## Bava Metzia Daf 4b

###### Bava Metzia 4b:1
[Bava Metzia 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:1)

סְלָעִים, דִּינָרִין. מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ, וְלֹוֶה אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מִקְצָת הַטְּעָנָה – יִשָּׁבַע. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה, וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If it is written in a promissory note that one borrowed an unspecified amount of ***sela’im*,** or that one borrowed an unspecified amount of **dinars,** and the **creditor says:** I lent you **five** *sela*, **and the debtor says:** You lent me only **three,** in this case **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since** the debtor **admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath. Rabbi Akiva says:** Since the wording of the note indicates only that he owes two dinars, the minimum plural amount, by admitting that he owes three **he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and** he is **exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:2
[Bava Metzia 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מִקְצָת הַטְּעָנָה – יִשָּׁבַע. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר שָׁלֹשׁ, הָא שְׁתַּיִם פָּטוּר, וְהַאי שְׁטָר דְּקָמוֹדֵי בֵּיהּ הֵילָךְ הוּא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֵילָךְ פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since** the debtor **admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath.** This indicates that **the reason** that he is obligated to take an oath is specifically **because he said** that he owes **three** dinars, **but** had he admitted to owing only **two,** he would have been **exempt** from taking an oath. **And** concerning the minimal obligation recorded in **this** promissory **note, to which he admits,** which is two dinars, it **is** as though he said: **Here you are.** An obligation recorded in a promissory note is tantamount to an obligation concerning which the defendant says: Here you are. **And** therefore, **conclude from it** that one who says: **Here you are,** is **exempt** from taking an oath with regard to the part of the claim he denies.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:3
[Bava Metzia 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:3)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ שְׁתַּיִם חַיָּיב, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הָוֵי וּפָטוּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטְּעָנָה הָוֵי, וְחַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, actually I will say to you** that even if he admitted that he owes **two** dinars he is **obligated** to take an oath, **and** the reason **that** the *baraita* **teaches** the dispute specifically with regard to the case of **three** dinars is not to exclude a case where he admits that he owes only two, but rather it is **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **he is the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and** he **is** therefore **exempt.** Therefore, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar **teaches us that he is considered** like **one who admits to part of the claim, and** he **is obligated** to take an oath.


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

אִי הָכִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מִקְצָת הַטְּעָנָה יִשָּׁבַע, ״אַף זֶה יִשָּׁבַע״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the *baraita* should have been phrased differently. If the defendant is obligated to take an oath even in a case where he admits that he owes two dinars, rather than stating that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since** the debtor **admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath,** the *baraita* **should have** stated: **Even this** one, who admits to owing three dinars, **takes an oath,** in addition to one who admits to owing two dinars.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:5
[Bava Metzia 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:5)

אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם שְׁתַּיִם פָּטוּר, וְהֵילָךְ חַיָּיב. וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** that explanation should be rejected. **Actually,** if he admits that he owes **two** dinars, he is **exempt** from taking an oath, **but** nevertheless, one who says: **Here you are,** is **obligated** to take an oath. **And** the reason for this distinction is that **here,** the case **is different, as the note supports him,** i.e., it indicates that he owes two dinars. Therefore, he is exempt from taking an oath with regard to the rest.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:6
[Bava Metzia 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:6)

אִי נָמֵי: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁטָר שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת, וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** if he admits to owing two dinars he is exempt for a different reason: **Because** a promissory **note** creates **a lien on** the debtor’s **land, and** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to** a debtor’s **denial of** a debt that is secured with **a lien on land.** Oaths are administered only when one denies owing money or movable property.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:7
[Bava Metzia 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:7)

