משנה: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת וְלִשְׁבָח קַרְקָעוֹת וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. MISHNAH: One cannot collect for usufruct47If a robber took land by force, had its use for some time, and then sold it, the land itself can be reclaimed from the buyer but payment for the illicit use of the land can be exacted only from the robber himself., for improvement of the land48If the buyer of some property makes improvements, such as planting fruit trees, and then loses the property through the foreclosure of a prior lien, he can recoup his expenses for the improvements only from the original seller directly., or for sustenance of the wife and the daughters49It is a required condition in a ketubah that after the husband’s death his widow and unmarried daughters be sustained by the estate (Ketubot 4:11–12). While the ketubah itself is a mortgage lien on all real estate acquired by the husband, the additional conditions cannot be foreclosed as a mortgage. from incumbered property, for the public good50All other Mishnah sources have an additional clause, either as original text or addition: “The finder shall not be made to swear, for the public good.” Since the statement is quoted in the Halakhah (Note 88), it should be read here also..
הלכה: אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִיצְבָּה. HALAKHAH: “One does not collect from encumbered property,”53This quote from Mishnah 2 is not in its place. The reference is to Mishnah 3 and the list of items which cannot be subject to foreclosure from a buyer. etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, because they have no fixed amount54Mortgage liens are only fixed amounts. The same statement is in the Babli, 50b..
גָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִלֵּוִי. לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן גּוֹבֶה אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּלֵוִי. עָמַד לֵוִי וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ. לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַשְּׁבָח מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם מִקְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְשִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אֲבָל אִם קָדַם שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְמִקְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֵוִי גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן אֲפִילוּ מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן. אַף בַּאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת כָּךְ הִיא עָֽבְדָא. אַפִּיק אַרְבָּעָה דֵינָרִין וְהוּא שְׁבַח אֲשִׁתָּא. לֵוִי גָבֵי אַרְבַּעְתֵּי דֵינָרַייָא מִמְּשׁוּעֲבָדִין שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן וְגָבֵי תְּרֵין אוֹחְרָנַייָא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁלְּשִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אֵין לָךְ יוֹרֶד בִּרְשׁוּת וְיָדוֹ לְתַחְתּוֹנָה אֶצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. אֵין לָךְ יוֹרֶד בִּרְשׁוּת וְיָדוֹ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה אֶצֶל רְאוּבֵן. If [Reuben]55Missing in the text but clearly demanded by the sequel. robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi56In all cases discussed, Levi is presumed to be an innocent buyer who did not know that the seller had no title., then Simeon came57Who could prove his ownership in court. and foreclosed it from Levi; then Levi collects from Reuben’s encumbered property and Simeon collects the usufruct from Levi’s free property58This follows the Mishnah and is unproblematic.. If Levi in the meantime improved [the property], Levi collects the capital from Reuben’s encumbered property and the improvement from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if a third party’s buying preceded the improvement by this one59If Simeon sold property before he knew that Levi had improved the property which he is going to retake, the eventual obligation of Simeon towards Levi is no lien on the real estate sold to the third party. In the Babli, 51b, a similar but tannaïtic statement applies only in case the field was sold by the buyer from the robber to another person, whose innocent purchase is protected.. But if the improvement by this one preceded a third party’s buying, Levi can collect the capital even from Simeon’s encumbered property60In this opinion, whose problematic aspect is discussed later, Simeon’s potential liability is an automatic lien on all his properties.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: With usufruct one proceeds in the same way61There also, it depends on when the obligation of payment started. The Babli agrees, Baba Meṣi‘a 14b, where the situation described here is alluded to.. If he spent four denars and the improvement is worth six, Levi collects four denars from Reuben’s encumbered property and another two from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: Since he did not enter with permission, his hand is weak against Simeon62Since for Simeon all that Levi did in his field was unauthorized, Simeon does not have to pay at all since he would pay only an amount equal to the smaller of investment or improvement, but since the investment is collected from Reuben, there is no enforceable claim against Simeon. (Cf. also Yebamot 15:3, Note 71.). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: Since he entered with permission, his hand is strong against Reuben63Since Reuben sold the field to Levi, the latter can collect from Reuben the value of the improvement, not only the amount of investment..
