שבועות מ״א

שבועות מ״א

וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא – הָכָא הוּא דְּאִיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל הָתָם דְּלֵיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא – לָא.

But the one who teaches it in reference to the latter clause maintains that specifically here, in this case, an oath of inducement is administered to the defendant, as he admits that there is a matter of financial association between them; but there, in the case of the first clause, where the defendant maintains that the claim is baseless, and there is no matter of financial association between them, the court does not administer to him an oath of inducement.

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לִשְׁבוּעָה דְּרַבָּנַן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מֵיפָךְ שְׁבוּעָה – בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא מַפְּכִינַן שְׁבוּעָה, בִּדְרַבָּנַן מַפְּכִינַן.

§ The Gemara asks: Practically speaking, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law, i.e., an oath of inducement? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the transfer of an oath to the other party. In a case where the defendant suggests that instead of taking an oath himself, the claimant should take an oath and collect that which he claims, if the oath is administered by Torah law, we do not transfer the oath to the claimant; the defendant must either take an oath himself or pay. If the oath is administered by rabbinic law, we do transfer the oath.

וּלְמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי מַפְּכִינַן שְׁבוּעָה – מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לִדְרַבָּנַן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מֵיחַת לְנִכְסֵיהּ – בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא נָחֲתִינַן לְנִכְסֵיהּ, בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא נָחֲתִינַן לְנִכְסֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And according to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who says that we transfer an oath that is administered by Torah law as well, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether or not the court enters the property of the defendant to collect payment if he refuses to take an oath. With regard to an oath administered by Torah law, we enter his property, and with regard to an oath administered by rabbinic law, we do not enter his property.

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר בִּדְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי נָחֲתִינַן לְנִכְסֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference according to Rabbi Yosei, who says that even with regard to a debt that is owed by rabbinic law, we enter the property of the debtor to collect the debt?

דִּתְנַן: מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶם גָּזֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר – מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לִדְרַבָּנַן?

As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 59b): A lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Although these individuals lack halakhic competence and are unable to acquire lost items by Torah law, taking such items from them is considered robbery. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law. Accordingly, what is the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion there? The difference is that according to Rabbi Yosei, if one refuses to return the stolen item, it is appropriated by the judges and returned to the one who found it. The Gemara completes its question: Since according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the court enters one’s property to appropriate even an item that is owed by rabbinic law, what difference is there between an oath administered by Torah law and an oath administered by rabbinic law?

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה; בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, אָפְכִינַן לֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה (וְשָׂמוּ) אַאִידַּךְ; בִּדְרַבָּנַן – תַּקַּנְתָּא הִיא, וְתַקַּנְתָּא לְתַקַּנְתָּא לָא עָבְדִינַן.

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to a case where the one opposing the claimant, the defendant, is suspected with regard to oaths. With regard to an oath administered by Torah law, if the one opposing the claimant is suspected with regard to oaths, we transfer the obligation to take an oath and impose it on the other litigant, i.e., the claimant, who may take an oath and collect that which he claims he is owed. With regard to an oath administered by rabbinic law, the court does not transfer the oath, as transference of an oath is by rabbinic ordinance, and we do not institute one rabbinic ordinance upon another rabbinic ordinance.

וּלְרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמְרוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא נָחֲתִינַן לְנִכְסֵיהּ – מַאי עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ? מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, as they say that with regard to an item that is owed by rabbinic law, we do not enter his property to collect the item, what do we do to one who refuses to take an oath of inducement? The Gemara answers: We excommunicate him until he takes an oath.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי נָקְטֵיהּ בְּכוּבְסֵיהּ דְּנִשְׁבְּקֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ הוּא! אֶלָּא מַאי עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּמָטֵי זְמַן נִגְדֵּיהּ, וְנָגְדִינַן לֵיהּ וְשָׁבְקִינַן לֵיהּ.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This sanction is no less severe than entering his property and collecting the debt; it is like grabbing him by his testicles [bekhuveseih] until he surrenders his cloak. Rather, what do we do to him? Rav Ashi said to him: We excommunicate him until the time to flog him comes, i.e., for thirty days, and if he still refuses to take an oath or reach a settlement with the claimant, we flog him and then leave him alone.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַאן דְּאַפֵּיק שְׁטָרָא עַל חַבְרֵיהּ, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁטָרָא פְּרִיעַ הוּא – אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינָּךְ, זִיל שַׁלֵּים. וְאִם אָמַר: לִשְׁתְּבַע לִי, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אִשְׁתְּבַע לֵיהּ.

§ Rav Pappa said: With regard to one who produced a promissory note against another in court, and the defendant said to him: The debt in the note is already repaid, but for some reason I did not get the promissory note returned to me when I paid you, we say to the defendant: It is not in your power to deny the debt; go pay. But if the defendant said: Let him take an oath to me that I did not repay him, we say to the claimant: Take an oath to him.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמָה בֵּין זֶה לְפוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But what is the difference between this case and the case of one who vitiates his promissory note by acknowledging that he has received partial payment? In the latter case, the Sages instituted that the creditor can collect the remainder of the debt only after taking an oath that he was not repaid more than the amount he admitted receiving. According to Rav Pappa, an oath can be administered to any creditor who produces a promissory note, even if he did not vitiate it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא טָעֵין אִיהוּ – טָעֲנִינַן לֵיהּ אֲנַן; הָכָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁלֵּים לֵיהּ, וְאִי טָעֵין וְאָמַר אִשְׁתְּבַע לִי – אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זִיל אִשְׁתְּבַע לֵיהּ. וְאִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא – לָא מַשְׁבְּעִינַן לֵיהּ.

Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the case of a creditor who vitiated his promissory note, even if the defendant does not himself make a claim demanding that the creditor take an oath, we, the court, make such a claim on his behalf. Here, in a case where the creditor did not vitiate his promissory note, we say to the defendant: Go pay him the debt, but if the defendant demands an oath, saying: Take an oath to me, we say to the creditor: Go take an oath to him. And if he is a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan], we do not administer an oath to him.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן מַשְׁלַח גְּלִימָא דְּאִינָשֵׁי?! אֶלָּא לָא מִזְדַּקְקִינַן לֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Can a Torah scholar uncloak people? Does his being a Torah scholar give him the right to collect money that the defendant claims he does not owe? Rather, if he is a Torah scholar we do not attend to his case.

״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם״.

§ The mishna teaches that if the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant initially acknowledged the debt, but when he claimed the money the next day the defendant said that he already repaid him, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if there are no witnesses to the fact that he repaid him, he is liable. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me that the debtor can say to the claimant: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas.

תְּנַן: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ ״הֵן״; לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי״, ״נְתַתִּיו לָךְ״ – פָּטוּר. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּתַבְעֵיהּ בְּעֵדִים – כְּמַאן דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ בְּעֵדִים דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי פָּטוּר!

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Asi’s statement: We learned in the mishna that in a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the latter said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, if the defendant responded: I gave it to you, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: And here, since the claimant claimed the debt from the defendant in the presence of witnesses, and the latter admitted the debt, he is similar to one who lent him the money in the presence of witnesses, and nevertheless, the mishna teaches that the defendant is exempt.

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַסִּי!

Evidently, he is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi.

אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: אֲנָא כִּי אָמְרִי – הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אוֹזְפֵיהּ בְּעֵדִים, דְּלָא לְדִידֵיהּ הֵימְנֵיהּ; הָכָא – הָא הֵימְנֵיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rav Asi could have said to you: When I said that the debtor is liable to repay him in the presence of witnesses, it was with regard to a case where the creditor lent the money to him in the presence of witnesses at the outset, as he did not trust him. But here, he trusted him at the outset, as he lent it to him in the absence of witnesses. Therefore, the debtor is not required to repay the debt in the presence of witnesses.

רַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִי הָכִי – אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים״ – צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם״.

Rav Yosef teaches another version of this discussion, like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter need not repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor said: Repay me only in the presence of witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Rav Yehuda continued: When I said this in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me that the debtor can say to the claimant: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas.

תְּנַן: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ ״הֵן״; אָמַר לוֹ: ״אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים״; לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי״, ״נְתַתִּיו לָךְ״ – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְּעֵדִים. תְּיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל!

The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that in a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, and the claimant then said to him: Give the money to me only in the presence of witnesses, then if the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is liable to pay, as he is required to give it to him in the presence of witnesses. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּעֵדִים הִלְוִיתִיךָ, בְּעֵדִים פְּרַע לִי״ – אוֹ יִתֵּן, אוֹ יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּתַן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם״.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If the creditor said to the debtor: I lent the money to you in the presence of witnesses and therefore you must repay me in the presence of witnesses, the debtor must either give him the money or bring proof that he already gave it to him. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that he can say to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they subsequently went overseas.

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחָא: מִמַּאי דְּבִשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה קָאֵי? דִּלְמָא בִּשְׁעַת תְּבִיעָה קָאֵי – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָאו בְּעֵדִים הִלְוִיתִיךָ? בְּעֵדִים הָיָה לְךָ לְפוֹרְעֵנִי!״ אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב.

Rav Aḥa refutes this answer: From where is it derived that the baraita is referring to a case where the creditor said this at the time of the loan? Perhaps it is referring to a case where he made no stipulation at the time of the loan, but rather said this at the time of the claim, when the debtor claimed that he had repaid the debt; and this is what he says to him: Didn’t I lend the money you in the presence of witnesses? You should have repaid me in the presence of witnesses. But if he made this stipulation at the time of the loan, all agree that the debtor is liable. Therefore, there is no evidence that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira agrees with the opinion of Shmuel.

אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים. וְרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים, וְאִם אָמַר ״אַל תִּפְרָעֵנִי אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים״ – צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים; וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם״ – נֶאֱמָן.

In conclusion, Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor says: Repay me only in the presence of witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And if he said to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas, his claim is deemed credible.

סִימָן – רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתָנוּ הִלְכְתָא, יָזְפִי וּפָרַע, פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, עַפְצֵי סִטְרָאֵי, בְּהֵימָנוּתָא כְּבֵי תְרֵי.

