Bawa Mecia — Talmud Jeruszalmi

Bawa Mecia

Bawa Mecia — Talmud Jeruszalmi w serwisie Beth HaMidrash: tekst hebrajski i jego polskie tłumaczenie, z Raszim i wielkimi komentatorami. Za darmo, online.

משנה: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְיַחֲלוֹקוּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי. הָאוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ.MISHNAH: 10:4, Note 62. If two persons hold on to one toga and each of them says “I found it” [or] “it wholly belongs to me”, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it and they shall divide it evenly23:1) “not to lend a hand to a wicked person to be an extortionary witness”, i. e., it is forbidden to administer an oath to a known felon (Mishnah Šebuot 7:4). But if each party only swear to the amount it actually will receive, it is possible that both swear to the truth. The formulation “no less than” implies that the oath is true even if one of them is the full owner; the language of the oaths does not contradict the claims brought before the court.. If one says “it wholly belongs to me” and one says “half of it belongs to me”, the one who says “it wholly belongs to me” shall swear that he owns no less than three parts always means /n+1. and the one who says “half of it belongs to me” shall swear that he owns no less than a quarter the underlying principle is: “Amounts in doubt are split evenly”. If neither party has proof by document or witnesses and A claims 100% of an amount available but B only claims 50%, 50% are assigned to A as undisputed amount. The remaining 50% are in dispute and have to be split evenly; each of the the parties receives 25%.. The first one takes three parts, the second takes a fourth.

הלכה: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תֵּן לִי מְנָה שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָיב לִי. אָמַר לוֹ. לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחַיָיב לוֹ נ̇ זוּז. רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָה אָמַר. הוֹדָיַית עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָיַית פִּיו וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין הוֹדָיַית עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָיַית פִּיו שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מִשְּׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁתָּפוּשׂ בְּחֶצְיָיהּ. (א)לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְתֵימַר. נִשְׁבַּע וְנוֹטֵל. אוּף הָדָא דַמְיָיא לָהּ.HALAKHAH: “If two people hold on to one stole,” etc. 2:1, Notes 12–15. It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina of 100 drachmas (denars). Zuz, “half sheqel” is the talmudic name of the denar. which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder 6:1 based on Ex. 22:8. The rabbinic interpretation of the biblical expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there be a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses or documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due. (Cf. Giṭṭin 5:3, Note 84).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear 22:8 insists on the defendant’s agreeing to part of the claim, witnesses can never force a judicial oath. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. In Ketubot(loc. cit. Note 7), R. Joḥanan denies that the oath is biblical; its rules cannot be determined by biblical arguments.. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder’s statement is implied by “if two people hold on to one stole”. Since he holds on to half of it, is it not as if he brought witnesses that one half belongs to him? Could one not say that he swears and collects? Is this a similar case is biblical; R. La’s argument is impossible. (In Ketubot, R. La quotes R. Joḥanan’s statement in the next paragraph.)?

רַבָּה בַּר מָמָל וְרַב עַמְרָם סְלִיקוּ הֵן דְּרַב בֵּינַיי אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵין מוֹסְרִין שְׁבוּעָה לְחָשׁוּד. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה אֵין מוֹסְרִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד נִשְׁבַּע. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בָהּ וְאֵין לִי בָהּ פָּחוֹת (מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה) [מֵחֶצְיָהּ]. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מִזּוֹ שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה הִיא.This topic came up between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rav Amram. One said, one does not entrust an oath to a suspect person. The other said, one does not even formulate an oath for such a one. Rav Huna said: “An oath that I have property rights to it to the amount of no less than (the value of a peruṭah) [half of its value]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if it is about this, it is an institutional oath instituted rabbinical ordinance. In the words of the Babli (3a), “lest it be easy to assert unfounded claims on another person’s property.”.

תַּנֵּי. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ תוֹפְסִין בִּשְׁטָר. זֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי וְאָבַד מִמֶּנִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיו לָךְ. יִתְקַיֵים הַשְׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן [שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתָּפוּס בָּעֵדִים. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. אִין שְׁמַעְתּוּנֵיהּ אֲתִיַית כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן.It was stated 1:1, Notes 68–71; Babli Bava meṣi‘a 7a, Bava batra170a.: “If two persons were holding a document and one said, it is mine but I had lost it; the other said, it is mine since I paid you. The document should be validated by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they should split.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it all depends on who is holding the signatures. Rav Ḥisda said, if this is true information, it follows Rabban Simeon.

זֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שְׁלִישָׁהּ שֶׁלִּי. הָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. וְהָאוֹמֵר שְׁלִישָׁהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבַּע אֶלָּא עַל חֲצִי שֶׁהוֹדָה.One says, half is mine; the other says, a third is mine. The one who says that half is his shall swear that no less than a quarter be his; the one who says that a third is his shall swear that no less than a sixth be his. The principle involved: One only swears on half of what he agreed to is mine; the other says, a third is mine. The one who says that all is his shall swear that no less than five parts (5/6) are his; the one who says that a third is his shall swear that no less than a sixth is his. The principle involved: One only swears on half of what he agreed to.”In the case of the Tosephta, the second claimant surrenders 2/3 to the first. Only 1/3 is in dispute; it is split evenly. The first one receives 2/3 + 1/6 = 5/6; the second receives 1/6. Rabbinic practice decrees that one only swears on half of the amount which is in dispute; in this case each would swear that he owns no less that one sixth in addition to what he has by consensus [Maimonides, Ṭo‘en weniṭ‘an9:8 (Maggid Mišneh ad 9:9), Šulḥan ‘Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 138:2 (Note)].In the Yerushalmi the total of the claims only adds up to 5/6; they can be satisfied in full. There is no reason why anybody should swear. One has to explain the baraita as dealing with a case of bankruptcy in which the claims themselves are not sufficiently documented and can each be considered only by an affirmatory oath..

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia.1.1