he establish the mishna? The Gemara answers: Perforce Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

MISHNA: The authority of the Temple treasury effects acquisition by means of money to the seller. And the authority, i.e., the mode of acquisition, of a commoner [hedyot] is by possession. Furthermore, oneโ€™s declaration to the Most High, i.e., when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person, and the item is acquired by the Temple treasury through his mere speech.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื™ื–ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืงื ื” ื•ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื ืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืฉื•ืš

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:6): How does the authority of the Temple treasury effect acquisition by means of money? With regard to the Temple treasurer who gives coins for an animal, even if the animal is at the other end of the world, he acquires it immediately. And with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire the animal until he pulls it.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืจ ื–ื” ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืงื ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืœื ืงื ื”

How is oneโ€™s declaration to the Most High equivalent to transferring an item to a common person? With regard to one who says: This ox is a burnt-offering, or: This house is consecrated property, the Temple treasury acquires these even if they are at the other end of the world. There is no need for a further act of acquisition, as that statement alone is sufficient. Whereas with regard to a commoner, he does not acquire property in this manner

Scroll To Top