§ The Gemara cites several incidents involving loans and witnesses, and provides a mnemonic device for them: Reuven and Shimon, who learned halakha, borrowed, and repaid so-and-so and so-and-so gallnuts for a different debt, deeming them credible like two witnesses.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״כִּי (פָּרְעַתַּן) [פָּרְעַתְּ לִי], פִּרְעַן (לִי) בְּאַפֵּי רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן״. אֲזַל וּפַרְעֵיהּ בְּאַפֵּי תְרֵי מֵעָלְמָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי תְרֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי תְרֵי פַּרְעֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: לְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״בְּאַפֵּי רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן״ – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִדְחֲיֵיהּ!

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of Reuven and Shimon. The debtor went and repaid him in the presence of two other witnesses from the general public. When the case was brought before the Sages, Abaye said: The creditor said to the debtor to repay him in the presence of two people who would serve as witnesses, and he repaid him in the presence of two people. Therefore, the creditor has no further claim. Rava said to him: It is for this reason that the creditor said to him to repay him in the presence of Reuven and Shimon: So that he will not be able to dismiss him by saying that he repaid him in the presence of other witnesses.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״כִּי פָּרְעַתְּ לִי, פִּרְעַן (לִי) בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי תְרֵי דְּתָנוּ הִלְכְתָא״. אֲזַל פַּרְעֵיהּ בֵּין דִּילֵיהּ לְדִילֵיהּ, אִיתְּנִיסוּ הָנָךְ זוּזֵי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of two people who have learned halakha. The debtor went and repaid him between the two of them, i.e., in the absence of witnesses. Those dinars were subsequently taken from the creditor due to circumstances beyond his control.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִין, קַבּוֹלֵי קַבֵּלְתִּינְהוּ מִינֵּיהּ – דֶּרֶךְ פִּקָּדוֹן; וְאָמֵינָא לֶיהֱוֵי גַּבַּאי פִּקָּדוֹן, עַד דְּמִתְרְמוּ בֵּי תְרֵי דְּתָנוּ הִלְכְתָא וּמְקַיֵּים תְּנָאֵיהּ״.

The creditor came before Rav Naḥman for judgment, and said to him: Yes, I received the money from him; but since he did not repay me as stipulated, I accepted it only as a deposit. I accepted it as an unpaid bailee, not as payment, and said to myself: Let it be with me as a deposit until two people who have learned halakha happen to arrive, and the debtor will fulfill his condition. Since the money was taken from me due to circumstances beyond my control, and I had it in my possession only as an unpaid bailee, I am not responsible for it, and the debtor is still liable to repay me.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מוֹדֵית דְּוַדַּאי שְׁקַלְתִּינְהוּ מִינֵּיהּ – פֵּרָעוֹן מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי; אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְקַיּוֹמֵי תְּנָאֵיהּ – זִיל אַיְיתִינְהוּ. דְּהָא אֲנָא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, דִּתְנֵינָא הִלְכְתָא וְסִפְרָא וְסִפְרֵי וְתוֹסֶפְתָּא וְכוֹלָּא תַּלְמוּדָא.

Rav Naḥman said to him: Since you admit that you certainly took the money from him, it is a proper repayment. If you say that the debtor is still required to fulfill his condition, go bring the money now, as Rav Sheshet and I have learned halakha, and Sifra, and Sifrei, and Tosefta, and the entire Talmud. Let him give you the money in our presence, and the condition will thereby be fulfilled. Since he gave you the money intending to repay the debt, and did not agree to entrust it to you as an unpaid bailee, your claim is not valid.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי מְאָה זוּזֵי דְּאוֹזֵיפְתָּךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ וּפַרְעֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי נִיעְבּוּד? אִינְהוּ אָמְרִי אוֹזְפֵיהּ, אִינְהוּ אָמְרִי פַּרְעֵיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״לֹא לָוִיתִי״ – כְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי״ דָּמֵי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I lent you. The latter said to him: This matter never happened; you did not lend me money. The creditor went and brought witnesses who testified that he lent the money to him and that the debtor had repaid him. Abaye said: What is there for the court to do in this case? The same witnesses said both statements; they said that the creditor lent him the money, and they also said that the debtor repaid him. Rava said: Anyone who says: I did not borrow, is considered like one who says: I did not repay. Since there is testimony that he borrowed the money, and he admits that he did not repay it, he is liable to repay the debt.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי מְאָה זוּזֵי דְּמַסֵּיקְנָא בָּךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי?״ אֲתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אָמְרִי: ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״. סָבַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְמֵימַר: הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּאִינָשׁ – לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: Didn’t I repay you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so? The two people he mentioned, so-and-so and so-and-so, came and said: This matter never happened. Rav Sheshet thought to say that based on the testimony of the witnesses, the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts; his claim that he repaid the debt is no longer accepted, and he is liable to pay. Rava said to him: Anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind, i.e., he is apt to forget it.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי שֵׁית מְאָה זוּזֵי דְּמַסֵּיקְנָא בָּךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְלָא פְּרַעְתָּיךָ מְאָה קַבֵּי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the six hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: But didn’t I repay you with one hundred kav