Bava Metzia

and he [the debtor] said [later], 'I have paid [as ordered]', he is believed.  [If then] the lender comes [to the Court and asks for a decree] to be written,  [the decree] may not be written and given to him. [But if the Court said to the debtor,] 'You are obliged to give him [what you owe him],' and he [the debtor] said [later], 'I have paid,' he is not believed. [If  then] the lender comes [to the Court and asks for a decree] to be written, [the decree] may be written and given to him. R. Zebid said in the name of R. Nahman: Whether [the Court said], 'Go [and] give him' or [it said] 'You are obliged to give him,' if [the debtor subsequently comes and] says, 'I have paid,' he is believed. [If then] the lender comes [to the Court and asks for a decree] to be written, [the decree] may not be written and given to him. If, therefore, [the wording of the Court's decision] is to make a difference [at all], the difference can only apply to the following cases: If they [the members of the Court] said to him [the debtor], 'Go [and] give him [what you owe him],' and he [the debtor] said [later], 'I have paid [as ordered],' and witnesses testify that he did not pay him,  while he repeats his assertion that he did pay,  [then we say:] 'He has been found to be a liar in regard to this money.'  [But if the Court said to the debtor,] 'You are obliged to give him [what you owe him], and he [the debtor] said later, 'I have paid,' and witnesses testify that he did not pay,  while he repeats his assertion that he did pay,  [then we say:] 'He has not been found to be a liar in regard to this money.'  For what reason? — [We say that the debtor] was just trying to put him off, thinking to gain time until the Rabbis would consider their decision more carefully. Rabba b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: [If one says to another], 'You have in your possession  a hundred zuz belonging to me,' and the other replies, 'I have nothing belonging to you,' while witnesses testify that he [the defendant] has [the money], and he [the defendant] again pleads, 'I paid it,' [then we say], 'He has been found to be a liar in regard to this money.' Such was the case of Sabbathai, the son of R. Merinus: He assigned to his daughter-in-law in her Kethubah  a cloak of fine wool, and he pledged himself to it. Her Kethubah got lost, [whereupon] he [Sabbathai] said to her,  'I deny altogether [having assigned to you the cloak].' [But] witnesses came and said, 'Yes, he did assign it to her.' In the end he said, 'I gave it to her.' He then appeared before R. Hiyya,  [and R. Hiyya] said to him: You have been found to be a liar in regard to this cloak.' R. Abin said in the name of R. Elai, who said in the name of R. Johanan: If one was due [to take] an oath [in regard] to [a claim of] his neighbour, and he said, 'I took the oath,' but witnesses testify that he did not take the oath, while he repeats the assertion, 'I did take the oath,' [we say:] 'He has been found to be a liar in regard to this oath.'  This [decision] was conveyed to R. Abbahu, [whereupon] he said: R. Abin's decision seems right [in a case where] the oath was imposed upon [the defendant] by a Court of Law,  but [in a case where the defendant] imposed an oath upon himself,  [he is believed,]  for it happens that a person talks like this.  [When this observation] was conveyed back to R. Abin, he said: I also spoke of a court case. And it was also stated so [in another place]: R. Abin said in the name of R. Elai, who said in the name of R. Johanan: If one was due [to take] an oath in a Court of Law [in regard] to [a claim of] his neighbour, and he said, 'I took the oath,' but witnesses testify that he did not take the oath, while he repeats the assertion, 'I did take the oath', [we say:] He has been found a liar in regard to this oath. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If one finds in the street a note of indebtedness which contains the endorsement of the Court  and the date of that very day,  it shall be returned to the owners. [For] if [the objection is raised that] it may have been written for the purpose of a loan, and the loan may [in fact] not have been granted, [the objection is not valid,] as [the note] contains the endorsement of the Court,  [and] if [the objection is raised] that [the loan] may have been repaid, [the objection is not valid,] as we are not afraid of a loan having been repaid on the day [on which it was granted]. R. Zera then said to R. Assi: Did R. Johanan really teach this? Did you not yourself teach in the name of R. Johanan [as follows]: A note which was given for a loan that was [subsequently] repaid cannot be used for the purpose of another loan, because the obligation [incurred by the first loan] was cancelled [on it being repaid]?  Now, when [was the note to be used again]? If on the following day or on any date later [than that given in the note], why state as a reason the fact that the obligation [incurred by the first loan] was cancelled? [The invalidity of the note] follows from the fact that it is antedated,  for we have learned in a Mishnah: Antedated notes of indebtedness are invalid.  It must therefore be assumed that [the note was to be used a second time] on the same day [as that given in the note]: so we see that people do pay on the same day [as they borrow]? — R. Assi answered him: Did I say that one never pays [a debt on the day it is incurred]? I said: people do not usually pay on the same day. R. Kahana said: [The lost document is to be returned  to the owner] when the debtor admits [that he has not paid]. But if so, [it is asked,] why need we be told this? — [Because] you might say: This [debtor] has really paid, and the reason why he says he has not paid is that he wishes to have [the note] returned [to the creditor] so that he may borrow on it again and thus save the scribe's fees.  Therefore we are told [that we do not say this, the reason being] that in such circumstances the lender himself would not permit it, thinking the Rabbis may hear of it and make me lose [my money].  But why is this case different from the one we have learned.  IF ONE HAS FOUND NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS WHICH CONTAIN A CLAUSE PLEDGING [THE DEBTOR'S] PROPERTY, ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM — and it is explained as referring to a case where the debtor admits [the debt], and [the note has not to be returned] for the reason that it may have been written for the purpose of a loan to be granted in Nisan, while in reality the loan may not have been granted till Tishri, with the result that the creditor may come unlawfully to seize property bought by people [from the debtor] between Nisan and Tishri. Now, why do we not say [there also] that in such circumstances the lender himself would not permit [the note to be used in Tishri] but would say to him [the borrower]: Write another note in Tishri, as otherwise the Rabbis may hear of it and make me lose [my money]? — It was said [in reply]: There [in the Mishnah], seeing that he [the lender] would profit by seizing property sold [by the debtor] between Nisan and Tishri, he [the lender] would be content and would say nothing. But here, seeing that he [the lender] would have no profit, as after all the note has only just been written,  what advantage is there in that note as regards seizing sold property?  [Therefore we may assume that the lender] will not permit [the renewed use of] a note, the obligation of which expired [when the first loan was paid]. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Whoever pleads after an act of the Court