Commentary for Bava Metzia 9:18

דרב נחמן תקנתא היא

— [R. Zera] replied: I mean, his opponent should swear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And receive payment. v. Shebu. 44b. ');">¹⁷</span> But even if R. Hiyya's law is rejected, should we not impose an oath [upon the claimant] because of the view of R. Nahman, as we have learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 38b. ');">¹⁸</span> [If one says to another,] 'You have in your possession a hundred [<i>zuz</i>] belonging to me,' and the other says, 'I have nothing belonging to you,' he is free [from taking an oath]; but R. Nahman adds: We make him take 'an oath of inducement'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although no oath is to be imposed on the defendant who denies the whole claim, a Rabbinical oath is put on him in order to induce him to admit the truth, as it is assumed that no one will sue a person without cause. ');">¹⁹</span> — R. Nahman's rule is [only a Rabbinical] provision, [made irrespective of the law],

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 9:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.