Bava Metzia 68

וחזר ואמר איני משלם מאי מי אמרינן מהדר קא הדר ביה או דלמא במלתיה קאי ודחויי. הוא דקא מדחי ליה

and then declared, 'I will not pay': do we say, he has retracted; or perhaps, he intended keeping his word, and was merely repulsing him [the bailor]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps he was importuning him for the money, which he could not pay just then. Nevertheless, he might have intended to pay, and therefore the twofold repayment should belong to him. ');">¹</span>

אמר הריני משלם ומת ואמרו בניו אין אנו משלמין מאי מי אמרינן מהדר קא הדרי בהו או דלמא במלתא דאבוהון קיימי ודחויי הוא דקא מדחו ליה

[Again,] if he declared, 'I will pay,' and died, whilst his sons declared, 'We will not pay,' what then? Do we say, they have retracted: or perhaps, they are keeping to their father's word, but merely repulsed him? [Again,] what if the sons did pay? Can he [the bailor] say to them, 'I made over the [right of receiving] double repayment to your father only, because he did me a favour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking care of the bailment. ');">²</span>

שלמו בנים מאי מצי אמר להו כי אקנאי כפילא לאבוכון דעבד לי נייח נפשאי לדידכו לא או דלמא לא שנא

but not to you': or perhaps, there is no difference? What if he [the bailee] paid to the sons?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bailor having died. ');">³</span>

שילם לבנים מאי מצו אמרי ליה כי אקני לך אבונא כפילא דעבדת ליה נייח נפשיה אבל אנן לדידן לא או דלמא לא שנא שלמו בנים לבנים מאי

Can they say to him, 'Our father made over the double repayment to you because you did him a favour; but as for ourselves, you have done nothing for us'; or perhaps, there is no difference? What if the heirs [of the bailee] paid to the heirs [of the bailor]? What if he paid a half?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he consented to pay half: does he acquire half of the double repayment? ');">⁴</span>

שילם מחצה מאי שאל שתי פרות ושילם אחת מהן מאי שאל מן השותפין ושילם לאחד מהן מאי שותפין ששאלו ושילם אחד מהן מאי שאל מן האשה ושילם לבעלה מאי אשה ששאלה ושילם בעלה מאי תיקו

What if he borrowed two cows and paid for one of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it be assumed that when one consents to pay half only he does not acquire half of the double repayment, what if he consents to pay for one cow out of two: can this be regarded as a separate transaction altogether? ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא משביעין אותו שבועה שאינה ברשותו מאי טעמא חיישינן שמא עיניו נתן בה

What if he borrowed from partners and paid one of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His share: is he entitled to his half of the twofold repayment? Do we regard it as though he had paid the whole of one particular person's bailment, or must he have paid for the whole bailment itself? ');">⁶</span>

מיתיבי המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ואבד המשכון ואמר לו סלע הלויתיך עליו שקל היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתני עליו סלע היה שוה פטור

What if partners borrowed and one of them paid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Has he a right to his half of the double repayment, since he paid for the whole of his share; or must the whole bailment be paid for? ');">⁷</span>

סלע הלויתיך עליו שקל היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתני עליו שלשה דינרים היה שוה חייב

What if one borrowed from a woman and paid her husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to 'property of plucking', q.v. p. 234. n. 10. Do we say, since the principal does not belong to the husband, restitution to him does not entitle the bailee to the double repayment; or perhaps, since the husband enjoys the usufruct, it does? ');">⁸</span>

סלע הלויתני עליו ב' היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתיך עליו סלע היה שוה פטור

What if a woman borrowed and her husband paid? The questions stand.

סלע הלויתני עליו שנים היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתיך עליו ה' דינרים היה שוה חייב

R. Huna said: He [the bailee] is made to swear that it is not in his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the Mishnah. Though he offers to pay, he must nevertheless swear. ');">⁹</span>

מי נשבע מי שהפקדון אצלו שמא ישבע זה ויוציא הלה את הפקדון

Why? We fear that he may have cast his eyes upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., coveted it, and so trumped up a story that it was stolen. ');">¹⁰</span>

אהייא אילימא אסיפא ותיפוק ליה דשבועה גבי מלוה היא דהא קא מודי מקצת הטענה אלא אמר שמואל ארישא

An objection is raised: If one lends his neighbour on a pledge and the pledge is lost, and he [the lender] says to him [the debtor], 'I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it, and it was [only] worth a shekel';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half a sela'. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי ארישא אסיפא דרישא סלע הלויתיך עליו שקל היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתני עליו שלשה דינרין היה שוה חייב דשבועה גבי לוה הוא ואמור רבנן לשתבע מלוה שמא ישבע זה ויוציא הלה את הפקדון

whilst the other maintains, 'Not so; you did lend me a <i>sela'</i> upon it and it was worth a <i>sela'</i>:' he is free [from an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he maintains that he owes him nothing at all, there is no partial admission of the claims. ');">¹²</span>

ואם

'I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was worth a <i>shekel</i>, whilst the other maintains, 'Not so; you did lend me a <i>sela'</i> on it, and it was worth three <i>denarii</i>;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One sela' = 4 denarii. ');">¹³</span> he is liable [to an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is partial admission of indebtedness. The Gemara discusses below the meaning of 'he.' ');">¹⁴</span> [If the debtor pleads,] 'You did lend me a <i>sela'</i> on it, whilst it was worth two;' and the other replies, 'Not so: I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was worth a <i>sela'</i>;' he is free [from an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2 which applies here too, though the debtor is now the claimant. ');">¹⁵</span> 'You did lend me a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was worth two,' whilst the other replies, 'Not so: I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was worth five <i>denarii</i>,' he is liable [to an oath]. Now, who must swear? He who has the bailment [i.e., the creditor], lest the other swear and then this one produce the bailment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is derogatory to the institution of the oath to swear when a matter may be practically proved (Tosaf.); Mishnah, Shebu. 43a. ');">¹⁶</span> To what does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last passage in the cited Mishnah. ');">¹⁷</span> refer? Shall we say, to the second clause; but that [the oath rests upon the creditor] follows from the fact that it is he who makes partial admission!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then state a different reason? ');">¹⁸</span> — But, said Samuel, it refers to the first clause. How can it refer to the first clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that there no oath is taken. ');">¹⁹</span> — He means the second subsection of the first clause, [viz.,] 'I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was worth a <i>shekel</i>,' whilst the other maintains, 'Not so: you did lend me a <i>sela'</i> on it, and it was worth three <i>denarii</i>:' he is liable [to an oath]. Now, the onus of the oath lies upon the debtor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is the defendant who makes partial admission. ');">²⁰</span> yet the Rabbis ordered that the creditor should swear, lest this one [sc. the debtor] swear and then the other produce the pledge. But if