Yerushalmi Ketubot 13:4 ירושלמי כתובות י״ג:ד׳

MISHNAH: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels, Admon says, since he admitted part of the claim he is made to swear, but the Sages say, what he admitted was not of the kind that was claimed⁷⁸If neither party has proof but the defendant admits to part of the claim, it is rabbinic interpretation (Mishnah Šebuot 6:1) of Ex. 22:8 that the defendant has to swear that he does not owe more than he admitted. In Admon’s interpretation, a claim for amphoras of oil is a claim for oil and the vessels in which it is contained, but for the Sages it is simply a claim for a certain standard measure of oil; if ownership of the vessels is also claimed, it would have to be stated explicitly. This Mishnah is repeated as part of Mishnah Šebuot6:3, in a series of explanations of what means “agreeing to part of the claim.”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement,

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil,” etc. The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free⁷⁹Except for this sentence, which is redundant since it is repeated in the Mishnah with attribution of authorship, the Halakhah is a not quite complete copy of Halakhah Šebuot 6:3. Since the deviations between the two texts are not easily described as variant readings, both texts are given here side by side. It is seen that the basis of discussion is Mishnah Šebuot6:6, not Ketubot 13:4. The major additions and changes in the Šebuot text are indicated by italics in the translation..

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free⁸⁰The Mishnah referred to is Šebuot 6:3 which states that if the claim was for wheat but the defendant admits an obligation for barley, the admission is not relevant for the claim and the defendant does not have to swear, except that Rabban Gamliel holds that any admission by the defendant obligates the latter to swear. This sentence is followed by a copy of the Mishnah here, detailing the difference between Admon and the majority about claims for oil with or without the containers. It is now claimed in the name of R. Joḥanan that if a claim is put forward for two unrelated items, the admission in full of liability for one item does not induce an obligation on the defendant to swear if he denies all liability for the second claim since the two claims, while stated together before the court and treated at the same time, really constitute two separate suits. This opinion is quoted in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Joḥanan in the Šebuot text and in the Babli, 108b; it is explicitly rejected in the name of R. Joḥanan in the Babli Šebuot 40a where R. Joḥanan, Rav Naḥman and Samuel are quoted as stating that any claims which form one suit have to be treated as one common claim. The inconsistency of the Babli was recognized by the early commentators.. And why did we state: “Rabban Gamliel obligates him”? This comes to tell you the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he obligates people. Rebbi Abbahu [supported] that of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the Mishnah, if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is obligated⁸¹The opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish and Rav quoted here is that of R. Joḥanan and Samuel in Babli Šebuot 40a; cf. the preceding Note. The Babli, loc. cit., implies that R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion in the matter is unknown.. Rav followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went with another to court before Rav. He started claiming from him barley, wheat and spelt. Rav told him, charge him with anything you have to charge, and in the end he will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to everybody he is free, did we not state⁸²This is the next sentence in Mishnah Šebuot 6:3. The Mishnah states that if one suit contains claims that have to be adjudicated following different rules of procedure, they cannot be consolidated and have to be treated separately. Since claims for real estate cannot be resolved by taking oaths (Mishnah Šebuot 6:5), if the claim was for movables and real estate, an admission by the defendant either of the claim for movables in full or for the claim for real estate either partially or in full cannot trigger an obligation to swear. “if he sued him for vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? If he is obligated for vessels about vessels, not so much more vessels for real estate⁸³The last statement of Mishnah Šebuot 6:3: A partial admission about movables triggers an obligation to swear about movables and real estate; a partial admission about real estate does not trigger an obligation to swear. As explained in this Mishnah, also Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5, and quoted in the Šebuot text, an obligation to swear about movables induces an obligation to swear about real estate.? What does he do with it? He explains it, to transfer an oath to him. But did we not state: If somebody sues another for amphoras of oil, and the defendant admits [that he owes him] vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for oil and he admitted vessels, everybody agrees that what he admitted does not refer to the claim, for Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abuna said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah deals with the case that he sued for vessels full of oil; the ones are full, the others empty⁸⁴See the Šebuot text for an intelligible version of this statement.. One understands vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun formulates it as oil bucket⁸⁵If the claim is not for storage vessels but for those used to draw oil from a large container.. Can one not ask him in the end⁸⁶The disagreement between Admon and the rabbis is not one that is frequently going to happen in practice. Since the problem is one of semantics, does a claim for amphoras of oil imply separate claims for amphoras and the oil that fills them or is “amphora of oil” simply a technical term denoting a standard volume for which contracts of delivery are made? Any judge asked in such a matter will ask the parties to clarify the meaning of their statements and then it will be obvious whether the defendant accepted part of the claim or not. The difference in the interpretation could only arise if one of the parties cannot be asked, either if a party dies or if he loses his speech.? If he lost his speech.