Talmud su Esodo 22:9

It is written, if a man give to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep²⁵Ex. 22:9. etc. An oath before the Eternal shall be between the two of them²⁶Ex. 22:10.. Stolen, if it was stolen stealing from him²⁷Ex. 22:11. The verse is intentionally misquoted; it is written וְאִם “and if”, not אִם “if”, as noted in the sequel.. Lost, and if, to include the lost one²⁸This is Rebbi Aqiba’s signature argument that all conjunctions which are not absolutely necessary imply an addition which can only be determined by tradition.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Since you say that he pays for theft which is close to duress, for loss which is not close to duress not so much more²⁹In the Babli, Bava meṣi`a94b, this is characterized not as a statement of R. Ismael but as a Galilean Amoraic statement in the spirit of R. Ismael. A different argument is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 305).?

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss³⁰This an argument of R. Ismael; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306).. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died³¹Ex. 22:13.; and it is said there, it dies or was broken²⁵Ex. 22:9.. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba³²This is not an argument of R. Aqiba but of R. Ismael [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin16, (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 306)]. R. Aqiba’s argument is attributed here to R. Ismael.. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from³³Chapter 4, Note 33. If broken or died and died or was broken defines an equal cut, since the abducted is mentioned in v. 9 it also is implied in v. 13.. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died³¹Ex. 22:13., to include the abducted one³⁴A follower of R. Aqiba has the choice of arguing either following R. Meïr or R. Nathan..

Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything⁸⁴Mishnah Baba batra 10:2: A document signed by a single witness is invalid.? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second⁸⁵In the Babli, Baba batra 165a, this is a question, if one signature was confirmed from another document and one by oral testimony. It is resolved that the document is valid.. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear⁸⁶Ex. 22:9 decrees that in all money matters in dispute, “if there is one who says, he is the one” who owes money, there should be an oath. This is interpreted to mean that the claimant can force the defendant to swear if he can support his claim by a single witness but does not have the two witnesses necessary to force the defendant to pay.? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. ⁸⁷From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other⁸⁸R. Joshua ben Qorḥa will accept the written testimony of one witness (of two on a document) combined with the oral one of another; the Sages will reject it except in the three cases stated here. The same disagreement in the Babli 26b, Sanhedrin 30b.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.