שבועות 40:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Know [that this is so], for it states in a later clause: ‘A GOLDEN DENAR OF MINE HAVE YOU IN YOUR POSSESSION.’ — ‘I HAVE OF YOURS IN MY POSSESSION ONLY A SILVER DENAR, OR A TRESIS, OR A PUNDION, OR A PERUTAH,’ HE IS LIABLE, FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE. Granted, if you say [the Mishnah deals with] values, therefore he is liable; but if you say it means them literally, why is he liable? — R. Eleazar said: [It means] he claimed from him a denar in coins; and he teaches us that a perutah is in the category of coin. This also is evidence [that the Mishnah means this], for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE. And Rab? — All coins are subject to the same law. Now, as to R. Eleazar: shall we say, that, since he expounds the latter clause in accordance with the view of Samuel, he agrees in the first clause also with Samuel? — No! The latter clause is definitely intended literally, for it states: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE; but the first clause may be either in accordance with the view of Rab or Samuel. Come and hear: ‘A golden denar coin of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a silver denar,’ he is liable. Now the reason [he is liable] is because he said to him ‘a golden coin,’ but if he had said simply [‘a golden denar’], he would have implied its value! — R. Ashi said: Thus it means: If he says, a golden denar, it is as if he said, a golden denar coin. R. Hiyya taught in support of Rab: ‘A sela’ of mine you have in your possession.’ — ‘I have of yours in my possession only a sela’, less two ma'ahs,’ he is liable; ‘less one ma'ah’, he is exempt. R. Nahman b. Isaac said that Samuel said: They did not teach this except in the case of a claim of a creditor and admission [of a portion] on the part of the debtor; but in the case of a claim of a creditor and the testimony of one witness, even if he claimed only a perutah, he is liable. What is the reason? Because it is written, One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin; for any iniquity, or for any sin, he does not rise up, but he rises up for an oath; and it was taught: Wherever two [witnesses] make him liable for money, one witness makes him liable for an oath. And R. Nahman said that Samuel said: If he claimed from him wheat and barley, and the other admitted one of them, he is liable . Said R. Isaac to him: ‘Correct! And so said R. Johanan.’ Do we infer that Resh Lakish disagrees with him? — Some say, he was waiting and was silent; and some say, he was drinking and was silent. Shall we say this supports him: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM WHEAT, AND THE OTHER ADMITTED BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT; BUT R. GAMALIEL MAKES HIM LIABLE. — The reason [he is exempt] is because he claimed from him wheat, and he admitted barley; but [if he claimed from him] wheat and barley, and he admitted one of them, he is liable! — No! The same rule applies: even [if he claimed] wheat and barley, [and the other admitted one,] he is also exempt; and why they disagree in the case of wheat is to show you the power of R. Gamaliel. Come and hear: IF HE CLAIMED FROM HIM VESSELS AND LANDS, AND HE ADMITTED THE VESSELS, AND DENIED THE LANDS; OR [ADMITTED] THE LANDS, AND DENIED THE VESSELS, HE IS EXEMPT;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:That the rest of the Mishnah deals with values.
^ᵇnote:[MS.M. rightly omits: FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE.]
^ᶜnote:For he claims goods to the value of a golden denar, and the other admits goods to the value of a silver denar, or less.
^ᵈnote:He claims gold, and the other admits silver, or copper.
^ᵉnote:We need not necessarily infer that the Mishnah deals with goods to the value of a golden denar or silver denar; it means actual coins; and it teaches us that though the claim is for a gold coin and the admission is a silver or copper coin, he is liable, because they are all coins (and the admission is therefore of the same kind as the claim), and that even a perutah (the value of which is very small) is still counted a coin.
^ᶠnote:Who says the Mishnah means values, how will he explain the phrase, FOR THEY ARE ALL ONE COINAGE?
^ᵍnote:The Mishnah means, all the coins (being the values of the goods claimed or admitted) are in the same category. Even the smallest (a perutah) is of sufficient value to be the amount of admission in a claim.
^ʰnote:That the Mishnah means actual coins.
^ⁱnote:That if he claimed two ma'ahs (weight in silver), and the other admitted a perutah (weight in copper), he is exempt, because the admission is not of the same kind as the claim; but if he claimed goods to the value of two ma'ahs, and the other admitted goods to the value of a perutah, he would be liable, though the claim was only two ma'ahs (and not two ma'ahs and a perutah), and, after admission, was less than two ma'ahs.
^ʲnote:That the Mishnah means values, and he is exempt because the denial is less than two ma'ahs.
^ᵏnote:Specifically mentioning ‘coin’; he is liable because the admission (a silver denar) is of the same kind (a coin) as the claim.
^ˡnote:Hence our Mishnah which states golden denar (not mentioning coin) means value, and since this clause in the Mishnah means value, the first clause also means value. Now, the first clause states that if one claims two ma'ahs (goods to that value), and the other admits a perutah (goods to that value), he is exempt — obviously, because the denial is less than two ma'ahs. This, therefore, supports Rab.
^ᵐnote:The Baraitha does not mean that he actually said a golden denar coin, but simply golden denar; but this is equivalent to mentioning coin. The claim is a coin, and the admission a coin, therefore he is liable. Hence, we cannot deduce that if he said golden denar (without coin) he meant value, and obtain from this (via the Mishnah) support for Rab.
^ⁿnote:Twenty-four ma'ahs.
^ᵒnote:Because the denial must be at least two ma'ahs; which is the view of Rab.
^ᵖnote:[MS.M. rightly omits ‘b. Isaac’; cf. the next dictum.]
^ᵠnote:That the claim must be at least two ma'ahs to make the debtor liable for an oath, if he admits a portion and denies the rest.
^ʳnote:If the debtor denies the whole claim, and one witness testifies that he owes the money, he must take an oath, even if the whole claim was only for a perutah; for if there had been two witnesses, the debtor would have had to pay; and wherever two witnesses impose payment, one witness imposes an oath.
^ˢnote:Deut. XIX, 15.
^ᵗnote:It is counted as admission of the same kind as the claim.
^ᵘnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵛnote:Resh Lakish always waited till R. Johanan completed his discourse, and then he would give his own view. In the present case, R. Isaac left the Academy before R. Johanan ended the lecture, and did not know whether later Resh Lakish disagreed with him or not.
^ʷnote:He does not require that the admission shall be of the same kind as the claim.
^ˣnote:Hence this supports R. Nahman.
^ʸnote:That even when the admission is not of the same kind as the claim he holds that he is liable.