משנה: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וְהַהוֹדָייָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָייָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף ופְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה חַייָב. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פָּטוּר. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דֵּינָר חַייָב. מְנָה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה׃ MISHNAH: A judicial oath1In the case of a claim not proven by witnesses or documents where the defendant disputes part of the claim, the judges will impose an oath on the defendant that he owes not more than he admitted. The basis is Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8, where the expression where he says, this is it is read as partial admission on the part of the defendant. The oath cannot be required by biblical standards if the defendant rejects the claim in its entirety; it cannot be administered by rabbinical standards if the amount in dispute or the amount admitted are below a certain threshhold. is about a claim of two silver coins2“Silver” denotes the smallest silver coin struck in Hasmonean times, the obolos, 1/6 of a denar. The silver half- oboloi minted in Yehud in Persian times had long disappeared when the Mishnaic system of currency was formulated. and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah3A copper coin of Hasmonean times, of varying weight, but in the Mishnah assumed to be 1/32 of an obolos. Half- peruṭot have been found.. If the acknowledgment is not of the kind of the claim he is not liable4This is explained in Mishnaiot 3 ff.. How is this? “You are holding two silver coins for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is not liable5Since the claim to be adjudicated is 2 oboloi minus 1 peruṭah, i. e., 63 peruṭot, the statutory minimum of 64 peruṭot is not reached; the oath cannot be imposed by rabbinic rules.. “You are holding two silver coins and a peruṭah for me;” “I am holding only one peruṭah.” He is liable6Since the claim in dispute is a full two oboloi.. “You are holding a mina for me,” “I am not holding anything for you,” he is not liable7Since the claim is rejected in its entirety, it must be proven by documents or witnesses; the oath cannot be imposed by biblical standards.. “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 object8Since a son cannot swear in place of his father, the son would have to accept a declaration by the defendant that he had owed to the father but returned everything to the latter during his lifetime; the defendant has to be believed if he admits part of the claim..
הלכה: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין כול׳. הַטַּעֲנָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מָעָה כֶסֶף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִין דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף דֵּינָר. וְהָכָא אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף מָעָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִין דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. כֶּסֶף פְּרוּטָה. וְהָכָא אָֽמְרִין. 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. וְיָֽצְאָ֥ה חִנָּם֭ אֵ֥ין כָּֽסֶף׃. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין כֶּסֶף. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כָּֽסֶף. מִיכַּן שֶׁנִּמְכֶּרֶת יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. וְכַמָּה הִיא יוֹתֵר מִכֶּסֶף. דֵּינָר. אוֹ כָּֽסֶף 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 נִשְׁתַּייֵר שָׁם שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ מְגָרַעֲתוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁסּוֹף גֵּירוּעֶיהָ בִפְרוּטָה כָּךְ קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ בִפְרוּטָה. HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. 9This text is copied in Kiddushin 1:1:2-33" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.2-33">Qiddušin1:1, explained there in detail in Shevuot 6:4:3-6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.6.4.3-6.1">Notes 77–98. Parallels are in the Kiddushin.11b">Babli Qiddušin11b.
