Shevuot — Daf 40a

תדע דקא תני סיפא דינר זהב לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא דינר כסף וטריסית ופונדיון ופרוטה חייב שהכל מין מטבע [אחת] הן א"א בשלמא שוה משום הכי חייב אלא אי אמרת דוקא אמאי חייב

אמר רבי אלעזר בשטענו בדינר מטבעות וקא משמע לן דפרוטה בכלל מטבע איתא דיקא נמי דקתני שהכל מין מטבע אחת

ורב שהכל דין מטבע אחת

ורבי אלעזר לימא מדסיפא כשמואל מתרץ רישא נמי כשמואל סבירא ליה

לא סיפא דוקא דקתני שהכל מין מטבע אחת ורישא כרב או כשמואל

תא שמע דינר זהב זהוב לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא דינר כסף חייב טעמא דאמר ליה זהב זהוב הא סתמא שוה קאמר ליה

אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר כל האומר דינר זהב כאומר דינר זהב זהוב דמי

תני רבי חייא לסיועיה לרב סלע לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא סלע חסר ב' כסף חייב חסר מעה פטור

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בטענת מלוה והודאת לוה אבל טענת מלוה והעדאת עד אחד אפילו לא טענו אלא בפרוטה חייב

מאי טעמא דכתיב (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת לכל עון ולכל חטאת הוא דאינו קם אבל קם הוא לשבועה ותניא כל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון עד אחד מחייבו שבועה

ואמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל טענו חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן חייב

אמר לו רבי יצחק יישר וכן א"ר יוחנן מכלל דפליג עליה ר"ל איכא דאמרי מישהא הוה שהי ליה ושתיק ליה איכא דאמרי מישתא הוה שתי ליה ושתיק ליה

לימא מסייע ליה טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין פטור ורבן גמליאל מחייב טעמא דטענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין הא חטין ושעורין והודה לו באחד מהן חייב

לא הוא הדין דאפי' חטין ושעורין נמי פטור והאי דקמיפלגי בחטין להודיעך כחו דר"ג

ת"ש טענו כלים וקרקעות הודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות בקרקעות וכפר בכלים פטור

Know [that this is so],1 for it states in a later clause: ‘A GOLDEN DENAR OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A SILVER DENAR, OR A TRESIS, OR A PUNDION, OR A PERUTAH,’ HE IS LIABLE, FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE.2 Granted, if you say [the Mishnah deals with] values, therefore he is liable;3 but if you say it means them literally, why is he liable?4 — R. Eleazar said: [It means] he claimed from him a denar in coins; and he teaches us that a perutah is in the category of coin.5 This also is evidence [that the Mishnah means this], for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE. And Rab?6 — All coins are subject to the same law.7 Now, as to R. Eleazar: shall we say, that, since he expounds the latter clause in accordance with the view of Samuel,8 he agrees in the first clause also with Samuel?9 — No! The latter clause is definitely intended literally, for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE; but the first clause may be either in accordance with the view of Rab10 or Samuel. Come and hear: ‘A golden denar coin of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a silver denar,’ he is liable. Now the reason [he is liable] is because he said to him ‘a golden coin,’11 but if he had said simply [‘a golden denar’], he would have implied its value!12 — R. Ashi said: Thus it means: If he says, a golden denar, it is as if he said, a golden denar coin.13 R. Hiyya taught in support of Rab: ‘A sela’ of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a sela’,14 less two ma'ahs,’ he is liable; ‘less one ma'ah’, he is exempt.15 R. Nahman b. Isaac16 said that Samuel said: They did not teach this17 except in the case of a claim of a creditor and admission [of a portion] on the part of the debtor; but in the case of a claim of a creditor and the testimony of one witness, even if he claimed only a perutah, he is liable.18 What is the reason? Because it is written, One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin;19 for any iniquity, or for any sin, he does not rise up, but he rises up for an oath; and it was taught: Wherever two [witnesses] make him liable for money, one witness makes him liable for an oath. And R. Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and the other admitted one of them, he is liable .20 Said R. Isaac to him: ‘Correct! And so said R. Johanan.’ Do we infer that Resh Lakish disagrees with him?21 — Some say, he was waiting and was silent;22 and some say, he was drinking and was silent. Shall we say this supports him: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM WHEAT, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT; BUT R. GAMALIEL MAKES HIM LIABLE.23 — The reason [he is exempt] is because he claimed from him wheat, and he admitted barley; but [if he claimed from him] wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, he is liable!24 — No! The same rule applies: even [if he claimed] wheat and barley, [and the other admitted one,] he is also exempt; and why they disagree in the case of wheat is to show you the power of R. Gamaliel.25 Come and hear: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM VESSELS AND LANDS, AND HE ADMITTED THE VESSELS, AND DENIED THE LANDS; OR [ADMITTED] THE LANDS, AND DENIED THE VESSELS, HE IS EXEMPT; means actual coins; and it teaches us that though the claim is for a gold coin and the admission is a silver or copper coin, he is liable, because they are all coins (and the admission is therefore of the same kind as the claim), and that even a perutah (the value of which is very small) is still counted a coin. the smallest (a perutah) is of sufficient value to be the amount of admission in a claim. because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim; but if he claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods to the value of a perutah, he would be liable, though the claim was only two ma'ahs (and not two ma'ahs and a perutah), and, after admission, was less than two ma'ahs. claim. Mishnah means value, the first clause also means value. Now, the first clause states that if one claims two ma'ahs (goods to that value), and the other admits a perutah (goods to that value), he is exempt — obviously, because the denial is less than two ma'ahs. This, therefore, supports Rab. to mentioning coin. The claim is a coin, and the admission a coin, therefore he is liable. Hence, we cannot deduce that if he said golden denar (without coin) he meant value, and obtain from this (via the Mishnah) support for Rab. the rest. the whole claim was only for a perutah; for if there had been two witnesses, the debtor would have had to pay; and wherever two witnesses impose payment, one witness imposes an oath. present case, R. Isaac left the Academy before R. Johanan ended the lecture, and did not know whether later Resh Lakish disagreed with him or not.