אִיכָּא דְּמוֹתֵיב מִסֵּיפָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה וּפָטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר שָׁלֹשׁ, הָא שְׁתַּיִם חַיָּיב. וְהָא שְׁטָר, כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מוֹדֵי בֵּיהּ כְּ״הֵילָךְ״ דָּמֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״הֵילָךְ״ חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who raise an objection** to Rav Sheshet’s opinion **from the latter clause** of this *baraita*, which teaches that **Rabbi Akiva says: He is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost item and** is **exempt** from taking an oath. The Gemara infers: **The reason** he is exempt is **that he said** that he owes **three** dinars. **But** had he admitted to owing only **two,** he would have been **obligated** to take an oath. **And** concerning the minimal obligation recorded in **this** promissory **note, to which he admits,** which is two dinars, it **is** as though he said: **Here you are. Learn from it** that one who says: **Here you are,** is **obligated** to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:8
[Bava Metzia 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:8)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ שְׁתַּיִם נָמֵי פָּטוּר, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה הָוֵי – וְחַיָּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הָוֵי – וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, actually I will say to you** that if he admits that he owes **two** dinars he is **also exempt** from taking an oath, **and** the reason **that** the *baraita* **teaches** the dispute specifically with regard to the case of **three** dinars **is to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says** that **he is** considered **one who admits to part of the claim and** he **is obligated** to take an oath. Rabbi Akiva, therefore, **teaches us that** in his opinion, the defendant **is** the equivalent of **one returning a lost item, and** he **is exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:9
[Bava Metzia 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:9)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ: שְׁתַּיִם חַיָּיב, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ הֵיכִי פָּטַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי אִעָרוֹמֵי קָא מַעֲרִים! סָבַר: אִי אָמֵינָא שְׁתַּיִם בָּעֵינָא אִשְׁתְּבוֹעֵי, אֵימָא שָׁלֹשׁ דְּאֶהְוֵי כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה, וְאִיפָּטֵר. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁתַּיִם נָמֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to explain the *baraita* as just explained, **as, if it enters your mind** that one who admits that he owes **two** dinars is **obligated** to take an oath, **how does Rabbi Akiva deem him exempt in** a case where he admits that he owes **three** dinars? Perhaps **this** debtor **is employing artifice, thinking: If I say** that I owe **two, I will be required to take an oath.** Therefore, **I will say** that I owe **three so that I will be** considered **equivalent to one returning a lost item and will be exempt** from taking an oath. **Rather, learn from** it that even if he admits that he owes only **two** dinars, he is **also exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:10
[Bava Metzia 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:10)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא. אִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁטָר שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת, וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל כְּפִירַת שִׁעְבּוּד קַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** this explanation poses **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥiyya,** that a defendant is obligated to take an oath in a case where he says: Here you are. In other words, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s opinion is negated by the case of one who admits that he owes only two dinars, where he is exempt from taking an oath. The Gemara answers: The case **there is different, as the note supports him.** Therefore, he is not required to take an oath. **Alternatively,** he is exempt **because** a promissory **note** creates **a lien on** the debtor’s **land, and** there is a principle that **one does not take an oath with regard to** a debtor’s **denial of** a debt that is secured with **a lien on land.**


###### Bava Metzia 4b:11
[Bava Metzia 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:11)

מֵתִיב מַר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: טְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, הוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, הוֹדָה בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים – פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה מִקְצָת קַרְקָעוֹת – פָּטוּר, מִקְצָת כֵּלִים – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Sheshet from a mishna (*Shevuot* 38b): If one **claimed** that another owed him **vessels and land,** and the defendant **admitted to** owing him **vessels but denied** that he owes him **land,** or conversely, if **he admitted to** owing him **land but denied** that he owes him **vessels,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath with regard to what he denies. If **he admitted** that he owes him **part of the land,** he is **exempt.** If he admitted to owing **some of the vessels,** he is **obligated** to take an oath with regard to the remainder.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:12
[Bava Metzia 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:12)

טַעְמָא דְּכֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, דְּקַרְקַע לָאו בַּת שְׁבוּעָה הִיא, הָא כֵּלִים וְכֵלִים דּוּמְיָא דְּכֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת חַיָּיב. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ הֵילָךְ, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֵילָךְ חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** he is exempt in the first cases is **because** the claim is for **vessels and land, as** a claim with regard to **land is not subject to an oath. But** if the claim is for **vessels and vessels,** i.e., two sets of vessels, in a manner **similar to** the case of a claim for **vessels and land,** he is **obligated** to take an oath. **What are the circumstances** of such a case? Is it **not** a case **where he said to him: Here you are? And learn from** the mishna that one who says: **Here you are,** is **obligated** to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:13
[Bava Metzia 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:13)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כֵּלִים וְכֵלִים נָמֵי פָּטוּר, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת כֵּלִים – חַיָּיב אַף עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, actually I will say to you** that if the claim is for **vessels and vessels** he is **also exempt. And** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** the case of **vessels and land teaches us this** different *halakha*: If **he admitted** that he owes **some of the vessels,** and is therefore obligated to take an oath, he is **also obligated** to take an oath **with regard to the land** that he denied owing his creditor, although in and of itself one does not take an oath with regard to land.


###### Bava Metzia 4b:14
[Bava Metzia 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:14)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – זוֹקְקִין? תְּנֵינָא: זוֹקְקִין הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת לִישָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is this **teaching us?** Is this teaching the *halakha* of **binding?** According to this *halakha*, one who is obligated to take an oath in response to a claim can be required to take an oath with regard to an additional claim of land. This cannot be, as **we** already **learned** this *halakha* in a mishna in tractate *Kiddushin* (26a): When there is a claim brought against a person for movable property and land, and he is obligated to take an oath with regard to **the property that does not serve as a guarantee,** i.e., the movable property, it **binds the property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., the land, so that he is forced **to take an oath with regard to it** too. Why is this *halakha* repeated in tractate *Shevuot*?


###### Bava Metzia 4b:15
[Bava Metzia 4b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/4b:15)

הָכָא עִיקָּר, הָתָם אַגַּב גְּרָרָא נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **here,** in *Shevuot*, is the **main** reference to this *halakha*, as it discusses the *halakhot* of oaths, whereas the mishna **there,** in tractate *Kiddushin*, **cites it incidentally,** in the context of a broader survey of the difference between these two types of property.