רְאוּבֵן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי וְהָלַךְ לֵוִי וּנְתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה לִיהוּדָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִיהוּדָה. יְהוּדָה לֹא אָזִיל גַּבֵּי לֵוִי דְּהִיא מַתָּנָה. לֵוִי אָזַל גַּבֵּי רְאוּבֵן דְּהִיא מְכִירָה. וְלֹא מַתָּנָה יְהַבְתִּינָּהּ. יְכִיל הוּא מֵימַר לֵיהּ. בְּעִי הֲוֵינָא מִיתַּן לֵיהּ וִישַׁלֵּם לִי טִיבוּ. רְאוּבֵן גָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּנְתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה לְלֵוִי וְהָלַךְ לֵוִי וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ מִיהוּדָה. יְהוּדָה אָזַל גַּבֵּי לֵוִי דְּהוּא מְכָרָהּ. לֵוִי לֹא אָזַל גַּבֵּי רְאוּבֵן דְּהִיא מַתָּנָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין. אֵין שִׁיעְבּוּד לְמַתָּנָה. 64This paragraph is discussed by Rashba in a letter to Meïri (Responsa attributed to Naḥmanides, #96). The text is practically identical with that of the ms. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi; Levi went and gave it to Jehudah as a gift. Then Simeon foreclosed it from Jehudah. Jehudah has no regress on Levi since it was a gift. Levi has regress on Reuben since it was a sale. Did he not give it away as a gift? He can say to him, it was my intention to give it to him so he would return me favors65While goodwill cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms, it is of value and can be used in a claim against a robber.. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and gave it to Levi as a gift; Levi sold it to Jehudah. Jehudah has regress on Levi since he sold it; Levi has no regress on Reuben since it was a gift; as Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: No easement is created by a gift.
רְאוּבֵן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמְכָרָהּ לְלֵוִי. וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִכְתּוֹב טָרְפּוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת. דְּמָאן הִיא. רַב הוּנָה וְחִייָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב. חַד אָמַר. אִם כָּתַב שְׁטָר טָרְפּוֹ. שֶׁלְּרְאוּבֵן. וְאִם לָאו. שֶׁלְּלֵוִי הִיא. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. הִיא כָתַב הִיא לֹא כָתַב שֶׁלְּלֵוִי הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִסְתַּבְּרָה דְּלֹא דִּרְאוּבֵן. דִּיכִיל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ. מִילָּה דְּלָא דִידִי זְבָנִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָה דְּלֹא דְלֵוִי. דִּרְאוּבֵן יְכִיל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ. הַאי דְלָא קוֹמֵיךְ אָקוּם לִזְבִינֵיהּ טָבִי אַתְּ. Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, and he66“He” seems to be Simeon, who has to go to court and obtain a document which gives him the right to take the field from Levi. did not have time to write the foreclosure document before he died: whose is it67It should be obvious that the field is Simeon’s and after him his heirs. The paragraph is difficult to understand; the commentators all emend the text to fit their explanations, which can be disregarded. It seems that the question is to whom do the heirs have to address their foreclosure document.
The problem is an old one; Meïri, after Rashi the second most important Medieval commentator, asked Rashba for an explanation (cf. Note 64). Meïri’s text read טרפו “his forclosure document,” Rashba’s read תרפו “his sales document.” This is Rashba’s anwer:
“It is my opinion that our text is defective and it should be as follows: Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Reuben bought it from Simeon but before he could write the sales contract, he died. That is the case about which Samuel asked Rav in (Babli) Baba Meṣi‘a (15b), viz., if it turns out that the field was not his, but he went and bought it from the original owners, what are the rules? He told him, the first (the robber) sold to the second (the buyer) any present and future rights to the parcel.… And this is the explanation of this text according to my understanding: Reuben had robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi who did not realize that it was robbed. Afterwards, Reuben bought the parcel from Simeon, but Simeon had not yet written the sales contract when Reuben died: who is the owner? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav: One says if the document was first, if the sale was completed before he died, the sale was final and Reuben did not transfer [the field] to Levi; this shows that Reuben did not intend to leave the field in Levi’s hands, ostensibly to leave it to his heirs. He does not spell this out since the sales document was not yet written. The other one said, there is no difference between written and not written, he wants the field to be Levi’s since he did not dispose of the field in a will. (The same Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav disagree in the Babli Baba Meṣi‘a (16a) about the time available to the robber to act to protect his credit.) Rebbi Mana has a different explanation: He says that in any case the field belongs to Reuben, following Rami bar Ḥama (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who said that Levi’s contract was not worth the paper it was written on. But Rebbi Yose bar Abun is of the opposite opinion, since Levi can tell him, is the field not now before you that you can turn the sale into a valid one. This follows Rava (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who told Rami bar Ḥama that Levi acquired the property by the trust he put in Reuben.
But following your reading, since you read טרפו with ט, it is possible that this refers to a foreclosure document which Levi obtained against the robber after he had lost the field to Simeon, and that is the same disagreement we find there (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a); how long does a person have credit, Rav says until the start of court proceedings, Ḥiyya bar Rav says, until the foreclosure document was signed, and Rav Papa said, until the public sale.”? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya the son of Rav: One said, if he wrote the foreclosure document, it is Reuben’s, if not, it is Levi’s. The other one said, whether he wrote or did not write, it belongs to Levi. Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that it does not belong to Reuben since he can say to him, I sold you something which was not mine. Rebbi Yose said, it is not reasonable that it should not be Levi’s, since Reuben68Rashba reads "Levi" as text, not as correction. can tell him, is this not before you? You are good to confirm the sale.
