Commentary for Shevuot 94:13

מתיב רב הונא בר יהודה

[In the case of] one lender and one borrower and two documents - the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One lender lent one borrower two loans, for which he produces two documents, on one of which one set of witnesses had signed, and on the other of which the other set of witnesses had signed. Both R. Huna and R. Hisda agree that since this lender desires to exact money from the borrower on both documents, on one of which (though we do not know which one) false witnesses had signed, he may obtain payment on one loan only, the lesser one; and he loses the bigger loan, for the borrower may maintain that the witnesses who had signed on the larger amount are the false witnesses; since the lender cannot prove the contrary, he cannot obtain that loan.');">²⁴</span> [Where there are] two lenders and one borrower and two documents - that is our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big> <span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two lenders, each producing a document against the same person, one document having been signed by one set of witnesses and the other document by the other set: R. Huna holds both documents can be enforced, for the case is similar to that of our Mishnah where both shopkeeper and workman take the oath and enforce their claims against the householder, though we know definitely that one of them is swearing falsely; but we cannot deprive either of them of his money; so here, both lenders can enforce their claims. Though, according to R. Hisda, neither, of course, can enforce his claim; cf. next note.');">²⁵</span> [But in the case of] two borrowers and one lender and two documents - what [is R'Huna's ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lender produces two documents against two borrowers: does R. Huna hold, since it is one man who produces both documents (one of which is definitely signed by false witnesses) , the court cannot uphold his claim at all, for each borrower may maintain that the document against him is the false one; or since his claim is against two separate people, he produces one document at a time and enforces his claim, for R. Huna holds that both sets of witnesses are believed separately. According to R. Hisda, of course, the claims cannot be enforced, for he holds that both sets of witnesses, even separately, are disqualified (even when two different lenders are the claimants) .');">²⁶</span> Let it stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not know R. Huna's view in such a case.');">²⁷</span> R'Huna B'Judah raised an objection.

Explore commentary for Shevuot 94:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.