Plaintiff and Defendant Chapter 3

אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בִּפְרוּטָה אוֹ יֶתֶר וְיִכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין כֶּסֶף אוֹ יֶתֶר. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְּרוּטָה מִשְׁקַל חֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף נָקִי. וְכַמָּה הֵם שְׁתֵּי מָעִין מִשְׁקַל שְׁתַּיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שְׂעוֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף מְזֻקָּק:

A person who admits a portion of a claim is not liable to take a Scriptural oath until he admits an obligation of a p'rutah or more and denies owing two silver me'in or more. How much is a p'rutah worth? The weight of half a barleycorn of pure silver. How much is two me'in worth? The weight of 32 barleycorns of pure silver.

כָּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְהוּא עֶשְׂרִים מָעָה וְכָל כֶּסֶף שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶן מִמַּטְבֵּעַ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהָיָה הַסֶּלַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנֶה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף וְהַשְּׁאָר נְחשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַמָּעָה הִיא הָיְתָה כֶּסֶף נָקִי אֲפִלּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהִיא כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וּלְפִי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁהִצְרִיכוּ לִהְיוֹת כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף הִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ. זֶהוּ הַדָּבָר הַנִּרְאֶה בְּשִׁעוּר כְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁכְּפִירַת הַטַּעֲנָה הוּא מִשְׁקַל תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה שְׂעוֹרוֹת וַחֲצִי שְׂעוֹרָה מִן הַכֶּסֶף. וְיֵשׁ לִי כַּמָּה רְאָיוֹת לִסְתֹּר אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ עַד שֶׁיָּצָא לָהֶם זֶה הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא טָעוּת:

Whenever the Torah speaks of kessef it refers to a holy shekel which is worth 20 me'in. Whenever the term kessef is used with regard to Rabbinic law, the intent is a coin used in Jerusalem referred to as a sela. This coin was one eighth silver and the remainder copper as we explained. A meah, by contrast, even in Jerusalem was pure silver; it was the smallest silver coin used in Jerusalem in that era. Since the requirement that the claim denied be two measures of silver is Rabbinic in origin, the Sages established it as two silver coins of Jerusalem, i.e., two me'in, rather than two "holy" shekalim. This is the interpretation that appears correct with regard to the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required. My teachers ruled that the amount of money from the claim that must be denied for an oath to be required is 19 and ½ barleycorns of silver. I have several proofs to refute the path of reasoning they adopted which led to their arriving at this figure. I think that it is an error.

שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וּפְרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה חַיָּב. אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי פְּרוּטוֹת פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּפַר בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁתֵי מָעִין. מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲצִי פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בְּפָחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹדָה בִּכְלוּם:

When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me two me'in and a p'rutah," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only two p'rutot," he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that he denied owing less than two me'in. When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only half a p'rutot," he is not obligated to take this oath. The rationale is that whenever a person acknowledges a debt of less than a p'rutah, it is as if he did not acknowledge any debt at all.

מֵאָה תְּמָרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעִים. רוֹאִים אִם הָיוּ שָׁוִין שָׁם הָעֶשֶׂר שֶׁכָּפַר בָּהֶן שְׁתֵּי מָעִין נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁשָּׁה אֱגוֹזִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ [בְּיָדִי] אֶלָּא אֱגוֹז אֶחָד רוֹאִין אִם שָׁוֶה הָאֶחָד פְּרוּטָה נִשְׁבָּע וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me 100 dates," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only ninety," we make calculations. If the ten dates that he denies are worth two me'in, he must take an oath. If they are not, he is not liable. When the plaintiff claims: "You owe me five or six nuts," and the defendant responds: "I owe you only one," we make calculations. If the nut that he admits owing is equivalent to p'rutah, he must take an oath. If it is not, he is not liable. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בְּמִינֵי סְחוֹרוֹת וּפֵרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל הַכֵּלִים אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן עֶשֶׂר מְחָטִין בִּפְרוּטָה וּטְעָנוֹ שְׁתֵּי מְחָטִין הוֹדָה בְּאַחַת וְכָפַר בְּאַחַת חַיָּב. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ו) "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים" כָּל הַכֵּלִים כְּכֶסֶף. טְעָנוֹ כֶּסֶף וְכֵלִים וְהוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּכֶּסֶף אִם יֵשׁ בַּכְּפִירָה שְׁתֵּי מָעִין חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בַּכֶּסֶף וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְרוּטָה חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

When does the above apply? With regard to money, merchandise, produce, or the like. With regard to utensils, by contrast, we do not evaluate their worth. Even when ten needles are being sold for a p'rutah, if a plaintiff claims two needles and the defendant admits owing one and denies owing the other, he is liable to take an oath. This is derived from Exodus 22:6 which speaks of "money or utensils...." Implied is that all utensils are like money. The following rules apply when the plaintiff claims that he is owed both money and utensils and the defendant admits owing the utensils, but denies owing the money. If the money he denies is equivalent to two me'in, he is obligated to take this oath. If not, he is under no obligation. Conversely, if he admits owing the money, but denies owing the utensils, he is liable if he admits owing a p'rutah. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

הֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּפַר אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִים אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן אֶחָד מְחַיְּבוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד. פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכֵן בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַשּׁוֹמְרִים אֲפִלּוּ הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ פְּרוּטָה אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְטָעַן שֶׁאָבְדָה נִשְׁבָּע. וְכָל פָּחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה אֵינוֹ מָמוֹן וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִפְּרוּטָה וָמַעְלָה:

When one witness testifies against a colleague, stating that he owes money, he is required to take an oath even when he denied owing only a p'rutah. The rationale is that whenever the testimony of two witnesses would require a person to make a payment, the testimony of one witness obligates him to take an oath. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You owe a p'rutah," or "...merchandise worth a p'rutah," the defendant responds: "I don't owe you anything," and a witness testifies that he does owe the plaintiff, he is required to take an oath. Similar concepts apply with regard to an oath taken by a watchman. Even if a person entrusted a p'rutah or the worth of a p'rutah to a colleague and that person claimed that it was lost, he is required to take an oath. Anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant and the court does not concern itself with it. Similarly, all those who take oaths and collect their claim, they take their oaths and collect any claim equivalent to a p'rutah or more.

הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁהַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין טַעֲנַת שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע הַתּוֹבֵעַ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים וְיִטּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּטַעֲנַת סָפֵק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּפִירַת שְׁתֵּי מָעִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׁבַע מִסָּפֵק:

My teachers' ruled that a person who takes an oath and collects his claim does not have to issue a claim equivalent to two silver me'in. I differ and maintain that the defendant must deny a claim equivalent to two silver me'in for the plaintiff to be required to take an oath as ordained by the Sages to collect his claim. The rationale is that those who must take an oath because of a claim concerning which doubt exists are not required to take that oath unless there is a sum equivalent to two silver me'in which is denied.

אֵין מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. כֵּיצַד. כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ חִטִּים חַיָּב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר שֶׁהַמִּין שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ וְהַמִּין שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ בּוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ. דִּינַר זָהָב יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ פִּקָּדוֹן לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף. מָעָה כֶּסֶף הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה פָּטוּר שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ מִין אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְּמִין אַחֵר. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִים מִצְרִיּוֹת הִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלְךָ לֹא הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה צוֹרִיּוֹת פָּטוּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

A person who admits a portion of a claim is not obligated to take an oath unless the admission is of the same nature as the claim. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You owe me a kor of wheat." If the defendant responds: "I only owe you a letach of wheat," he is liable to take the oath. If, however, the defendant responds: "I only owe you a kor of barley," he is not liable. The rationale is that the defendant did not admit owing the species which the plaintiff claimed, and the plaintiff did not claim the species which the defendant admitted owing. If the plaintiff claims: "I gave you golden dinarim for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with silver dinarim," or the plaintiff claims: "I gave you a silver meah for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with a p'rutah, the defendant is not liable, because the plaintiff claimed one species and the defendant admitted owing another. Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "I gave you 10 Egyptian dinarim for safekeeping," and the defendant responds: "You entrusted me only with Tyrian dinarim," he is not obligated to take an oath. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

מְנוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא מְנוֹרָה קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ מְנוֹרָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר לִיטְרִין וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּמְנוֹרָה בַּת חָמֵשׁ לִיטְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְגָרְרָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל חָמֵשׁ. וְכֵן אִם טְעָנוֹ אֵזוֹר גָּדוֹל וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא אֵזוֹר קָטָן פָּטוּר. אֲבָל אִם טְעָנוֹ יְרִיעָה בַּת עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּירִיעָה בַּת עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְחָתְכָהּ וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל עֶשֶׂר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

If the plaintiff claims: "You have a large lamp of mine," and the defendant responds: "I have only a small lamp of yours," he is not liable. If, however, the plaintiff claimed a lamp weighing ten liter, and the defendant admitted owing a lamp weighing five liter, he is considered as one who has admitted a portion of a claim. The rationale is that one can cut away the larger lamp and cause it to weigh only five. Similarly, if the plaintiff claimed being owed a large belt, and the defendant replied: "I have only a small belt," he is not liable. If he claimed a curtain that was 20 cubits long and he admitted owing a curtain ten cubits long, he is required to take an oath, because it can be cut and limited to ten. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

כּוֹר חִטִּים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר אַף מִדְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין מָנֶה לְךָ בְּיָדִי וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ הָאַחֵר אֵין לִי בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם תָּפַס הַתּוֹבֵעַ דְּמֵי הַשְּׂעוֹרִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ:

If the plaintiff claims: "You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of barley," he is not liable, not even for the barley. The rationale is that the plaintiff states: "You do not owe me barley." Thus the situation resembles one in which a person tells a colleague in court: "I have a maneh of yours," and that colleague replies: "You do not owe me anything." In such a situation, the court does not require the person making the admission to pay his colleague anything. If the plaintiff who claims the wheat seizes possession of the barley, we do not expropriate it from him.

הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין וְהוֹדָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הַהוֹדָיָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה וְנִשְׁבָּע. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן כּוֹר חִטִּין וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר חִטִּין חַיָּב. הִתְחִיל הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים דְּבָרָיו וְאָמַר כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁהַנִּטְעָן הֶעֱרִים חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. וְאִם לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ פָּטוּר:

When a person claims that a colleague owes him two types of produce and the colleague admits owing only one, his admission is considered as the same type of the claim and he is required to take an oath. What is implied? The plaintiff claims: "You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of wheat," he is liable. The following rules apply when the plaintiff begins saying: "You have a kor of wheat in your possession," and before the plaintiff can complete his statements and add: "And you have a kor of barley of mine in your possession," the defendant answers: "I have only a kor of barley." If it appears to the judges that the defendant is seeking to deceive, he is required to take the oath. If it appears, that he acted in good faith, he is not liable.

כּוֹר חִטִּין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים אָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי שְׂעוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְאֵין זֶה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת כּוֹר חִטִּים וְכוֹר שְׂעוֹרִין יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְיֹאמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא כּוֹר שְׂעוֹרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

Different rules apply if the plaintiff does not issue both claims at once. For example, he claims: "You have a kor of wheat of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "Yes." And then he says: "and a kor of barley," to which the defendant replies: "I have no wheat of yours." He is not considered as admitting a portion of the claim unless the defendant makes these statements at one time. For an oath to be required, the plaintiff must claim: "You have a kor of wheat and a kor of barley of mine in your possession," and the defendant must answer: "I have only a kor of barley." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

מְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בָּחֲרָסִים. עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדִּין רֵיקָנִין חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ הַכַּדִּין וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַּכַּדִּין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

Similarly, the defendant is not held liable for an oath when the plaintiff claims: "You have a quantity of oil large enough to fill ten jugs of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I owe you only ten empty jugs." The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed oil and the defendant admitted owing only earthenware. Different rules apply if the plaintiff claimed: "You have ten jugs of oil of mine in your possession," and the defendant answers: "I owe you only ten empty jugs." The defendant is liable to take an oath. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed both jugs and oil and the defendant admitted owing the jugs. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

מָנֶה לִי אֶצְלְךָ הַלְוָאָה לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ אֲבָל חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָרִין יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁזֶּה מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת וְיִשָּׁבַע. שֶׁהֲרֵי טְעָנוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מֵאָה וְהוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב חֲמִשִּׁים וּמַה לִּי נִתְחַיֵּב לוֹ מִשּׁוּם הַלְוָאָה אוֹ מִשּׁוּם פִּקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נֵזֶק. וְלָזֶה דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה:

My teachers ruled that the defendant is considered as admitting a portion of a claim and is required to take an oath when the plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh which was given to you as a loan," and the defendant answers: "That never happened. I never borrowed from you. I do, however, owe you 50 dinarim which you entrusted to me for safekeeping," "...because of damages," or the like. The rationale is that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant owed him 100 and the defendant admitting owing 50. What difference does it make to me if he became liable because of a loan, as a trustee of an entrusted article, or because of damages? I also favor this approach.

מָנֶה וּכְלִי יֵשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא הַכְּלִי וְהֵא לְךָ. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה. אָמַר בַּעַל הַכְּלִי אֵין זֶה הַכְּלִי כּוֹלֵל בִּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁזֶּה כֶּלְיוֹ. הוֹדָה הַנִּטְעָן שֶׁאֵין זֶה כֶּלְיוֹ וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּאַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה פָּטוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִשְּׁבוּעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְחַיָּב שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים:

When a plaintiff claims: "You owe me a maneh and a utensil" and the defendant responds: "I owe you only the utensil. Here it is," the defendant is not required to take a Scriptural oath. He must, however, take a sh'vuat heset that this is all he owes him. If the owner of the utensil claims that the utensil the defendant seeks to give him is not his own, the defendant must include in his oath that the utensil belongs to the plaintiff. If the defendant admits that this utensil is not the plaintiff's, but was exchanged for it, he is obligated to take an oath. Whenever we have mentioned above that the defendant is not obligated, the intent is that he is not obligated to take a Scriptural oath. He is, however, obligated to take a sh'vuat heset as we explained on several occasions.