Gittin 102

הוא דאמר כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזה הוא שנשבע על טענת עצמו

— He adopted the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, There are times when a man has to take an oath on account of his own plea. For instance: If a man says, 'Your father lent me a <i>maneh</i> and I returned him half of it,' he has to take an oath, this being the kind of person who has to take an oath on account of his own plea. The Sages, however, say that he is on the same footing as one who restores a lost article, and he is exempt [from an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 42a; Keth. 18a. ');">¹</span>

וחכ"א אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור

But does R. Eliezer b. Jacob not hold that one who restores a lost article is exempt? — Rab said: [He speaks of a case] where the claim is made by a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he calls 'his own plea'. ');">²</span>

ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן

Does any weight attach to the claim of a minor, seeing that we have learnt, 'An oath is not administered on the claim of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 38b. ');">³</span>

קטן מידי מששא אית ביה והתנן אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן

— By 'minor' R. Eliezer means here a grown-up, and the reason why he calls him 'minor' is because in respect of the affairs of his father he is no better than a minor. If that is the case, why does he say, 'on account of his own plea'? It is the plea of someone else? — He means, the plea of someone else and his own admission. But all charges can be called 'the plea of someone else and his own admission'? — The truth is that they [R. Eliezer and the Rabbis] differ over the point raised by Rabbah; for Rabbah said: Why did the Torah lay down that one who admits part of the charge against him should take an oath [that he is not liable for the rest]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXII, 10. ');">⁴</span>

מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא

The presumption is that a man will not be brazen enough in the presence of his creditor [to deny a debt outright]. Now this man would like to deny the whole, and the reason why he does not deny the whole is because he is not brazen enough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when he acknowledges part, he is not trusted in regard to the rest. ');">⁵</span>

אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים הוא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו

On the other hand, he would also like to admit the whole, and the reason why he does not do so is to gain time, as he thinks to himself, When I have money I will pay him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we are willing to trust his oath. ');">⁶</span>

כולהו טענתא נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו

The All-Merciful therefore said: Impose an oath on him, so that he will admit the whole. Now R. Eliezer was of opinion that whether he is dealing with [the lender] himself or with his son, [the debtor] would not be brazen enough [to deny the debt outright], and therefore in neither case is he like one who restores a lost article.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against whom no claim is brought in the first instance. ');">⁷</span>

והאי בכוליה בעי למכפריה ליה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט ליה סבר עד דהוו לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ואמר רחמנא רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה

The Rabbis, however, were of opinion that he would not be brazen enough [to deny the debt to the creditor] himself but he would to his son. Hence since he is not so brazen, he is regarded as one restoring a lost article.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he acts spontaneously. For fuller notes on this passage v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 258-9, and B.M. pp. 8 and 9. [R. Eliezer b. Jacob will accordingly also accept the ruling of the Mishnah that no data are required of a restorer of a lost article. Consequently he cannot be in agreement with R. Isaac, who in turn will have to fall back on the Baraitha cited above for his sole support. This argument leads Tosaf. to give preference to the reading cited supra p. 230, n. 1.] ');">⁸</span>

ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר ל"ש בו ול"ש בבנו אינו מעיז והילכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בבנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא: