Bava Batra — Daf 70b

סוף סוף כי אמר ליה נאנסו לאו שבועה בעי ה"נ מאי נאמן נאמן בשבועה

לימא בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא שטר כיס היוצא על היתומים דייני גולה אמרי נשבע וגובה כולו ודייני א"י אמרי נשבע וגובה מחצה

ודכולי עלמא אית להו דנהרדעי דאמרי נהרדעי האי עיסקא פלגא מלוה ופלגא פקדון

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר מצי א"ל שטרך בידי מאי בעי ומר סבר לא אמרי

לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב חסדא והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר אם איתא דפרעיה מימר הוה אמר ומר סבר אימור מלאך המות הוא דאנסיה

שלח רב הונא בר אבין המפקיד אצל חבירו בשטר ואמר לו החזרתיו לך נאמן ושטר כיס היוצא על היתומין נשבע וגובה כולו

תרתי שאני התם דאם איתא דפרעיה מימר הוה אמר

רבא אמר הלכתא נשבע וגובה מחצה אמר מר זוטרא הלכתא כדייני גולה א"ל רבינא למר זוטרא הא אמר רבא נשבע וגובה מחצה אמר ליה אנן דדייני גולה

is said and done, even if he pleads that it was taken from him by violence, is he not required to take an oath?  Here too, when I say that we accept his word, I mean that we accept it on his taking an oath. May we say that the point at issue [between R. Hisda and R. Amram] is the same as that between the following Tannaim,  as it has been taught: 'If a claim is made against orphans on the ground of a "purse bond",  the judges of the Exile  say that the claimant is entitled on taking an oath  to recover the whole, but the judges of Eretz Yisrael  say that he is entitled on taking an oath to recover only half.'  Now all authorities accept the view of the Nehardeans who say that this transaction is half a loan and half a deposit.  May we not say then that the point in which they differ is this, that the one authority [the judges of the Exile] holds that the claimant may plead effectively, 'How comes your bond to be in my hand',  and the other holds that he cannot? — No; all concur in the view of R. Hisda [that he cannot], and here the point of difference is this, that the one [the judges of the Exile] holds that if the borrower had paid [before his death] he would have told [his children],  while the other holds that we may presume death  to have prevented him. R. Huna b. Abin sent a message  that if a man places a deposit with another and receives an acknowledgment and the latter subsequently asserts that he has returned it, his word is accepted;  and if a claim is made against orphans on the ground of a 'purse bond', the claimant is entitled on taking an oath to recover the whole.  Have we not here two [contradictory rulings]? — In the second case there is a special reason, that if he had paid he would have told his children. Raba said: The law is that the claimant is entitled to take an oath and recover half.  Mar Zutra said that the law follows the decision of the judges of the Exile.  Said Rabina to Mar Zutra: Has not Raba laid down that he is entitled to take an oath and recover [only] half?  — He replied: In our version the reverse opinion is ascribed to the judges of the Exile.