שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּנִין, הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד, שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, פָּטוּר. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה: By Torah law, the oath imposed by the judges upon one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for the value of at least two silver ma’a, and the defendant’s admission is for the value of at least one peruta. And furthermore, if the admission is not of the same type as the claim, i.e., the defendant admitted to a debt that the claimant did not claim, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath. How so? If the claimant said to the defendant: I have two silver ma’a in your possession, and the latter responded: You have only one peruta, a coin made from copper, in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath (see 39b). But if the claimant said: I have two silver ma’a and one peruta in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only one peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath. If the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, he is exempt, as he denies the entire claim. But if the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim. If the claimant said: My late father had one hundred dinars in your possession, and I am now claiming them, and the defendant responded: You have only fifty dinars in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as he is like one returning a lost item, since he could have easily denied the entire claim.
מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֵן. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, פָּטוּר. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ הֵן, אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי, נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתְּנוֹ לוֹ בְעֵדִים: The mishna discusses other cases where the defendant denies an entire claim. In a case where one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the latter said to him: Yes, I acknowledge that claim; and the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is exempt. But if he responded: Nothing of yours is in my possession, i.e., he denies that a debt ever existed, he is liable to pay, as he already admitted that he owed him the amount. In a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, to which the claimant responded: Give the money to me only in the presence of witnesses, then if the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is liable to pay, as he is required to give it to him in the presence of witnesses, and he cannot prove that he did so.
לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶסֶף, פָּטוּר. דִּינַר זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף, וּטְרִיסִית וּפֻנְדְּיוֹן וּפְרוּטָה, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אַחַת. כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, פָּטוּר. כּוֹר פֵּרוֹת יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל פֵּרוֹת. טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִשְׂעֹרִים, פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּב. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה לוֹ מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן. טְעָנוֹ כֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְהוֹדָה בַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים, פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, פָּטוּר. בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן: The mishna resumes discussion of the oath imposed by the court in a case where the defendant admits to a part of a claim. If the claimant said: I have a litra, i.e., a specific weight, of gold in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a litra of silver in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as his admission relates to a different item than that which the claim relates to. But if the claimant said: I have a gold dinar in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a silver dinar, or a tereisit, or a pundeyon, or a peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as they are all of one type; they are all coins. Since the claim concerns money, the difference between the different types of coins is disregarded, as the claim is essentially referring to the monetary value, not to a specific type of coin. If the claimant said: I have a kor of grain in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is exempt. But if the claimant said: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is liable, as legumes are included in produce. If one claimed that another owes him wheat, and the defendant admitted to owing him barley, he is exempt; and Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to take an oath. According to Rabban Gamliel, one who admits to a part of the claim is liable to take an oath even if the admission is not of the same type as the claim. With regard to one who claims that another owes him jugs of oil, and the latter then admitted that he owes him pitchers, i.e., the jugs themselves, but not the oil, Admon says: Since he admitted to him with regard to a part of the claim, and his admission was of the same type as the claim, i.e., the claim included both containers and oil and he admitted to owing him containers, he must take an oath. And the Rabbis say: The partial admission in this case is not of the same type as the claim, as he completely denied owing him oil. Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon as correct. If one claimed that another owes him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied the claim of land, or conversely, he admitted to owing him land but denied the claim of vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath, as oaths are not taken concerning claims involving land. If he admitted to part of the claim about the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to part of the claim about the vessels, he is liable to take an oath concerning the entire claim, as property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that the oath about the movable property can be extended to require him to take an oath concerning the land as well.
אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן, אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִים לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ: One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. And the court does not administer an oath to a minor. But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property.
וְאֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, הָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶם: And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath by Torah law: Canaanite slaves, and financial documents, and land, and consecrated property. In a case where these items are stolen, there is no payment of double the principal, nor is there payment of four or five times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. An unpaid bailee who lost one of these items does not take an oath that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and a paid bailee does not pay for the loss or theft of one of these items. Rabbi Shimon says there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to consecrated property for which one bears the financial responsibility to compensate the Temple treasury in the event of their loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, one takes an oath concerning them, as they are considered his own property. But with regard to consecrated property for which he does not bear the financial responsibility for their loss, one does not take an oath concerning them.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד, עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַקַּרְקַע. אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה וְשֶׁבַּמִּשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבַּמִּנְיָן. כֵּיצַד, בַּיִת מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ וְכִיס מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל, פָּטוּר. זֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַזִּיז וְזֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַחַלּוֹן, חַיָּב: Rabbi Meir says: There are certain items that are physically on the land but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective, and the Rabbis do not concede to him concerning this point. How so? If one makes the claim: I assigned you ten grapevines laden with fruit to safeguard, and the other one says: They are only five vines, Rabbi Meir deems the defendant liable to take an oath, as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of anything that is attached to the land is like the land itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath. One takes an oath only concerning an item that is defined by size, by weight, or by number. How so? If the claimant says: I transferred to you a house full of produce, or: I transferred to you a pouch full of money, and the other person says: I do not know how much you gave me, but what you left in my possession you may take, and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is exempt from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if this party says that the house was full up to the ledge, and that party says that it was full up to the window, the defendant is liable to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount.
הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלשָׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. וּמִי נִשְׁבָּע, מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן: There is a case of one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost while in the possession of the creditor, and the creditor says to the debtor: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and that collateral was worth a shekel, i.e., a half-sela. Therefore, you owe me a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says in response to that claim: That is not the case. Rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth a sela; I owe you nothing. In this case, the debtor is exempt from payment. There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth three dinars, i.e., three-quarters of a sela. In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission. If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela, so now you owe me a sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth a sela. Here, the creditor is exempt. If in that case the debtor said: You lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth two sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case; rather, I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth five dinars. Here, the creditor is liable to take an oath due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the debtor with a partial admission. And who takes the oath? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located, i.e., the creditor, who took collateral from the debtor. The Sages instituted this provision lest this party, i.e., the debtor, take an oath and the other party, i.e., the creditor, produce the deposit and prove the oath false.