מָהוּ לִגְבוֹת פַּרְנָסָה מִן הַמְשׁוּעֲבָדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא גָבֵי. מָאן גָּבֵי. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי אִילָא גָבֵיי. רִבִּי יָסָא אִיתְפְּקַד מְדַל דְּיַתְמִין וַהֲווּ תַמָּן בְּעַייָן פַּרְנָסָה. אָעִיל עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְקוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. לֹא מוּטָּב שֶׁיִּתְפַּרְנְסוּ מִשֶּׁלָּאֲבִיהֶן וְלֹא מִן הַצְּדָקָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. רִבִּי. אִילּוּ יָבוֹאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אֵין רַבּוֹתֵינוּ נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וְאָנוּ עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲנָא יְהִיב. וְאִין קָמוּן יַתְמִין וְעָֽרְרִין אֲנָא יְהִיב לוֹן. אֲפִילוּ כֵן קָמוּן וְעָֽרְרוֹן. Can one collect dowry from encumbered property70Since providing a dowry for daughters is one of the obligatory conditions attached to a ketubah; cf. Ketubot 6:6.? 71This text is from Ketubot 6:6 (30d 1.59), explained there in Notes 93–97. Variant readings are noted כ. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Ila collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan [girls] who asked for dowry. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans would get up and complained, I would give it to them. They stood up and complained72This is the opposite of what is asserted in Ketubot..
גְּזַר דִּין נְפַק. צִיפּוֹר בַּת אַבְשָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי סִימוֹן וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא. אֲנָא וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ גָּבִינוּ לָהּ מִן הַמְטַלְטְלִין כְּמִנְהַג מְקוֹמָהּ. A judgment was rendered73In Ketubot (6:6, Note 98) it is only asserted that a judgment was given following R. Ḥanina. for Ṣippor bat Absalom. Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: I and our teachers collected for her from movables74Following the principle that local custom is the overriding determinant in the judicial interpretation of ketubah obligations; cf. Ketubot 6:4, Note 67., following the custom of her place.
רַב הֲוָה כְתִיב לְרִבִּי עַבְּרוֹן עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּה. וָהֲוָה רִבִּי חִייָה כְתִיב בֵּינֵי שִׁיטַּייָא. עָֽמְדוּ הַיְּתוֹמִין וּמָֽכְרוּ. גּוֹבִין מִן הַפַּרְנָסָה וְאֵין גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְזוֹנוֹת. עָֽמְדוּ וְשִׁיעְבְּדוּ. הַשִׁיעְבּוּד הַזֶּה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָהוּ. תַּנָּא לֵוִי. אֶחָד שִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב וְאֶחָד שִׁיעְבּוּד הַבֵּן גּוֹבִין מִן הַפַּרְנָסָה וְאֵין גּוֹבִין מִן הַמְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. לֵית כָּאן בְּשִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב אֶלָּא בְשִׁיעְבּוּד הַבֵּן. אִם בְּשִׁיעְבּוּד הָאָב. אִם בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. נִישְּׂאוּ הַבָּנוֹת אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מֵהֶן. רִבִּי בָּא כְדִידֵיהּ וְרִבִּי יוּדָה כְדִידֵיהּ. דְּאַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חַגַּיי. אֲפִילוּ מֵתוּ אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מֵהֶן. Rav wrote to Rebbi, who transferred it to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya wrote between the lines. If the orphans sold against the rules75Since by talmudic rules, all obligations of a ketubah are to be satisfied by real estate, any sale while some of the obligations are still open is against the rules., one collects for dowry but one does not collect for sustenance76The daughters, who do not inherit if there are sons, have a claim of (in general) 10% of their father’s estate as dowry. Cf. Ketubot 6:6. Since this claim exists even during the father’s lifetime, it has precedence over the widow’s claim to sustenance which starts only at her husband’s death.. If they accepted a lien77This was Rav’s question. The lien is a mortgage obligation.. I do not know what this lien is78This is R. Ḥiyya’s note. Was the mortgage taken during the father’s lifetime or after his death? In the Babli, Ketubot 69a, the question from the start was about a mortgage the heirs took out on real estate of their inheritance.. Levi stated: Both for a lien made by the father and for a lien made by the son, one collects for dowry79From real estate sold or pledged. but one does not collect for sustenance80This is also quoted as Rebbi’s opinion in the Babli, Ketubot 69a.. Rebbi Abba said, there is no mention of a lien made by the father, only a lien made by the son. If one cannot collect during the father’s lifetime81Mishnah Ketubot 4:6., not so much less after the father’s death? Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the daughters are married, the widow is sustained by them82In the Babli, Ketubot 51a, the question never arises since the claims of the widow and the daughters are accorded equal status; this rule is quoted in Yebamot 15:3 (14d 1.68), Ketubot 4:8 (29a 1.25).. Rebbi Abba follows his own [opinion] and Rebbi Jehudah82In the Babli, Ketubot 51a, the question never arises since the claims of the widow and the daughters are accorded equal status; this rule is quoted in Yebamot 15:3 (14d 1.68), Ketubot 4:8 (29a 1.25). follows his own [opinion]. For the sister of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaggai: Even if they died, the widow is sustained by them.
