משנה: וְהַחֶנְווָנִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ כֵּיצַד לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ כָּתוּב עַל פִּינְקָסִי שֶׁאַתְּ חַייָב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּים וּלְפוֹעֲלִי בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לֹא נָטַלְנוּ הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל וְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. אָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס כֵּיצַד אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה׃ MISHNAH: The grocer on his account book, how? Not that he says to him, it is written in my account book that you owe me 200 denars74If the trader claims that the customer received the merchandise but did not pay, he has to prove his claims in court according to local standards; there is no proviso for an oath in the proceedings., but he said to him, give my son two se’ah of wheat, or my worker small change for a tetradrachma75Because most people are illiterate, there is no standard requirement for a receipt.. He says, I gave, but they say, we did not take. He swears and collects, and they swear and collect. Ben Nannas said, how? Both are induced to swear falsely76The formulation of the oaths is in the hands of the judges; they have to be careful not to create a situation in which they are seen to cause perjury (cf. Neziqin Bava Meṣi`a1, Note 3.) Since the person who gave the instructions incurred a liability both with the grocer and the workers, both parties can collect since both offer to swear but under the circumstances cannot be allowed to.! But he takes without an oath and they take without an oath77This is the reading in all sources except for R. Nissim in his commentary to Rif; his reading has to be considered an unjustified emendation. Practice has to follow the anonymous Tanna..
הלכה: וְהַחֶנְווָנִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ כול׳. חֶנְווָנִי עַל פִּינְקָסוֹ לֹא בְמַקִּיף אָֽמְרוּ. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. כָּתַבְתָּ בָזֶה מְחוֹק בָזֶה. HALAKHAH: “The grocer on his account book,” etc. “Was ‘the grocer on his account book’ not said about one extending credit? For he can tell him, you wrote with this [hand], erase with the other [hand]”78Shevuot 6:4-5" href="/Tosefta_Shevuot.6.4-5">Tosephta 6:4. In the absence of proofs, the customer can always claim that he paid his debt but the seller failed to update his books. The customer is not required to preserve the receipt for his payment; the seller has to organize his accounts so that open accounts can be used as proof in court..
רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁיְּהוּ אֵילּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין בִּפְנֵי אֵילּוּ מִפְּנֵי הַבּוּשָׁה. Rebbi says, I am saying that these have to swear in the presence of those because of the embarrassment.79Shevuot.47b">Babli 47b. He takes care of Ben Nannas’s objection by requiring both parties to swear in the presence of the other (and, in the Babli’s version, in the presence also of the person who has to pay). It can be expected that in this case the party not entitled to payment will not dare to swear falsely.
הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַייָב כְּלוּם. כְּהָדָא דָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם. סָֽמְכוֹן כַּתָּפַייָא גַבֵּי קַפֵּילַייָא. אֲתוֹן. וְאַפְקוֹן דְּלָא יְהַב לוֹן. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. מִמָּה דְאִילּוּ הֲווֹן קַפֵּילַייָא יֵימַר מְסַבּוֹת לֵית סוֹפֵיהוֹן דְּאִילֵּין וְאִילֵּין מֵיסַב אֶלָּא יִסְבּוּן מִכְּבָר. That is to say, only if he did not introduce them80If the employer directs his employees to the grocer and separately instructs the grocer to give them merchandise on his behalf, he becomes liable to both parties. But if he instructs the grocer in the presence of his employees, he has discharged his duty towards his employees; his debt to the grocer is treated by the general rules of obligations.. But if he introduced them, the householder has no liability, following what Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom said: One did introduce the porters to the food merchants81Greek κάπηλος “(raw or cooked) food merchant; tavern keeper”.. They came, but they sent them away without giving them anything. The case came before Rebbi Shammai. Since if the food merchants had said that they took, would at the end not these and those collect? Therefore, they shall collect immediately82In the case of the Mishnah, the merchants incur no risk since they have regress on the employer. But in the case here, the merchants admit that they did not deliver; the employees have the right to demand immediate payment. Since they were directed to the merchants and these agreed to the order, the merchants have immediately to deliver to the employees, who have no regress on their employer, but the merchants can later bill the employer and collect..