The question is, why do the House of Hillel require a larger minimal amount for litigation before a court than the House of Shammai but a much smaller sum than the House of Shammai for legal marriage by symbolic acquisition. The answer is that different biblical verses are the basis. Since a Hebrew slave girl is a minor sold by her father for a maximum of 6 years, or until she reaches the age of 12, or until she is married by the person who buys her or one of his sons. In order to get the maximum for his money, the man buying her might use her as a servant up to the last day of her servitude and then marry her on that day. Since if the original price is divided by the sum of all days of her servitude and only pennies pay for the service of one day, only pennies are left on the last day but nevertheless the marriage is legal. Therefore only pennies are needed for a legal marriage ceremony. 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 silver10Exodus.21.10">Ex. 21:10.. 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 obolos2“Silver” denotes the smallest silver coin struck in Hasmonean times, the obolos, 1/6 of a denar. The silver half- oboloi minted in Yehud in Persian times had long disappeared when the Mishnaic system of currency was formulated.. 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. כִּֽי־יִתֵּן֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֜הוּ וגו׳. אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׂוֶה פְרוּטָה. כְּבָר כָּתוּב לְאַשְׁמָ֥ה בָֽהּ׃ 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. אֽוֹ־כֵלִים֙. מַה כֵלִים ב׳ אַף כֶּסֶף ב׳. מַה מְקַייְמִין דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אֽוֹ־כֵלִים֙. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי נָתָן. אֽוֹ־כֵלִים֙. לְהָבִיא כְלֵי חֶרֶס. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. טְעָנוֹ שְׁנֵי מְחָטִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְאַחַת מֵהֶן חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וְהֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ יָפוֹת שְׁתֵי פְרוּטוֹת. שֶׁיְּהֵא הְטַּעֲנָה פְרוּטָה וְהַהוֹדָייָה פְרוּטָה. אַתְיָא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי דְלָא יַלְפֵּי כֶּסֶף מִכֵּלִים. בְּרַם כְּבֵית הִלֵּל דְּיַלְפֵּי כֶּסֶף מִכֵּלִים. מַה כֵלִים שְׁנַיִם אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. מַה כֶסֶף שְׁתֵּי מָעִין אַף כֵּלִים שְׁתֵּי מָעִין. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor,11Exodus.22.6">Ex.22:6. 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 vessels12Cf. Kiddushin 1:1:20" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.20">Qiddušin1:1 Note 96 for the arguments which show that this reading is impossible.. 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 worth13Quoted in Shevuot 39b:10:1" href="/Tosafot_on_Shevuot.39b.10.1">Tosaphot39b, s.v. מה.. 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 מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן עֵד אֶחָד זוֹקְקוֹ לִשְׁבוּעָה. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ קַרְקַע. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ קְנָס. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין בַּקְּנָס. וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ פְרוּטָה. וְכֵן הִיא דְתַנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין. הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וְהַהוֹדָייָה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע מִפִּיו. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּנִשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים. רַב חִסְדָּא וַחֲבֵרוּתֵיהּ פְלִיגֵי. שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין. כָּל־שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּייָנִין. לָא שַׁנְייָא בֵּין מִפִּיו בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַייָב 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 oath14In the Shevuot.40a">Babli, 40a, this is a tannaitic statement commented upon by Samuel.. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate15Since anything can be decided upon the testimony of two witnesses, possession of real estate can be transferred without documentary proof by the testimony of witnesses. Similarly, real estate can be attached in foreclosure for unpaid fines upon the testimony of two witnesses.? 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)16A slip of the scribe’s pen; the first generation Samuel only had a medical, not a rabbinic degree. 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 claim17It is not clear whether the sentence is incomplete and one should add “of at least two oboloi”, or that only the situation of monetary claim and denial can be adjudicated by judicial oath, to support the opponents of R. Joḥanan in the next paragraph. The interpretation of the statement in the Babli has no relation to the discussion here..
וְהַהוֹדָייָה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵירוֹ טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה מִקְצָת. וְכָל־חֲבֵרוֹי פְלִיגִין עֲלוֹי. מַה מְקַייְמִין כָּל־חֲבֵרוֹי כִּי־ה֣וּא זֶ֔ה. בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ מָמוֹן. אִם בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ מָמוֹן בְּדָא יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם שְׁנַ֖יִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ וְעֵירוֹבֵי פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת יֵשׁ כָּאן. “And the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims that another had stolen18The argument is about Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8, the basis of the Mishnah. A deposited something with B. B claims that the item was lost and as unpaid trustee he is not liable for damages. A accuses B of having appropriated the item for himself, i. e., to have stolen it. R. Joḥanan holds that this claim is no different from all other claims adjudicated under the rules of Exodus.22.6-8">Ex. 22:6–8 and, therefore, an oath can be imposed on B only if the latter acknowledges liability for part of the claim., the latter is not liable unless he partially admit. But all his colleagues19According to the Babli (Bava qamma106b, bottom) he is R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph, a student of Rav and member of R. Joḥanan’s court. differ from him. How do the colleagues uphold for this is it20Exodus.22.6">Ex. 22:6 reads: About anything criminal, about an ox, about a donkey, about a sheep, about a garment, about anything lost, if he says, for this is it, the suit of them shall come before the Elohim, he whom the Elohim find guilty shall pay double to his neighbor. Elohim means “the powerful;” it can be applied both to God and to judges. From this double meaning it is inferred that judges impose an oath before God on the accused if the latter has acknowledged for this is it, i. e., a partial admission. On the other hand, double restitution is the fine for the thief. Therefore R. Joḥanan is justified in his conclusion that since v.6 declares the entire paragraph to be about deposits, the entire sentence deals with the case of A accusing B of theft of the deposit.? If he claims money from him. If he claims money from him, is that double he shall pay to his neighbor21The colleagues agree that a fine can be imposed only for theft, but they hold that the clause for this is it does not apply to deposits but to repayment of loans and debts (Leviticus.5.24">Lev. 5:24). They have to take the position that this very long sentence deals with different subjects in different parts and that an oath is due on demand of the claimant for any accusation that a deposit was stolen.? But this is a mixture of paragraphs.
אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בַכְּפִירָה שְׁתֵי כֶסֶף חוּץ מֵהַהוּדָייָה. 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 peruṭah22As explained in the Mishnah, after partial admission of any claim, the amount in dispute must be at least two oboloi. In the Shevuot.39b">Babli, 39b, this is the position of Rav, R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s teacher, disputed by Samuel who only requires the total claim to be for at least two oboloi.. 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. חַייָב. רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. וְהוּא שֶׁהִלְווָהוּ בָעֵדִים. אֲבָל אִם הִלְווָהוּ 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 חֶצְייָם. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָה בְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְנָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ אָמַר לוֹ. הֵין. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵיהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ. פָּטוּר. אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי. חַייָב. “ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable7Since the claim is rejected in its entirety, it must be proven by documents or witnesses; the oath cannot be imposed by biblical standards..” 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 liable23In Mishnah 1, the sentence about the person who claims he owes only 50 denar seems redundant. It only is inserted to indicate that for the liability to swear, a mina is no different from two oboloi. If the defendant admits to owing a peruṭah and the claim is at least 2 oboloi, there is liability. The lower bound is not a function of the size of the claim.. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses24They hold that undocumented loans never can trigger liability for an oath. Shevuot.41a">Babli 41a (in the name of Rav only.). 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 it25In the Babli, such an argument is called מִגּוֹ “because”. In the absence of witnesses or documents, if the defendant presents an argument which is less favorable to him than another argument which he could have advanced, the court is forced to give him the benefit of doubt and free him from the oath. It will be seen in Halakhah 7:1 that such arguments are acceptable in general, supporting Rav and R. Joḥanan against R. Yudan.? The Mishnah26Mishnah 2. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’27In front of witnesses.. 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 liable28Since he had agreed in the presence of witnesses that he owes the money, he cannot change his confession later; he does not swear but has to pay. This last sentence is not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi but appears in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss., including Maimonides’s autograph. The Halakhah shows that it should also be read in the Mishnah..”
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. חַייָב. “`You are holding a mina for me,’ ‘I am not holding anything for you.’ ” Issy29Shevuot.41a">Babli 41a. In the Babli, he always appears as Rav Assi even though his ordination preceded that of Rav for whom the title “Rav” was invented. 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 witnesses30This is not an obligation of the lender’s as implied by Issy’s formulation, but advice to the borrower to protect himself from double claims by the lender.. The Mishnah disagrees with him: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’27In front of witnesses.. 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 liable28,Since he had agreed in the presence of witnesses that he owes the money, he cannot change his confession later; he does not swear but has to pay. This last sentence is not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi but appears in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss., including Maimonides’s autograph. The Halakhah shows that it should also be read in the Mishnah.31Since the second part of the Mishnah explicitly mentions payment in front of witnesses, the first part must assume that payment was not made before witnesses, even though the admission of the debt before witnesses is equivalent to a loan given before witnesses. The Mishnah contradicts Issy’s formulation; it is compatible with R. Avin’s. The Shevuot.41a">Babli, 41a and Ketubot.18a">Ketubot18a, explicitly notes that repayment in the presence of witnesses is not a legal requirement..”