Yerushalmi Shevuot 6:6 ירושלמי שבועות ו׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: About the following one does not swear: slaves, and documents⁹⁴It is better to pay, or not to sue and not collect money, than force or swear any oath., and real estate, and gifts to the Temple⁹⁵Most of these will be shown in the Halakhah to be outside the biblical criteria. The Temple cannot ask for an oath since Ex. 22:6 restricts the judicial oath to transactions between human persons.. Not about double restitution, nor quadruple or quintuple; the unpaid trustee does not swear, the paid trustee does not pay⁹⁶The statements (also in Mishnah Bava meṣi`a4:8) refer to the subjects about which one does not swear. Cf. Mishnah 8:1.. Rebbi Simeon says, one swears about things⁹⁷In all other sources, including Šeqalim2:1, the reading is: sacrifices. If a person makes a vow “to sacrifice an animal”, and if then the designated animal is lost or develops a defect, he has to provide a replacement; this is a vow implying a guarantee. But if he vowed “to sacrifice this animal,” and anything happens to the designated animal, he does not have to provide a substitute; there is no guarantee. for which he is responsible if they be alienated, but does not swear if he is not responsible if they be alienated.
Rebbi Meїr says, there are things which are like real estate and they are not like real estate but the Sages do not agree with him. How is this? “Ten bearing vines⁹⁸To be harvested. R. Meїr considers ripe fruit as already harvested and therefore movable, the Sages as part of the tree as long as they are hanging on the tree. did I hand over to you,” but the other says, “they are only five.” Rebbi Meїr declares liable for an oath but the Sages say, anything connected to the ground is like ground.

HALAKHAH: “About the following one does not swear,” etc. If he transgressed¹⁰⁵He swore about a claim to one of the items excluded by Mishnah 7 from being settled by oaths. and swore, Rebbi Joḥanan said he brings a sacrifice for the oath¹⁰⁶Since the oath was illegitimate, it is treated as “blurted oath”.; Rebbi Eleazar says, he does not bring. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so does Rebbi Johanan answer Rebbi Eleazar. No. If you pronounced about an oath about testimony which may apply to slaves, documents, and real estate, what can you say about oaths concerning deposits which do not apply to slaves, documents, and real estate¹⁰⁷This argument is very elliptic. Tosephta 4:1 notes that oaths about testimony have no restrictions on the topics covered, whereas oaths about deposits have almost no restrictions on the people subject to the oath. Where they are equal is that people suspected of perjury are not allowed to swear (Mishnah 7:4).? But an oath for testimony is not in court¹⁰⁸Mishnah 4:3. On the other hand, an oath about deposits is possible only in court.. Would the court admit an oath of a suspect person¹⁰⁹Since oaths for testimony are not administered by the court, it may easily happen that the oath is wrongly applied to a person either disqualified as a relative or as a suspect (Mishnah Sanhedrin3:6). But how could an oath about deposits be administered by the court to a disqualified person or about a disqualified subject? It can only happen if the person swears without waiting for instructions from the court, which characterizes his action as a blurted oath subject to all its rules.? Only when he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath¹⁰⁶Since the oath was illegitimate, it is treated as “blurted oath”.; here also if he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath¹⁰⁶Since the oath was illegitimate, it is treated as “blurted oath”..