בְּנֵי בָנִים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵין בְּנֵי בָנִים כְּבָנִים. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה הֲווֹן יָֽתְבִין. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. הִיא בְּנֵי בָנִים שֶׁכָּאן הִיא בָנִים שֶׁלְּהַלָּן. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּנֵי בָנִים קָֽפְצָה עֲלֵיהֶן יְרוּשַׁת תּוֹרָה. 83The Text is from Ketubot 4:8, Notes 200–201. Variant readings are given there. What is the situation of grandchildren? Rebbi Mana said, grandchildren are like children. Rebbi Yose said, grandchildren are not like children. Rebbi Samuel, son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting together. They wanted to say, the same situation applies to grandchildren here as there. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said to them, inheritance by biblical law jumped on grandchildren.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מְנָה לְאַבָּא בְּיָדָךְ אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִישִׁים דֵּינָרִין. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִיב אֲבֵידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. תַּקָּנָה תִיקְּנוּ בוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִיקְּנוּ בַּמְצִיאָה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַמּוֹצֵא מְצִיאָה לֹא יִשְׁבַּע מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁװָרִים מָצָאתָ לִי. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁװָרִים מָצָאתִי לָךְ וְהֶחֱזִרְתִּי לָךְ אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. לֹא הֶחֱזַרְתָּ לִי אֶלָּא אַחַת. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. רִבִּי פְּדָת בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. אֲבָל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הִיא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. יָכוֹל אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁנֵי שְׁװָרִים מָצָאתָ לִי. וְהוּא אָמַר. לֹא מָצָאתִי אֶלָּא אֶחָד. יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַייָב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ מָצָא אֲבֵידָה וְכִחֵשׁ בָּהּ. פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כִיחֵשׁ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. עוֹמֵד הָיִיתִי בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגִּי וּרְאִיתִיךָ מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁנֵי שְׁװָרִים קְשׁוּרִין. שְׁנֵי שְׁװָרִים קְשׁוּרִים מַשַׁכְתָּ לִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא מָשַׁכְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. וְדִכְװָתָהּ. עוֹמֵד הָיִיתִי עַל אַבָּא בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ וְטָעַנְךָ מְנָה וְהוֹדֵיתָה לוֹ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא הוֹדֵיתִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים. לֹא בָזֶה תִיקְּנוּ. There84Mishnah Ševuʻot 6:1. The subject is the biblical oath imposed on a person who denies an obligation (Ex. 22:8). The rabbinic interpretation of the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there is a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses and no 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., we have stated: “You85The speaker is the claimant. have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you86The speaker is the defendant. have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find87The heir is not conversant with all the details of his father’s business dealings. Since he cannot swear that the father had not received payment, he has no case if the defendant denies the entire claim. The partial admission of the claim is the equivalent of a gift by the defendant to the claimant..” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated50All other Mishnah sources have an additional clause, either as original text or addition: “The finder shall not be made to swear, for the public good.” Since the statement is quoted in the Halakhah (Note 88), it should be read here also.: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good88If the owner claims to have lost more than the finder returns, the finder cannot be made to swear that he did not retain anything for himself, since otherwise nobody would return any find..” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen89As explained later, one ox was found but the owner claims to have lost two. Returning one ox is not accepting part of a claim of two.. But if he90The finder. said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other91The original owner. said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule92He has to swear since both parties claim to be sure of their case.. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute93This is a case of returning a find and the finder is protected.. But in the first case89As explained later, one ox was found but the owner claims to have lost two. Returning one ox is not accepting part of a claim of two., it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen94This cannot be more than a conjecture; the claimant cannot make a defendant swear about a hypothetical case., but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse95Lev. 5:22, speaking of the sacrifice required of the person who swears falsely in the situation described in Ex. 22:8. says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me96The claimant asserts as a certainty that he saw his two oxen in the finder’s possession., and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it97This is an assertion of a certain claim which falls under the rule of Ex. 22:8.,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.