## Bava Metzia Daf 34b

###### Bava Metzia 34b:1
[Bava Metzia 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:1)

וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן מִהְדָּר קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ קָאֵי וְדַחוֹיֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and then said: I will not pay, what** is the *halakha*? **Do we say he is retracting** his intention to pay and therefore has no right to the double payment? **Or, perhaps he stands** committed to **his** initial **statement and is** merely **postponing** payment to a later date, in which case he maintains rights to the double payment.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:2
[Bava Metzia 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:2)

אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם״ וָמֵת, וְאָמְרוּ בָּנָיו ״אֵין אָנוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין״, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן מִהְדָּר קָא הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּמִלְּתָא דַאֲבוּהוֹן קָיְימִי, וְדַחוֹיֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְדַחוּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another dilemma. If the bailee **said: I hereby** choose to **pay, and** then he **died** before paying, **and his sons said: We are not paying, what** is the *halakha*? **Do we say they are retracting** their father’s decision to pay, **or perhaps they stand** committed to fulfilling **their father’s statement and are** merely **postponing** payment to a later date when they will be able to pay?


###### Bava Metzia 34b:3
[Bava Metzia 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:3)

שִׁלְּמוּ בָּנִים, מַאי? מָצֵי אָמַר לְהוּ: כִּי אַקְנַאי כְּפֵילָא – לַאֲבוּכוֹן דַּעֲבַד לִי נְיָיח נַפְשַׁאי, לְדִידְכוּ לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another dilemma. If the father died before he declared his willingness to pay and **the sons paid, what** is the *halakha*? **Can** the owner **say to them: When I transferred** rights to **the double payment,** I transferred them **to your father, who pleased me,** but **to you,** I did **not** transfer those rights? **Or perhaps** this case **is no different,** and the owner transfers rights to the double payment provided that he receives payment, and it does not matter whether it was the bailee or his sons who paid him.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:4
[Bava Metzia 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:4)

שִׁילֵּם לְבָנִים, מַאי? מָצוּ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: כִּי אַקְנִי לָךְ אֲבוּנָא כְּפֵילָא – דַּעֲבַדְתְּ לֵיהּ נְיָיח נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל אֲנַן לְדִידַן לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא. שִׁלְּמוּ בָּנִים לְבָנִים, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the owner of the deposit died and the bailee **paid** the payment **to** the owner’s **sons, what** is the *halakha*? **Can** the sons **say to** the bailee: **When our father transferred** rights to **the double payment to you,** it was because **you pleased him, but** as far as **we** are concerned, you did **not** please **us? Or perhaps it is no different,** and the bailee receives the double payment. Likewise, if both the owner and the bailee died, and **sons** of the bailee **paid the sons** of the owner, **what** is the *halakha*?


###### Bava Metzia 34b:5
[Bava Metzia 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:5)

שִׁילֵּם מֶחֱצָה, מַאי? שָׁאַל שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת וְשִׁילֵּם אַחַת מֵהֶן, מַאי? שָׁאַל מִן הַשּׁוּתָּפִין וְשִׁילֵּם לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן, מַאי? שׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ וְשִׁילֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶן, מַאי? שָׁאַל מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְשִׁילֵּם לְבַעְלָהּ, מַאי? אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה וְשִׁילֵּם בַּעֲלָהּ, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises additional dilemmas: If the bailee **paid half** the value of the deposit before the thief was discovered, **what** is the *halakha*? If **one borrowed two cows,** and they were stolen, and **he paid** the value **of one of them, what** is the *halakha*? If one **borrowed** an item **from partners, and he paid one of them, what** is the *halakha*? In the case of **partners who borrowed** an item **and one of them paid, what** is the *halakha*? If **one borrowed** an item **from a woman and paid her husband, what** is the *halakha*? In the case of **a woman who borrowed** an item, **and her husband paid, what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara concludes: All of these dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved **[*teiku*]**.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:6
[Bava Metzia 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:6)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna says:** Even if the bailee declares his intention to pay for the deposit, the court **administers an oath to him that** the item was actually stolen or lost and **is not in his possession. What is the reason** for this oath? **We are concerned** that **perhaps he coveted** that item.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:7
[Bava Metzia 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְאָמַר לוֹ: סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, שֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, סֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Shevuot* 43a): In the case of **one who lends** money **to another on** the basis of **collateral, and the collateral was lost, and** the creditor **says to** the debtor: **I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and that collateral **was worth a shekel,** i.e., a half-*sela*. Therefore you owe me a shekel. **And the other** individual, the debtor, **says** in response to that claim: **That is not** the case. **Rather, you loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral, and the collateral **was worth a *sela*;** I owe you nothing. In this case, the debtor is **exempt** from payment.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:8
[Bava Metzia 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:8)

סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, שֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If the creditor claimed: **I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and it was worth a shekel. And the other** individual, the debtor, **says: That is not** the case; **rather, you loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth three dinars,** i.e., three-quarters of a *sela*. In this case, the debtor is **obligated** to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:9
[Bava Metzia 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:9)

סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, שְׁנַיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, סֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If the debtor said: **You loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and the collateral **was worth two** *sela*, so now you owe me a *sela*. **And the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **said: That is not** the case; **rather, I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and the collateral **was worth a *sela*.** Here, the creditor is **exempt.**


###### Bava Metzia 34b:10
[Bava Metzia 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:10)

סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, שְׁנַיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, חֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the debtor said: **You loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and the collateral **was worth two** *sela*. **And the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **said: That is not** the case; **rather, I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and the collateral **was worth five dinars.** Here, the creditor is **obligated** to take an oath due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the debtor with a partial admission.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:11
[Bava Metzia 34b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:11)

מִי נִשְׁבָּע? מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ. שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna concludes: **Who takes** the **oath? The one** in **whose** possession **the deposit was** located, i.e., the creditor, who took collateral from the debtor. The Sages instituted this provision **lest this** party, i.e., the debtor, **take an oath and the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **produce the deposit** and prove the oath false.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:12
[Bava Metzia 34b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:12)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא, וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דִּשְׁבוּעָה גַּבֵּי מַלְוֶה הִיא, דְּהָא קָא מוֹדֵי מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify the mishna: **To which** case in the mishna is this *halakha* referring? **If we say** it is referring **to the latter clause** of the mishna, where the debtor claims that the creditor owes him money, the mishna’s explanation is unnecessary: **Derive** that the obligation to take the **oath** is incumbent **upon the creditor** due to the fact **that he admits to part of the** debtor’s **claim,** which renders one obligated to take an oath by Torah law. **Rather, Shmuel says:** This *halakha* is referring **to the first clause** of the mishna.


###### Bava Metzia 34b:13
[Bava Metzia 34b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:13)

מַאי אַרֵישָׁא? אַסֵּיפָא דְּרֵישָׁא, סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו שֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּהּ אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין הָיָה שָׁוֶה – חַיָּיב. דִּשְׁבוּעָה גַּבֵּי לֹוֶה הוּא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: לִשְׁתְּבַע מַלְוֶה, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies further: **What** is the meaning of Shmuel’s statement that this *halakha* is referring **to the first clause** of the mishna? It is referring **to the latter** part **of the first clause:** The creditor says: **I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and it was worth a shekel. And the other** individual, the debtor, **says: That is not** the case; **rather, you loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral **and** the collateral **was worth three dinars.** Here, the *halakha* is that the debtor is **obligated** to take an oath. Fundamentally, the obligation to take **the oath is that of the borrower,** as he is the one who responds to the creditor’s claim with a partial admission. **But the Sages said: Let the creditor take** the **oath** to bolster his claim, **lest this** party, the debtor, **take an oath and the other** party, the creditor, **produce the deposit.**


###### Bava Metzia 34b:14
[Bava Metzia 34b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/34b:14)

וְאִם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After explaining this mishna from tractate *Shevuot*, the Gemara analyzes its connection to the statement of Rav Huna: **But if**