Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Het, Part 1

Introduction

Last week we concluded by learning about oath extensions (Hebrew, גלגול שבועה). The idea is that if a person can legally make someone take an oath about X, he can also make him take an oath about Y, even though he cannot alone make him take an oath on Y. This was learned from the case of the Sotah.

Sotah is what is called a prohibition which loosely refers to laws that are really between God and humanity (Shabbat, kashrut, purity etc). The question is can oaths be extended in the realm of monetary law as well.

אשכחן סוטה דאיסורא ממונא מנלן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ק"ו ומה סוטה שלא ניתנה להתבע בעד אחד מגלגלין ממון שניתן להתבע בעד אחד אינו דין שמגלגלין

Now, we have found this [an oath extension] in the case of sotah, which is a prohibition. How do we know the same is true in monetary law? The School of R. Ishmael taught: This is a kal vehomer: if we extend [an oath] in the case of a sotah, though it [the oath] cannot be demanded of her on the evidence of one witness; then in the case of a monetary claim, where a demand [for an oath] can be made on the evidence of one witness, it surely follows that we can extend [an oath].

To make the woman drink the Sotah waters and take the oath, two witnesses are needed. But a claimant needs only one witness to make someone take an oath that they do not owe money. So if an oath extension works in the case where it is harder in general to impose an oath, all the more so it works in the case where it is easier to impose an oath.

אשכחן בודאי ספק מנלן תניא רשב"י אומר נאמרה שבועה בחוץ ונאמרה שבועה בפנים מה שבועה האמורה בפנים עשה בה ספק כודאי אף שבועה האמורה בחוץ עשה בה ספק כודאי

Now, we have thus learned this of a certain claim; how do we know it of a case of doubt?

It was taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai said: An oath was stated outside [the Temple], and an oath was stated within [the Temple]: just as in the case of the oath stated within, doubt was made equal to certainty; so too in the case of the oath stated without, doubt was made equal to certainty.

How do we know that a person can make another take an oath by extension even if he is not certain about that he owes him money? The answer is by comparison with the sotah oaths. The sotah oath is by its very nature a case of uncertainty. We do not know if the woman committed adultery or not. Nevertheless, she can be forced to take an oath and an oath by extension. So too in cases that occur outside the Temple one can force another to take an oath by extension even in cases of uncertainty.