Bava Metzia

and then declared, 'I will not pay': do we say, he has retracted; or perhaps, he intended keeping his word, and was merely repulsing him [the bailor]?  [Again,] if he declared, 'I will pay,' and died, whilst his sons declared, 'We will not pay,' what then? Do we say, they have retracted: or perhaps, they are keeping to their father's word, but merely repulsed him? [Again,] what if the sons did pay? Can he [the bailor] say to them, 'I made over the [right of receiving] double repayment to your father only, because he did me a favour,  but not to you': or perhaps, there is no difference? What if he [the bailee] paid to the sons?  Can they say to him, 'Our father made over the double repayment to you because you did him a favour; but as for ourselves, you have done nothing for us'; or perhaps, there is no difference? What if the heirs [of the bailee] paid to the heirs [of the bailor]? What if he paid a half?  What if he borrowed two cows and paid for one of them?  What if he borrowed from partners and paid one of them?  What if partners borrowed and one of them paid?  What if one borrowed from a woman and paid her husband?  What if a woman borrowed and her husband paid? The questions stand. R. Huna said: He [the bailee] is made to swear that it is not in his possession.  Why? We fear that he may have cast his eyes upon it. An objection is raised: If one lends his neighbour on a pledge and the pledge is lost, and he [the lender] says to him [the debtor], 'I lent you a sela' on it, and it was [only] worth a shekel';  whilst the other maintains, 'Not so; you did lend me a sela' upon it and it was worth a sela':' he is free [from an oath].  'I lent you a sela' on it and it was worth a shekel, whilst the other maintains, 'Not so; you did lend me a sela' on it, and it was worth three denarii;'  he is liable [to an oath].  [If the debtor pleads,] 'You did lend me a sela' on it, whilst it was worth two;' and the other replies, 'Not so: I lent you a sela' on it and it was worth a sela';' he is free [from an oath].  'You did lend me a sela' on it and it was worth two,' whilst the other replies, 'Not so: I lent you a sela' on it and it was worth five denarii,' he is liable [to an oath]. Now, who must swear? He who has the bailment [i.e., the creditor], lest the other swear and then this one produce the bailment.  To what does this  refer? Shall we say, to the second clause; but that [the oath rests upon the creditor] follows from the fact that it is he who makes partial admission!  — But, said Samuel, it refers to the first clause. How can it refer to the first clause?  — He means the second subsection of the first clause, [viz.,] 'I lent you a sela' on it and it was worth a shekel,' whilst the other maintains, 'Not so: you did lend me a sela' on it, and it was worth three denarii:' he is liable [to an oath]. Now, the onus of the oath lies upon the debtor,  yet the Rabbis ordered that the creditor should swear, lest this one [sc. the debtor] swear and then the other produce the pledge. But if