Bava Metzia

while the oath that you would impose by the evidence of several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt [not included in the evidence], which is denied by the defendant.  [In consequence of this refutation] R. Papa says: The inference is really drawn from an 'attached oath'  [caused by the evidence of] one witness. But [to this also it could be objected]: Is not the 'attached oath' of one witness more weighty, in that [in this case] one oath carries with it another oath,  while several witnesses only oblige the defendant to pay money?  — The case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.  But [it is again objected]: is not 'his own mouth' more weighty in that it cannot be refuted by a denial [on the part of witnesses]? — The case of 'one witness' will prove it, in that he can be refuted [by other witnesses] and yet he obliges the defendant to take an oath. But [it is objected once more]: [The oath imposed by] one witness refers only to the part of the debt to which the witness testifies [and which the defendant denies], while [the oath that is imposed by] several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt — [not included in the evidence and] denied by the defendant? — Again the case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.  But [it is again objected]: Is not 'his own mouth' [in a case of admission] more effective in that it cannot be refuted by a denial [on the part of witnesses]? — The case of one witness will prove it, in that he can be refuted by the denial [of other witnesses] and yet he obliges the defendant to take an oath. But [it is objected once more]: [The oath that is imposed by] several witnesses refers to the remainder of the debt denied by the defendant [and not included in the evidence]? — Again, the case of 'his own mouth' will prove it.  And the [former] argument resumes its force. [It is true that] the aspect of one case is not like the aspect of the other case; but both cases have the common characteristic that they arise through claim and denial, and therefore the defendant has to swear. So I adduce that also in the case of 'witnesses,' arising as it does through claim and denial, the defendant has to swear. But [it is again argued]: Have not the other analogous cases the common characteristic that the defendant is not presumed to be a liar, while in the case of 'witnesses' he is presumed to be a liar?  [The objection, however, is at once raised:] Is the defendant really presumed to be a liar when contradicted by witnesses? Has not R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Hisda said: He who denies a loan  can still be accepted as a witness, but he who denies a deposit cannot be accepted as a witness?  Therefore argue this way: Have not the other cases the common characteristic that they are not subject to the law of retaliation in case of an alibi,  while [several] witnesses are subject to the law of retaliation in case of an alibi? — This presents no difficulty: R. Hiyya attaches no importance to the argument from the law of retaliation in case of an alibi. There is, however, another difficulty: How could it be said that our Tanna teaches the same [as R. Hiyya] — are the two cases at all alike? There [viz., in the case of R. Hiyya] the creditor has witnesses [for half the amount claimed], but the debtor has no witnesses [regarding the other half] that he does not owe him it. For if the debtor had witnesses that he did not owe him anything [of the other half claimed], R. Hiyya would not require the debtor to swear [regarding the other half]. But here [in our Mishnah] we are witnesses for the one party as much as for the other [in regard to the right of either to one half of the garment], and yet both have to swear. It must therefore be assumed that the statement 'And our Tanna teaches the same' refers to another decision of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya says: [If one says to another,] 'You have in your possession a hundred zuz belonging to me,' and the other says, 'I have only got fifty' and [here they are],  he has to swear [concerning the disputed amount].  For what reason? Because [the offer implied in the words] 'Here they are' is like a 'partial admission' [which necessitates an oath]. And our Tanna teaches the same: TWO HOLD A GARMENT, etc., and although here each one holds [the garment], and we are witnesses that the part that each one holds is like the part of the debt which the defendant [in the other case] is ready to deliver, yet it says that he must swear! R. Shesheth, however, says that [the offer implied in the words] 'Here they are' relieves the debtor of the oath — For what reason? Because the declaration 'Here they are' made by the debtor enables us to regard those [fifty] zuz, which he has admitted to be owing, as if they were already in the hands of the creditor, while the remaining fifty [zuz] the debtor does not admit to be owing, and therefore there is no 'partial admission' [that necessitates an oath]. But according to R. Shesheth there is a difficulty about our Mishnah?  — R. Shesheth may reply: [The oath in] our Mishnah is an institution of the Rabbis.  And his opponent? [He will say:] Yes, it is an institution of the Rabbis: but if you maintain that according to Biblical Law the offer of 'Here they are' carries with it an oath, then it is right that the Rabbis imposed an oath upon the litigants [in our Mishnah], for they follow herein the principle underlying the Biblical Law. But if you say that the offer of 'Here they are' exempts, according to Biblical Law, [the debtor who made it] from taking an oath, then how can the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] impose an oath which is unlike any Biblical oath? An objection is now raised: