Kiddushin — Daf 28a

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

אשכחן בודאי ספק מנלן

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

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

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

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

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

האי אם איתא דזבין קלא אית ליה קמ"ל:

מתני׳ כל הנעשה דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפיו כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפיו:

גמ׳ חליפין מאי ניהו מטבע שמע מינה מטבע נעשה חליפין אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל הנישום דמים באחר

though it [the oath] cannot be demanded of her on the evidence of one witness [only];1 then in the case of a monetary claim, where a demand [for an oath] can be made on the evidence of one witness,2 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?3 — It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: An oath was ordered without [the Temple Court],4 and an oath was ordered within [the Temple Court]: just as in the oath decreed within, doubt was made equal to certainty;5 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.’6 But he indeed is placed under the ban! For it was taught: If one calls his neighbour ‘slave’,7 let him be placed under the ban; ‘mamzer’,8 . . . he receives forty [lashes]; ‘wicked’, [rasha’] he may strive9 against his very livelihood!10 — 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? he owes him money!11 — Raba follows his general view. For Raba said: A Hebrew slave belongs bodily [to his master].12 If so, it is the equivalent of land?13 — 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,14 had he sold himself, it would have been known.15 Therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. 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.16 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.17 GEMARA. What is the barter? Money!18 Then this proves that coin can become [an object of] barter.19 — Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: Whatever is assessed as the value of another object,20 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. Sittlichkeit im zweiten Jahrundert, which discusses this Baraitha at considerable length. 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?’ Hebrew slave according to Raba's dictum. But then it is already stated in the Mishnah. some verisimilitude (Tosaf.). 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.