שבועות ו׳Shevuot 6

Mishnah

משנה: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וְהַהוֹדָיָיה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָיָיה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף ופְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה חַיָיב. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פָּטוּר. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דֵּינָר חַיָיב. מְנָה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה:

MISHNAH: A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah. If the acknowledgment is not of the kind of the claim he is not liable. How is this? “You are holding two silver coins for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is not liable. “You are holding two silver coins and a peruṭah for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is liable. “You are holding a mina for me,” “I am not holding anything for you,” he is not liable. “You are holding a mina for me,” “I am holding only 50 denar for you,” he is liable. “You are holding a mina for my father,” “I am holding only 50 denar for you,” he is not liable since he is like one returning a lost object.

Halakhah

הלכה: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין כול׳. הַטַּעֲנָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מָעָה כֶסֶף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִין דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. כֶּסֶף דֵּינָר. וְהָכָא אָמְרִין. כֶּסֶף מָעָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִין דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. כֶּסֶף פְּרוּטָה. וְהָכָא אָמְרִין. כֶּסֶף תְּרֵין מָעִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִילַּת מְכִירַת הָעִבְרִיָּה. מַה תְחִילַּת מְכִירָתָהּ בְּדֵינָר אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בְדֵינָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְמֵידִין מִסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ. מַה סוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִפְרוּטָה. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי. וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין כֶּסֶף. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כָּסֶף. מִיכַּן שֶׁנִּמְכֶּרֶת יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. וְכַמָּה הִיא יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. דֵּינָר. אוֹ כָּסֶף פְּרוּטָה. יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת. סוֹף מַטְבֵּעַ כֶּסֶף מָעָה. וּתְהֵא מָעָה. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. שֶׁאִם בִּיקְשָׁה לְמִיגִרַע מִגְרַעַת מָעָה בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְיוֹצְאָה. וְתִגְרַע בִּפְרוּטָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁאִם בִּיקְשָׁה לִיגָּרַע מִתְּחִילַּת הַשָּׂנָה הַשִּׂשִּׂית. מַה תְּחִילַּת הַשָּׂנָה הַשִּׂשִּׂית גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה אַף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִפְרוּטָה. אֶלָּא תְּחִילַּת גֵּירוּעֶיהָ מָעָה וְסוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה. וּמָה טַעֲמָא דְבֵית הִלֵּל. מִמַּה שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁקִּידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִפְרוּטָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵיר שָׁם שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ מְגָרַעֲתוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה כָּךְ קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִפְרוּטָה.

HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolos, but the House of Hillel say, two oboloi. The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolos. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say that “money” is a peruṭah but here, they say that “money” is two oboloi. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said, she leaves gratis, without silver. Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, without silver? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolos and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolos, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. Think of it, if there is only one peruṭah’s worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתְהוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וגו׳. אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׂוֶה פְרוּטָה. כְּבָר כָּתוּב לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ. פְּרָט לְפָחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה. מִיכָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. וְכָמָּה הוּא. שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. אוֹ כֶּסֶף פְּרוּטָה. יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף ב׳ פְרוּטוֹת. סוֹף מַטְבֵּעַ כֶּסֶף מָעָה. וּתְהֵא מָעָה. אוֹ כֵלִים. מַה כֵלִים ב׳ אַף כֶּסֶף ב׳. מַה מְקַיְימִין דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹ כֵלִים. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי נָתָן. אוֹ כֵלִים. לְהָבִיא כְלֵי חֶרֶס. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ שְׁנֵי מְחָטִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְאַחַת מֵהֶן חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וְהֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ יָפוֹת שְׁתֵי פְרוּטוֹת. שֶׁיְּהֵא הְטַּעֲנָה פְרוּטָה וְהַהוֹדָיָיה פְרוּטָה. אַתְיָא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי דְלָא יַלְפֵּי כֶּסֶף מִכֵּלִים. בְּרַם כְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּיַלְפֵּי כֶּסֶף מִכֵּלִים. מַה כֵלִים שְׁנַיִם אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. מַה כֶסֶף שְׁתֵּי מָעִין אַף כֵּלִים שְׁתֵּי מָעִין.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor, etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. כָּל שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן עֵד אֶחָד זוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעָה. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ קַרְקַע. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ קְנָס. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין בַּקְּנָס. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ פְרוּטָה. וְכֵן הִיא דְתַנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין. הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וְהַהוֹדָיָיה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִפִּיו. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּנִשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים. רַב חִסְדָּא וַחֲבֵרוּתֵיהּ פְלִיגֵי. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין. כָּל שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָינִין. לָא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין מִפִּיו בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא הַטַּעֲנָה.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi) Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim.

וְהַהוֹדָיָיה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה מִקְצָת. וְכָל חֲבֵרוֹי פְלִיגִין עֲלוֹי. מַה מְקַיְימִין כָּל חֲבֵרוֹי כִּי הוּא זֶה. בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ מָמוֹן. אִם בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ מָמוֹן בְּדָא יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ. וְעֵירוֹבֵי פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת יֵשׁ כָּאן.

“And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen, the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.

אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בַכְּפִירָה שְׁתֵי כֶסֶף חוּץ מֵהַהוֹדָיָיה. אַתְיָא כַחֲבֵרוֹי דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

Rebbi Ze`ira said, he is not liable unless the denial be of two silver coins not counting the acknowledgment of one peruṭah. This follows Rebbi Joḥanan’s colleague.

מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי. פָּטוּר. אֲפִילוּ. כַּמָּה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי. פָּטוּר. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה. חַיָיב. רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָמְרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁהִלְוָוהוּ בָעֵדִים. אֲבָל אִם הִלְוָוהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בָעֵדִים יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. הִלְוִיתָנִי וְנָתַתִּי לָךְ מֶחֱצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אֵין אוֹמְרִים בְּמָמוֹן מֵאַחַר. מֵאַחַר דִּיכִיל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֹא הִלְוִיתָנִי. וִיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. הִלְוִיתָנִי וְנָתַתִּי לָךְ חֶצְיָים. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָה בְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אָמַר לוֹ. הֵין. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵיהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ. פָּטוּר. אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי. חַיָיב.

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי. אִסִּי אָמַר. הַמַּלְוֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בָעֵדִים לֹא יִפְרָעֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בָעֵדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּאִסִּי הַמַּלְוֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בָעֵדִים לֹא יַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶלָּא בָעֵדִים. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָה עֲלוֹי. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הֵין. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ. תְּנֵיהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ. פָּטוּר. אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי. חַיָיב.

“`You are holding a mina for me,’ ‘I am not holding anything for you.’” Issy said, one who gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses should claim repayment only in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Avin said, the word of Issy: If one gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses, [the debtor] should not repay except in the presence of witnesses. The Mishnah disagrees with him: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

Mishnah

משנה: מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵין וּלְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵיהוּ לִי נְתַתִּיו לָךְ פָּטוּר. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵין אַל תִּתְּנֵיהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בִפְנֵי עֵדִים. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי נְתַתִּיו לָךְ חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיתְּנֵם בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים:

MISHNAH: “You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes”. The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is not liable. “You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes.” “Return it to me only in the presence of witnesses.” The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is liable since he is required to return it in the presence of witnesses.

Halakhah

הלכה: מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַלְווֹת לְחַבְרֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בָעֵדִים וּלְתוֹבְעָן בְּעֵדִים.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding a mina for me;” etc. Rebbi Abun said, it is usual for people to give loans to others not in the presence of witnesses but to ask for repayment in the presence of witnesses.

מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ. אָמַר לוֹ. הֵין. אַל תִּתְּנֵיהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בִפְנֵי פְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ. תְּנֵיהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ. חַיָיב. שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ בָעֵדִים. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ בָּעֵדִים. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. בְּמַעֲמַד פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּמַעֲמַד פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. רִבִּי בָּא רַב הַמְנוּנָא רַב אָדָא בַּר אַהֲבָה בְשֵׁם רַב. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי וְאָמַר. יָבוֹאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי.

“You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes.” “Return it to me only in the presence of X and Y.” The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is liable since he is required to return it in the presence of witnesses. Think of it, if he said, I returned it in the presence of witnesses. Bar Kappara stated: “when X and Y are standing there.” Think of it, if he said, “when X were Y are standing there.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Hamnuna, Rebbi Ada bar Ahava in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi, and he said, let X and Y come.

הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא בִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. יִדּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יִדּוֹן בַּחֲזָקָה. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי קַמֵּי רִבִּי זֵירָא. מַה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי. תַּמָּן אָמַר. יִדּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר. וָכָא אָמַר. יִדּוֹן בַּחֲזָקָה. נֵימַר. עַד דְּלֹא יַחְזוֹר בֵּיהּ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר מִדְּחָזַר בֵּיהּ. לֹא בִיקֵּשׁ רִבִּי אֶלָּא לַעֲמוֹד עַל אֲמִיתָן שֶׁלִּדְבָרִים. הַמַּחֲזִיק מַחֲמַת אוֹנוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת פְּסוּלָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. בַּמַּחֲלוּקֶת. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּינָּא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן בְּבָא בִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. הָכָא בָּבָא בִשְׁטָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תַּמָּן בְּבָא בִשְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. הָכָא בְכוֹפֵר בִּרְאָיוֹתָיו.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

רִבִּי מָרִינוּס הֲוָה עָרֵב לְכַלָּתֵיהּ וָהֲווּ דָיַינִין קֹמֵי רִבִּי חָמָא אֲבִי בַּר קַפָּרָא וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מִדְּהוֹדָה אָמַר לֵיהּ. יְהָבִית. שָׁאֲלוֹן לְרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. שָׁאַל רִבִּי חִיָיה לְרִבִּי. הַמִּתְחַיֵיב בְּבֵית דִּין לֹא כָל הֵימֵינוּ. מַאי לֹא כָל הֵימֵינוּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר נָתַתִּי. וְאִם מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים לֹא כָל הֵימֵינוּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר. אַף בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת כֵּן. מָהוּ אַף בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת כֵּן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ נִשְׁבָּע נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי. אִם מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים לֹא כָל הֵימֵינוּ.

Rebbi Marinus was guarantor for his daughter-in-law. They went to court before Rebbi Ḥama the father of Bat Qappara and Rebbi Hoshaia. After he had admitted he said to him, I gave. They asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya; Rebbi Ḥiyya asked Rebbi: One who became liable in court cannot be trusted. What is the meaning of “he cannot be trusted”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he pays on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I gave. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, also for oaths it is the same. What is the meaning of “also for oaths it is the same”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he swears on his own initiative, he is trusted when he says, I swore. But from the orders of others, he cannot be trusted.