משנה: אָמַר לֹו נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. הָיָה חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ דּוֹר לִי בְחַיֵּי רֹאשָׁךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ׃ MISHNAH: If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father29These are disqualified by biblical law to serve as judges. They may be accepted on an arbitration panel as free choice of the parties.; I am accepting three cowboys30They are illiterate and ignorant of the law.; Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.
If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life”38He asked him to replace the oath by a vow not subject to dissolution. The claimant was afraid to be guilty of “putting a stumbling stone in the path of a blind man” if the other party was making a false oath because of him., Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion39And require a formal oath., but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.
הלכה: נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא כול׳. אָמַר לוֹ. נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ. קִיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נָטַל מִזֶּה וְנָתַן לָזֶה. אֲבָל נָטַל מִזֶּה וְנָתַן לָזֶה יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָֽמְרֵי. אֲפִילוּ נָטַל מִזֶּה וְנָתַן לָזֶה יָכוֹל הוּא לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. קיטה במקטיה דִּנְקוֹם. קִיבֵּל עֲלוֹי יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. HALAKHAH: “I am accepting my father,” etc. If somebody said, I am accepting your father, 31The discussion is based on R. Meïr’s point of view. if he accepted in the presence of two others, he may retract32This is an agreement which according to R. Meïr can be rescinded.; in the presence of three33If these three are persons qualified to act as judges, they act as a court and once a panel of arbitration is empanelled by a court it cannot be changed., he may not retract. Samuel said, as long as he did not take from one and give to the other35The context requires that one read: “but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may not retract.” This is Samuel’s opinion in the Babli, 24b.; but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say even if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract36Their opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. 37This sentence is corrupt, and probably belongs to the next Halakhah.
A similar text is in Tosephta 5:1: “If somebody became obligated to swear and the other party instead required him to make a vow for his life, or by קייטא ובמקייטא דנקיטי R. Meïr and the Sages disagree whether he may retract his agreement.” D. Pardo declares the Tosephta text as unintelligible. Arukh s.v. קטו points to Thr. r. 1(30) ad 1:3 where קטו or קטיתא means “a bat”. This would give as meaning of the Tosephta: “be exposed to the mace and the bat in my hands.” The explanations in the standard commentaries are pure conjectures.“If he hit him with a mace that he should agree; if he accepted he may renege.”
הָיָה חַייָב לַחֲבֵירוֹ שְׁבוּעָה כול׳. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא אָמַר. בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ. יֹאמַר לִי אָבִיךָ וְאֵין לִי עִמָּךְ עֶסֶק. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ. יֹאמַר אָבִיךָ וַאֲנִי מְקַבֵּל עָלַי. עִילָּא הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהוֹדוֹת לוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן (בן) חֲנִינָה אָמַר. וַאֲפִילוּ אָמַר. יֹאמַר לִי אָבִיךָ וַאֲנִי מְקַבֵּל עָלַי. לֹא מָצִינוּ עֵדוּת יוֹצֵא מִפִּי קָרוֹב. “If one was obligated to swear to another,” etc. 40This paragraph refers to Mishnah 4. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall have no claim on you41The claimant tells the defendant that if the defendant’s father states that his son owes nothing, he will retract his suit. R. Meïr lets him change his mind.. But if he told him: Let you father tell it, then I shall accept it; he seeks a pretext to confess to him42The defendant tells the claimant that if the claimant’s father states that the sum is due to his son, the defendant will pay. R. Hiyya sees this as a confession cloaked in a face-saving device; R. Meïr will agree with the Sages that this is irrevocable.. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if he told him, let you father tell it to me, then I shall accept it. We never find that testimony be accepted from the mouth of a relative43While R. Hiyya bar Abba’s argument may be correct, his conclusion is not, since as a matter of principle we never accept a relative’s testimony to be determining in law..