Some want to understand it from here¹¹⁰The exclusions from oaths about deposits enumerated in the Mishnah.: An ox, or a donkey, or a sheep¹¹¹Ex. 22:9, about the oath of the paid trustee. Breaking, kidnapping, and dying are all mentioned in the verse.. Since these are particular in that they are subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying, this excludes real estate which is not subject to breaking, kidnapping, and dying. I shall exclude real estate but shall not exclude slaves. Since these are particular in that they are subject to a fine, this excludes slaves which are not subject to a fine¹¹²The person who kidnaps a slave does not have to pay the double restitution exacted from a thief.. I shall exclude slaves but shall not exclude documents since they are subject to fines. Since these are particular in that they are subject to overcharging, this excludes documents which are not subject to overcharging¹¹³The thief of documents has to pay double restitution for the value of the paper on which the documents are written. On the other hand, documents are not traded as commodities but for the financial values of the contracts written on them. Commodities are subject to the rules of overcharging or underpaying; a transaction which differs more than +/- 16 ⅔% from the going market rate can be voided on the request of the injured party. Financial speculation, such as over the counter stock or bond trades, are not protected by this law (which is based on Lev. 25:14.). From here they say, if somebody sells documents to the spice trader¹¹⁴If an IOU has been paid, it can be sold as packaging material; then it is a commodity. Babli Bava meṣi`a56b, where the baraita is quoted as proof that the laws of overcharging apply to penny matters., it is subject to claims of overcharging. Rebbi Ismael explained: Or a person, if he would swear, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a repeat general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail¹¹⁵Halakhah 8:3, Note 83. However, this reference to Lev. 5:4 is out of place since the argument is about Ex. 22:9. The text should be similar to that of Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim15 (pp. 300–301): About anything criminal, a general statement. About an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, detail. About anything lost, a repeat general statement.. Since the detail¹¹⁶In Ex. 22:9. is about monetary claims, [originating] from himself, which can be collected by court order, having monetary value, which is a fixed value, and are movables, and one is not liable for punishment and fines. Monetary claims, excluding one who said to another, give me the 200 denar which you promised me but never gave¹¹⁷A promise does not generate an enforceable claim.. [Originating] from himself, excluding one who said to another, you cursed me and shamed me, who is not liable¹¹⁸Since the paradigm is a deposit made by the claimant, the defendant’s oath is only about actions initiated by the claimant. Suits about matters initiated by the defendant’s actions cannot be settled by oaths.. Which can be collected by court order, excluding one who said to another, you raped or seduced X’s daughter¹¹⁹The only persons who can go to court are the woman or her father.. It has monetary value, excluding documents¹²⁰Since the value of the document is not determined by the cost of the paper on which it is written.. Which is a fixed value, excluding slaves¹²¹The value of the slave largely depends on his education, which has no standard value attached to it.. Movables, excluding real estate. One is not liable for punishment, excluding one who said to another, you set fire to my grain stack on the Sabbath; who is not liable¹²²No money can be recovered for actions which carry the death penalty, even if there are no eye witnesses and therefore no court procedures are possible.. One is not liable for fines, excluding double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution which are fines¹²³Only simple restitution of stolen property is within the purview of a civil court. Fines can be imposed only by a duly authorized criminal court where trials by oath are impossible..

Somebody tears up another’s documents without the latter’s agreement. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana¹²⁴These are either R. Ḥanina of Sepphoris and R. Mana I or R. Ḥinena and R. Mana II. In the next paragraph appears R. Mana II, two generations after R. Immi. The rule is attributed in the Babli, Bava qamma98a/b, to Rava who is a known adaptor of Galilean rules and an older contemporary of R. Mana II., one said, he is liable; the other said, he is not liable¹²⁵Everybody agrees that he has to pay for the value of the paper or parchment which he destroyed. The problem is whether he has to pay for the mortgages for which the documents were written (assuming that there are no witnesses available who could write a replacement document.). The one who said he is liable, as a fine¹²⁶Since destruction of the document involves both the destruction of the writing material (for which payment can be forced in court if the value was more than a peruṭah) but also the lien on the debtor’s property which is not something recoverable in biblical law. It has to be dealt with in local police law.. The one who said he is not liable: he is like one who obstructs the depositions of witnesses. A widow who grabs documents is like a person who ties up the mouths of witnesses¹²⁷Since even an existing mortgage document can be used for foreclosure only if in court it can be proven to be genuine by the witnesses to the document or witnesses to the identities of the signatures affixed to it. While suborning perjury is criminal, we find no statute against physically preventing witnesses from appearing in court..

Rebbi Immi said, those who write, “on condition that I have the right to seize movables,” cannot collect¹²⁸While there is freedom in stipulating money terms in contracts (Ketubot5:10, Note 227), this is valid only in matters that do not involve court actions. In both Talmudim, court-ordered foreclosures are restricted to real estate. Therefore, a contract which provides foreclosure of movables, while valid, cannot be enforced. Only in the Middle Ages, when Jews in many cases could not hold real estate, was the restriction to real estate lifted by Gaonic decree.. Rebbi Mana said, if he writes and declares, “even though the Court will not enforce,” he collects¹²⁹If the involvement of the court is denied, there remains a private contract in money matters with unlimited powers of stipulation. While no foreclosure can be obtained from any court, the delinquent party can be judicially censured for not keeping his word (Bava meṣi`a4:2)..

¹³⁰This has a parallel in Bava qamma1:2, Notes 118–122 (ק). The Mishnah has to be understood that R. Simeon only frees from liability for an oath which is applicable only to disagreements between humans, but not for payment which was fixed at 125% for concealed debts against humans in Lev.5:20–25, and for amounts due to God in Lev. 5:14–15. (Babli Bava meṣi`a25a/b).“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.