Reference for Bava Metzia 5:18

דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בע"ח והאי בכוליה בעי דנכפריה והא דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו

a hundred <i>zuz</i> belonging to me', and the other replies, 'I have nothing belonging to you', while witnesses testify that the defendant has fifty <i>zuz</i> belonging to the plaintiff; the defendant pays the plaintiff fifty <i>zuz</i>, and takes an oath regarding the remainder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He swears that he does not owe the other fifty zuz. The evidence of the witness places the defendant in the same position as his own admission of part of the claim would have done. Shebu. 39b. ');">¹⁶</span> for the admission of a defendant ought not to be more effective than the evidence of witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If therefore the defendant's partial admission necessitates his taking an oath on the rest, the evidence of the witnesses regarding the partial debt should at least have a similar effect. ');">¹⁷</span> a rule which could be proved by a <i>Kal wa-homer</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');">¹⁸</span> And our Tanna teaches this: WHEN TWO HOLD A GARMENT AND ONE OF THEM SAYS 'I FOUND IT' ETC.&nbsp;… [BOTH HAVE TO SWEAR]. Now this is just the same [as the case where there are witnesses], for when we see a person holding a garment we presume that it is his, and we are in the position of witnesses who can testify that each claimant is entitled to the half he is holding. And yet each claimant has to swear. Now why is it necessary to prove by means of a <i>Kal wa-homer</i> that the admission of a defendant ought not to be more effective [in imposing an oath on the defendant] than the testimony of witnesses? — [It is necessary for this reason:] In the case of a [partial] admission [of a claim] you might say that the Divine Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'The All- Merciful One', i.e. God, whose word Scripture reveals. ');">¹⁹</span> has imposed an oath upon him for the reason indicated by Rabbah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 107a. ');">²⁰</span> For Rabbah said: The reason the Torah has declared that he who admits part of his opponent's claim must take an oath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While in the case of one who restores a lost article to its owner he is believed without an oath, even if the owner maintains that only part of the loss has been returned to him by the finder. ');">²¹</span> is the presumption that nobody would take up such an impertinent attitude towards his creditor [as to give a complete denial to his claim]. The defendant [in this case] would have liked to give a complete denial, but he has not done so because he has not been able to take up such an impertinent attitude.

Explore reference for Bava Metzia 5:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.