Bava Batra

so as to be quit of him. We have learnt: EACH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE GIVEN HIS SHARE UNTIL THE OTHER BRINGS PROOF THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he says to the claimant: I paid when the payment was due?  Then it is self-evident that he is presumed to have given.  We must suppose then that he pleads: I paid you before the payment was due. This would show, [would it not], that it is not unusual for a man to pay a debt before it is due? — Here the case is different, because with every layer [of the wall that is finished some] payment becomes due. Come and hear [this]: HE IS PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE GIVEN UNTIL HE ADDUCES PRO OF THAT HE HAS GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to assume that he says to him: I paid you when payment became due?  If so, why should we not take his word? We must suppose therefore that he says, I paid you before payment became due; which would show, [would it not], that it is not unusual for a man to pay before the time? — The case here is different, since he may say to himself, How do I know that the Rabbis will make me pay? R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua followed in practice the ruling of Abaye and Raba, whereas Mar son of R. Ashi followed Resh Lakish — The law is as stated by Resh Lakish, and [the ruling applies] even to orphans,  in spite of what has been laid down by a Master, that one who seeks to recover a debt from the property of orphans need not be paid unless he first takes an oath, because the presumption is that a man does not pay a debt before it falls due. The question was raised: If the creditor claims payment some time after the debt falls due, and the debtor pleads, I paid it before it fell due, how do we decide? Do we say that even where there is a presumption [against him]  we plead [on his behalf], 'what motive has he to tell a lie',