Bava Metzia

[When a plaintiff produces a promissory note for] sela's  or denarii  [without any figures], the creditor says, it is for five [sela's or denarii], and the debtor says, it is for three, R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Seeing that [the debtor] has admitted part of the claim, he must take an oath [for the rest]. R. Akiba says: He is only like a restorer of lost [property],  and he is free [from taking an oath]. In any case we are told that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, 'Seeing that he has admitted part of the claim, he must take an oath'. Now the reason is presumably that [the debtor] said 'three', but [if he had said] 'two' he would have been free [from the oath], and seeing that the admission of 'two', for which the note is sufficient evidence, is like [the offer] 'Here they are',  it follows that 'Here they are' does not involve an oath? — No; I could quite well maintain that when he says 'two' he also has to take an oath, and the reason why 'three' is stated is to express disagreement with R. Akiba, who maintains that the debtor [who says 'three'] is like a restorer of lost [property] and free [from taking an oath]. We are thus informed that he is like one who admits part of the claim, and that he has to take an oath.  But if this is so, [and 'two' also involves an oath,] should not R. Simeon b. Eleazar, who says, 'Seeing that he has admitted part of the claim he must take an oath,' have said instead: He also must swear?  — Therefore it must be assumed that 'two' is free, and 'Here they are' involves an oath, but our present case is different, because the written document supports him,  or because the written document has the effect of pledging the debtor's landed property [to the creditor,] and no oath is taken in a dispute connected with mortgaged land. Some construe the objection from the latter clause: 'R. Akiba says, he is only like the restorer of lost [property], and he is free [from taking an oath].' Now the reason is presumably that he said 'three', but [if he had said] 'two'  he would have had to swear; and seeing that the admission [of 'two'], for which the note is sufficient evidence, is like [the offer] 'Here they are', it follows that 'Here they are necessitates an oath? — No; I could quite well maintain that when he says 'two' he is also free [from taking an oath], and the reason why 'three' is stated is to express disagreement with R. Simeon b. Eleazar, who says that [the debtor] is like one who admits part of the claim, and he has to take an oath: We are thus informed that he is like the restorer of lost [property], and he is free [from taking an oath]. And, indeed, this stands to reason, for if we were to assume that 'two' necessitates an oath, how could R. Akiba dispense with the oath in the case of 'three': this [debtor] could surely employ a ruse, In that he might think: If I say 'two' I shall have to swear; I will say 'three', so that I shall be like a restorer of a loss, and I shall be free. Therefore we must conclude that [if he says] 'two' he is also free. But does not a difficulty arise as regards R. Hiyya?  — There  it is different, for the written document supports him,  or because the written document has the effect of pledging the debtor's landed property, and no oath is taken in a dispute connected with mortgaged land. Mar Zutra, the son of R. Nahman, then asked: [We learnt:] If one claims vessels and land, and the claim in regard to the vessels is admitted, but the claim in regard to the land is disputed, or the claim in regard to the land is admitted, but the claim in regard to the vessels is disputed, the debtor is free [from taking an oath in regard to the disputed claim]. If he admits part of the claim in regard to the land, he is free [from taking an oath]; if he admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath].  Now the reason why [he is free when the claim concerns both land and vessels] is [presumably] that an oath does not apply to land, but where the claim concerns two sets of vessels, in the same way as the claim regarding the land and the vessels,  he is obliged to [take an oath]: how is this to be understood? Is it not that the debtor said to the creditor, 'Here they are'? So it follows that 'Here they are' necessitates an oath!  — No; I can quite well maintain that [when] two sets of vessels [are claimed] he is also free [from taking an oath], but the reason why 'vessels and land' are mentioned is to let us know that when [the debtor] admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath] even as regards the land. What new information does he proffer us? The law of extension of obligation? We have learnt this already:  Chattels which do not offer security  are attached to chattels which offer security,  in regard to the imposition of an oath [upon the debtor]!  — [The Mishnah quoted] here  is the principal place [for this law]; there  it is only mentioned incidentally.