משנה: וְאֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשְׂאָה וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וּבֶן הַבָּיִת. אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵינִי רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּישָּׁבַע לִי חַייָב. חָלְקוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַּׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה׃ MISHNAH: The following have to swear without a claim: Partners116If a partnership is dissolved, each partner has to swear that he did not retain any common property., and sharecroppers117The owner may ask the sharecropper to swear that he delivered the entire crop to the landlord who then will return his share to him., and trustees118Greek ἐπίτροπος. He administers the estate of another person and at the end of his tenure has to swear that he did not illegally take anything for himself., and a wife trading in the house119If the husband gives her capital which she uses for trade, he is entitled to the entire gain and can demand that his wife swear that she did not retain anything of the net gain., and a family member120One of the brothers who acts as managing trustee for an undistributed inheritance. If the inheritance is distributed, he has to swear that he did not illegally take anything for himself.. If he says, what do you claim from me? “I want you to swear to me,” he is liable121The person obligated to swear cannot ask the person demanding the oath whether he suspects him of any dishonesty.. After partners or sharecroppers distributed, he cannot force them to swear. If an oath was rolled over to him for another cause, one may roll everything over to him122Shevuot 7:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.7.1.9">Note 43, cf. Sotah 2:5:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.3">Soṭah2:6, Notes 166–168. If a person is required to swear, the one demanding the oath can add to the text of the oath any claim he might have against the person swearing even if totally unrelated to the matter before the court and for which he could not force a separate oath.
A precondition for rollover, which is a biblical rule, is that the original oath must be by biblical standards; a purely rabbinic oath cannot be extended. This implies that the oath required by the Mishnah is considered biblical since the person acting for others in money matters automatically agrees that he is responsible and thereby fulfills the requirement of partial admission (Mishnah 6:1).. The Sabbatical year remits an oath123Since the Sabbatical remits debts (Mishnah Ševi`it10:1), the creditor cannot after the Sabbatical year ask for any oath regarding the remitted debt (Tosephta Ševi`it8:6)..
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה בְּנוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֲבָל בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן לֹא בְדָא. וְאָהֵן בֵּן בַּיִת עוֹד הוּא בְּנוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. רִבִּי זֵירָא כְהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אֲזַל לְמֵידָן קַמֵּי רִבִּי זֵירָא וְחִייְבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה עַל תְּרֵין דֵּינָרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָאו תְּרֵין דֵּינָרִין אֲנִי חַייָב לָךְ. הָא טְרֵיפִין לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וּמִילַת פַּלָּן וּפַלָּן. אֲמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. אוֹ הַב לֵיהּ כָּל־דִּתְבַע לָךְ אוֹ אִישְׁתְּבַע לֵיהּ כָּל־דִּמְגַלְגֵּל עֲלָךְ. עַד כַּמָּה מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה כֹהֵן וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. וְכִי יֵשׁ עֶבֶד בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose130In Sefer Ha`ittur1, 43a (Note 81): R. Yose bar Bun. said, this means if he trades without account; it does not apply if there are accounts. Also the family member trades without accounts131If there is a regular account book which lists all transactions, the person trading can open his book for inspection instead of swearing, and therefore avoid the impression that he admits part of the claim. This rule is not in the Babli, nor in Rif or Maimonides.. Rebbi Ze`ira agrees with Rebbi Yose132This does not refer to the preceding paragraph; the third generation R. Ze`ira cannot be said to be dependent on the fifth generation R. Yose or R. Yose ben R. Bun. The reference is to a statement in Bava meṣi`a3:1 Note 20, that it is the free choice of a person to swear or to pay up and that a person willing to swear is free to change his opinion if too many other items are added to the oath.. A man came for judgment before Rebbi Ze`ira who required him to swear for two denars133A very minor sum.. He told him134The opposing party in the suit., do I not owe you two denars? Here they are thrown to you. He134The opposing party in the suit. answered him, and cloth of fine wool X and Y. Rebbi Ze`ira said, either you give him everything he claims from you or you swear to him everything which he rolls over to you122Shevuot 7:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.7.1.9">Note 43, cf. Sotah 2:5:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.5.3">Soṭah2:6, Notes 166–168. If a person is required to swear, the one demanding the oath can add to the text of the oath any claim he might have against the person swearing even if totally unrelated to the matter before the court and for which he could not force a separate oath.
A precondition for rollover, which is a biblical rule, is that the original oath must be by biblical standards; a purely rabbinic oath cannot be extended. This implies that the oath required by the Mishnah is considered biblical since the person acting for others in money matters automatically agrees that he is responsible and thereby fulfills the requirement of partial admission (Mishnah 6:1).. How far does one roll over? Rebbi Joḥanan said, until he say to him, you are my slave135Kiddushin.28a">Babli Qiddušin28a.. Think of it, could he be Cohen and Hebrew slave136Since a Hebrew slave may have his earlobe pierced if he refuses to leave his state of servitude (Exodus.21.6">Ex. 21:6) but a Cohen with a pieced earlobe is barred from service in the Temple; no court could tolerate that a Cohen would be sold as a Hebrew slave.? Is there such a slave today137Since the institution of Hebrew slavery was intrinsically intertwined with that of the Jubilee, it was abolished with the Babylonian captivity never to be reinstituted (cf. Introduction to Tractate Kiddushin.3">Qiddušin p. 3).?
אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שְׁמָרָהּ. דִּלֹא כֵן מַה נָן אָֽמְרִין. שְׁמָרָהּ. לֹא בָטְלֵיהּ. הִיא בַּעַל בַּעַל. מַה בַּעַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מַשְׁמִיט אַף כָּאן מַשְׁמִיט. דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מַשֵּׁ֣ה יָד֔וֹ שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ וּמְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. וְשֶׁאֵין מַשֵּׁ֣ה יָד֔וֹ אֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ לֹא אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. כָּל־שֶׁשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, watch it for it is otherwise138From the arrangement of the Mishnah one gets the impression that partner, sharecropper, trustee, etc., are freed from their oath in the Sabbatical year. But the Sabbatical eliminates only oaths referring to loans which are actually annulled in it.. What do we say? Watch it, for it is not negligible. “Owner,” “owner.139In Exodus.24.14">Ex. 24:14 anybody having a law suit is called בַּעַל; in the laws of annulment of debts (Deuteronomy.15.2">Deut. 15:2) the creditor is called בַּעַל. This sets up the argument of “equal cut” indicating that the person going to court is one subject to the laws of the Sabbatical.” Since the owner mentioned there is subject to annulment, so also here he is subject to annulment140Since after annulment the creditor cannot go to court to collect the debt, neither can he go to court to have an oath imposed on the debtor. (Explanation of the commentary To`afot Re’em, R. Abraham Abba Schiff, to Sefer Yere’im§164 Note 17). The Shevuot.49a">Babli 49a has a different interpretation of Deuteronomy.15.2">Deut. 15:2.. The Sabbatical annuls things which are his hand’s loans141The expression used in Deuteronomy.15.2">Deut. 15:2. and annuls the corresponding oaths; the Sabbatical does not annul things which are not his hand’s loans, nor does it annul the corresponding oaths. “For anything which the Sabbatical annuls it annuls the corresponding oath; anything which the Sabbatical does not annul it does not annul the corresponding oath142Tosephta Ševi`it8:6. There is no redundancy here. The preceding sentence was the argument, the last sentence is the tannaitic formulation..”