יז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ואבד המשכון אמר לו סלע הלויתיך עליו ושקל היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתני עליו וסלע היה שוה פטור
17 Here also [then], he would not state [the case of a candlestick made up of] separate sections!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he does not mention the case of a girdle of separate pieces, we cannot say, in the case of a candlestick, that the reason he is liable is because it is composed of sections (some of which he admits) . What, then, is the reason for liability in the case of a candlestick of ten litras (the defendant admitting owing a candlestick of five litras) ?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - But said R'Abba B'Mammal: A candlestick is different, because he can scrape it and reduce it to five litras.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one claims a candlestick of ten litras, and the other admits one of five litras, he is liable for an oath, because he may have scraped the metal, or planed the wood, (if it is made of wood) of this very candlestick, so that its weight is now only five litras. He therefore admits a portion of the actual claim, and is liable. If, however, one claims a large candlestick (i.e., tall) and the other admits a small candlestick (i.e., short) , he is n liable, because he is admitting something which was not claimed, for we cannot say that he shortened the very same candlestick that was claimed, by cutting off top or bottom, because that would spoil it. In the case of a large girdle (i.e., long) and small girdle (i.e., short) , the defendant is exempt, because we cannot say he is admitting a portion of the same girdle (which he has cut down and shortened) for the cut ends would be noticeable. Hence, both in the case of candlestick (tall and short) and girdle (long and short) , the defendant is exempt, because he is admitting something else (not a portion of that which was claimed) .');"><sup>22</sup></span>