Shevuos Daf 40 חג השבועות דַף 40

Shmuel says that the Mishnah only requires a claim of two silver ma’os for the shevuah of מודה במקצת – partial admission. אבל טענת מלוה והעדאת עד אחד – But regarding a lender’s claim which the borrower completely denied, and a single witness’s testimony confirms the loan, the נתבע must swear, even for a claim as little as a perutah. The reason is that the passuk says: "לא יקום עד אחד באיש – a single witness shall not stand against any man, לכל עון ולכל חטאת" – for any punishment or any penalty. This implies: לכל עון ולכל חטאת הוא דאינו קם – for any punishment or any penalty he cannot stand to testify, אבל קם הוא לשבועה – but he can stand to testify to require a shevuah. A Baraisa defines the parameters of this rule: כל מקום ששנים מחייבין אותו ממון – wherever two witnesses would obligate [the defendant] to pay money, עד אחד מחייבו שבועה – one witness obligates him to make a shevuah to deny the testimony. Since two witnesses can obligate a payment as little as a perutah, a single witness obligates swearing about the same amount.

The Mishnah taught that a נתבע does not swear if he makes a partial admission of a different item from the one claimed, e.g., if the תובע demanded a payment of wheat and the נתבע admitted to owing him some barley (Rabban Gamliel disagreed). Shmuel said: טענו חטין ושעורין – if he claimed against him wheat and barley, והודה לו באחד מהן – and [the נתבע] admitted to him one of them, he is obligated to swear. Amoraim disagreed about Rebbe Yochanan’s opinion on this matter. A Baraisa teaches that if one claimed an ox and the נתבע admitted owing him a sheep (or the reverse), he does not swear, yet, if the תובע demanded both and the נתבע admitted to one, he is obligated to swear, apparently proving Shmuel’s opinion. Rebbe Chiya, who said Rebbe Yochanan disagreed with Shmuel, answered that Rebbe Yochanan explained this Baraisa as following the opinion of אדמון, who requires an admission to be the same type as the claim, yet holds that if one claims two different items and the נתבע admits to one of them, he must swear.

The Mishnah taught that one who completely denies a claim is not obligated to swear. Rav Nachman says: ומשביעין אותו שבועת היסת – But they do have him swear a "היסת" oath (Rabbinically “placed” on him). He explains: חזקה אין אדם תובע אלא אם כן יש לו עליו – there is a presumption that a person does not demand payment unless he actually has a legitimate claim against him, so the נתבע should swear to contradict him. The Gemara objects that, on the contrary, חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו – there is a presumption that a person is not so brazen as to falsely deny his debt in his creditor’s presence. His denial indicates he is telling the truth, and he should not have to swear!? The Gemara answers: אשתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט ליה – it is possible he is trying to temporarily evade his בעל חוב until he has the money to repay him, and this is not a brazen denial. This is supported by Rav Chisda’s ruling that הכופר במלוה כשר לעדות – one who falsely denies a loan is still qualified for testimony (because he is stalling for time, and not considered a thief), whereas one who falsely denied holding a פקדון is disqualified for עדות.

In another version, Rav Nachman only required a שבועת היסת where one first admitted to a debt, and later claimed he repaid it, because there is דררא דממונא – a substantiated monetary claim.