ומה שטען ראובן על שמעון שגנב ועיכב לעצמו משל השותפות וכו'. ישבע שמעון שלא עיכב לעצמו משל חבירו כלום כדין שותפין ואפוטרפסי הנשבעין שלא בטענה בפ' כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מח) אע"פ דתנן חלקו השותפין אינם נשבעין. הכא בנדון זה נשבע שמעון ע"י גלגול. כיון שנשבע הוא על שאר שבועות מגלגלין עליו גם את זה שלא עיכב משל חביריו כלום. כדתנן התם נחחייב לו שבועה ממקום אשר מגלגלין עליו וכו':
Q. A claims that B misappropriated money from their partnership. B denies A's claim. A. If B will take the "partners' oath", he will be free from obligation. Although after a partnership is dissolved, an ex-partner is no longer required to take the "partners' oath", in this case, since B must take oaths in support of his other claims as against A, he must include an "entailed oath" regarding the above claim. Q. B's former partners claim that the Gentile who seized from B valuables that belonged to the partnership, has seized them, as the Gentile claimed, in payment of money B owed him. B denies having owed anything to the Gentile. A. Although Gentiles are robbers, and their excuses for seizing property from Jews are not to be taken seriously —ordinarily such a claim would not require an oath of denial on the part of B — in this case, however, B must take an "entailed oath". On the other hand, if B should admit that he owed money to the Gentile, he would have to pay this money to his former partners. SOURCES: Cr. 302–3.
ומה שטען ראובן על שמעון שגנב ועיכב לעצמו משל השותפות וכו'. ישבע שמעון שלא עיכב לעצמו משל חבירו כלום כדין שותפין ואפוטרפסי הנשבעין שלא בטענה בפ' כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מח) אע"פ דתנן חלקו השותפין אינם נשבעין. הכא בנדון זה נשבע שמעון ע"י גלגול. כיון שנשבע הוא על שאר שבועות מגלגלין עליו גם את זה שלא עיכב משל חביריו כלום. כדתנן התם נחחייב לו שבועה ממקום אשר מגלגלין עליו וכו':
Q. A claims that B misappropriated money from their partnership. B denies A's claim.
A. If B will take the "partners' oath", he will be free from obligation. Although after a partnership is dissolved, an ex-partner is no longer required to take the "partners' oath", in this case, since B must take oaths in support of his other claims as against A, he must include an "entailed oath" regarding the above claim.
Q. B's former partners claim that the Gentile who seized from B valuables that belonged to the partnership, has seized them, as the Gentile claimed, in payment of money B owed him. B denies having owed anything to the Gentile.
A. Although Gentiles are robbers, and their excuses for seizing property from Jews are not to be taken seriously —ordinarily such a claim would not require an oath of denial on the part of B — in this case, however, B must take an "entailed oath". On the other hand, if B should admit that he owed money to the Gentile, he would have to pay this money to his former partners.
SOURCES: Cr. 302–3.