Bava Metzia 7

תאמר בעדים שעל מה שכפר הוא נשבע

while the oath that you would impose by the evidence of several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt [not included in the evidence], which is denied by the defendant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the inference from one witness to several witnesses does not hold good. As long as it can be shown that there is one aspect from which the case that it treated as the 'minor' for the purpose of the Kal wa-homer can be regarded as a 'major' the inference may be objected to as illogical. ');">¹</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא אתי מגלגול שבועה דעד אחד

[In consequence of this refutation] R. Papa says: The inference is really drawn from an 'attached oath'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 27b. As the evidence of one witness causes an oath to be imposed upon the defendant, a second oath is also imposed upon this defendant if another claim not included in the evidence is raised against him in regard to which, if it stood alone, no oath would have been imposed. ');">²</span>

מה לגלגול שבועה דעד אחד שכן שבועה גוררת שבועה תאמר בעדים דממון קא מחייבי

[caused by the evidence of] one witness. But [to this also it could be objected]: Is not the 'attached oath' of one witness more weighty, in that [in this case] one oath carries with it another oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oath imposed by one witness refers to the amount to which the witness testifies and which the defendant denies. It is thus the direct result of the evidence of that witness, and it is weighty enough to cause the 'attached oath' regarding another claim. ');">³</span>

פיו יוכיח מה לפיו שכן אינו בהכחשה עד אחד יוכיח שישנו בהכחשה ומחייבו שבועה

while several witnesses only oblige the defendant to pay money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sum regarding which the witnesses give evidence has to be paid by the defendant, and thus there is no oath to carry with it another oath. ');">⁴</span>

מה לעד אחד שכן על מה שמעיד הוא נשבע תאמר בעדים שעל מה שכפר הוא נשבע פיו יוכיח

— The case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of partial admission where the oath is taken though there is no oath to carry it. ');">⁵</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שעל ידי טענה וכפירה הן באין ונשבע אף אני אביא עדים שעל ידי טענה וכפירה הם באין ונשבע

But [it is again objected]: is not 'his own mouth' more weighty in that it cannot be refuted by a denial [on the part of witnesses]? — The case of 'one witness' will prove it, in that he can be refuted [by other witnesses] and yet he obliges the defendant to take an oath. But [it is objected once more]: [The oath imposed by] one witness refers only to the part of the debt to which the witness testifies [and which the defendant denies], while [the oath that is imposed by] several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt — [not included in the evidence and] denied by the defendant? — Again the case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above, the Kal wa-homer will be inferred from the case of admission, viz., if the words of his own mouth, which do not oblige him to pay money (a fine), make it necessary for him to take an oath, how much more ought the evidence of witnesses, which obliges him to pay money, make it necessary for him to take an oath. ');">⁶</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הוחזק כפרן תאמר בעדים שכן הוחזק כפרן

But [it is again objected]: Is not 'his own mouth' [in a case of admission] more effective in that it cannot be refuted by a denial [on the part of witnesses]? — The case of one witness will prove it, in that he can be refuted by the denial [of other witnesses] and yet he obliges the defendant to take an oath. But [it is objected once more]: [The oath that is imposed by] several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt denied by the defendant [and not included in the evidence]? — Again, the case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the case of a partial admission, where the oath is likewise taken regarding the remainder of the amount claimed. ');">⁷</span>

ובעדים מי הוחזק כפרן והאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב חסדא הכופר במלוה כשר לעדות בפקדון פסול לעדות

And the [former] argument resumes its force. [It is true that] the aspect of one case is not like the aspect of the other case; but both cases have the common characteristic that they arise through claim and denial, and therefore the defendant has to swear. So I adduce that also in the case of 'witnesses,' arising as it does through claim and denial, the defendant has to swear. But [it is again argued]: Have not the other analogous cases the common characteristic that the defendant is not presumed to be a liar, while in the case of 'witnesses' he is presumed to be a liar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness cannot stamp the defendant as a liar, as it is just the word of one against that of another. But two or more witnesses are necessarily believed, and the defendant is presumed to have lied. Even if the witnesses refute only part of his statement he is not trusted any more, and should not be allowed to swear regarding the rest. ');">⁸</span>

אלא פריך הכי מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן אינן בתורת הזמה תאמר בעדים שישנן בתורת הזמה

[The objection, however, is at once raised:] Is the defendant really presumed to be a liar when contradicted by witnesses? Has not R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Hisda said: He who denies a loan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is refuted by witnesses before swearing. whether he denies the whole loan or only part of it. ');">⁹</span>

הא לא קשיא רבי חייא תורת הזמה לא פריך

can still be accepted as a witness, but he who denies a deposit cannot be accepted as a witness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason for the distinction between a loan and a deposit is explained infra 5b. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא דקאמר ותנא תונא מי דמי התם למלוה אית ליה סהדי ללוה לית ליה סהדי דלא מסיק ליה ולא מידי דאי הוו ליה סהדי ללוה דלא מסיק ליה ולא מידי לא בעי רבי חייא לאשתבועי הכא כי היכי דאנן סהדי בהאי אנן סהדי בהאי ואפילו הכי משתבעי

Therefore argue this way: Have not the other cases the common characteristic that they are not subject to the law of retaliation in case of an alibi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness may cause a fine to be imposed upon a defendant, but if the witness is refuted by other witnesses proving an alibi he is not liable to pay the fine. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא כי איתמר ותנא תונא אאידך דרבי חייא איתמר דאמר ר' חייא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא נ' זוז והילך חייב

while [several] witnesses are subject to the law of retaliation in case of an alibi? — This presents no difficulty: R. Hiyya attaches no importance to the argument from the law of retaliation in case of an alibi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even though one witness, on being refuted by an alibi, is not liable to suffer the penalty that he intended to impose upon the defendant, he is disbelieved as a result of the refutation, and his evidence is nullified, just as in the case of two witnesses who are refuted by an alibi. ');">¹²</span>

מאי טעמא הילך נמי כמודה מקצת הטענה דמי

There is, however, another difficulty: How could it be said that our Tanna teaches the same [as R. Hiyya] — are the two cases at all alike? There [viz., in the case of R. Hiyya] the creditor has witnesses [for half the amount claimed], but the debtor has no witnesses [regarding the other half] that he does not owe him it. For if the debtor had witnesses that he did not owe him anything [of the other half claimed], R. Hiyya would not require the debtor to swear [regarding the other half]. But here [in our Mishnah] we are witnesses for the one party as much as for the other [in regard to the right of either to one half of the garment], and yet both have to swear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would show that the oath is not imposed because of a 'partial admission', but is merely an institution of the Rabbis, as indicated above, and is therefore quite different from the oath imposed by R. Hiyya. ');">¹³</span>

ותנא תונא שנים אוחזין בטלית

It must therefore be assumed that the statement 'And our Tanna teaches the same' refers to another decision of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya says: [If one says to another,] 'You have in your possession a hundred <i>zuz</i> belonging to me,' and the other says, 'I have only got fifty' and [here they are],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Helak, [H] i.e., 'I have not spent them, and they are yours, wherever they may be' (Rashi). ');">¹⁴</span>

והא הכא כיון דתפיס [אנן סהדי דמאי דתפיס] הילך הוא וקתני ישבע

he has to swear [concerning the disputed amount].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we do not say that the virtual delivery of the amount admitted is tantamount to actual payment, so that the denial of the remainder would mean a denial of a whole separate claim, in which case no oath could be imposed. ');">¹⁵</span>

ורב ששת אמר הילך פטור מ"ט כיון דאמר ליה הילך הני זוזי דקא מודי בגוייהו כמאן דנקיט להו מלוה דמי באינך חמשים הא לא מודי הלכך ליכא הודאת מקצת הטענה

For what reason? Because [the offer implied in the words] 'Here they are' is like a 'partial admission' [which necessitates an oath]. And our Tanna teaches the same: TWO HOLD A GARMENT, etc., and although here each one holds [the garment], and we are witnesses that the part that each one holds is like the part of the debt which the defendant [in the other case] is ready to deliver, yet it says that he must swear! R. Shesheth, however, says that [the offer implied in the words] 'Here they are' relieves the debtor of the oath — For what reason? Because the declaration 'Here they are' made by the debtor enables us to regard those [fifty] <i>zuz</i>, which he has admitted to be owing, as if they were already in the hands of the creditor, while the remaining fifty [<i>zuz</i>] the debtor does not admit to be owing, and therefore there is no 'partial admission' [that necessitates an oath].

ולרב ששת קשיא מתניתין אמר לך רב ששת מתניתין תקנת חכמים היא

But according to R. Shesheth there is a difficulty about our Mishnah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which imposes an oath, although, as stated above, the position of the litigants is similar. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואידך אין תקנת חכמים היא ומיהו אי אמרת בשלמא מדאורייתא הילך חייב מתקני רבנן שבועה כעין דאורייתא אלא אי אמרת מדאורייתא הילך פטור מתקני רבנן שבועה דליתא דכוותה בדאורייתא

— R. Shesheth may reply: [The oath in] our Mishnah is an institution of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not a Biblical oath resulting from 'partial admission'. ');">¹⁷</span>

מיתיבי

And his opponent? [He will say:] Yes, it is an institution of the Rabbis: but if you maintain that according to Biblical Law the offer of 'Here they are' carries with it an oath, then it is right that the Rabbis imposed an oath upon the litigants [in our Mishnah], for they follow herein the principle underlying the Biblical Law. But if you say that the offer of 'Here they are' exempts, according to Biblical Law, [the debtor who made it] from taking an oath, then how can the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] impose an oath which is unlike any Biblical oath? An objection is now raised: