## Ketubot Daf 18a

###### Ketubot 18a:1
[Ketubot 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:1)

דִּסְתַם יְהוּדָה וּגְלִיל כִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The reason that the *tanna* cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is **that** the **standard** situation with regard to travel between **Judea and** the **Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period,** as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.


###### Ketubot 18a:2
[Ketubot 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:2)

וְלִיתְנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״מָנֶה לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ וּפְרַעְתִּיו לָךְ״, שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: פְּרַעְתִּיו — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפׇרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** the *tanna* **teach** in the mishna: **And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in** a case where **one says to another: I borrowed one hundred** dinars **from you and repaid** the loan **to you, that he is deemed credible.** The Gemara answers: The *tanna* chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted **due to** the fact **that** the *tanna* **wanted to teach** in **the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed** money **from** another, **and he says: I repaid** the loan, **he is not deemed credible.** However, the *tanna* would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, **as don’t we hold** that in the case of **one who lends** money to **another in** the presence of **witnesses,** the borrower **need not repay** the loan **in** the presence of **witnesses?** Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.


###### Ketubot 18a:3
[Ketubot 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:3)

וְלִיתְנֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: מָנֶה לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי, וְהֶאֱכַלְתִּיו פְּרָס — שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** the *tanna* **teach** in the mishna: **And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in** a case where **one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession** in the form of a loan, **but I provided him** with repayment of **half** that amount, that **his** claim is **deemed credible.**


###### Ketubot 18a:4
[Ketubot 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:4)

אַלִּיבָּא דְמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן — הָא אָמְרִי מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה הָוֵי. אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — הָא אָמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. **In accordance with whose** opinion would the mishna be taught? **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis, didn’t they say** that in that case **he is** the equivalent of **one returning a lost article?** Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. **And if** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, didn’t he say** that in that case the borrower is **required** to take **an oath,** and only then is his claim accepted?


###### Ketubot 18a:5
[Ketubot 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם נִשְׁבָּע עַל טַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ. כֵּיצַד? ״מָנֶה לְאָבִיךְ בְּיָדִי וְהֶאֱכַלְתִּיו פְּרָס״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע עַל טַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה, וּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This dispute is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** There are **times when** although no one claimed that another owes him money, **a person takes an oath on** the basis of **his own claim. How** so? If one says to another: **Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him** with repayment of **half** that amount, **he** is required to **take an oath** that he repaid half, **and that is** the case of one **who takes an oath on** the basis of **his own claim. And the Rabbis say:** In that case **he is merely** the **equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Ketubot 18a:6
[Ketubot 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:6)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לֵית לֵיהּ מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה פָּטוּר? אָמַר רַב: בְּטוֹעֲנוֹ קָטָן. וְהָאָמַר מָר: אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of** the opinion that **one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath** that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. **Rav says:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **where a minor makes a claim** against **him.** The lender’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t the Master say: One does not take an oath on** the basis of **the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor?** Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.


###### Ketubot 18a:7
[Ketubot 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:7)

מַאי קָטָן — גָּדוֹל. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ קָטָן — דִּלְגַבֵּי מִילֵּי דְאָבִיו, קָטָן הוּא. אִי הָכִי: טַעֲנַת עַצְמוֹ? טַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים הִיא! טַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים, וְהוֹדָאַת עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In Rav’s statement, **what** is the meaning of **minor?** It means one who reached **majority,** and is therefore halakhically competent. **And why does** Rav **call him a minor?** It is due to the fact **that with regard to his father’s matters, he is** the equivalent of **a minor,** as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. **If so,** i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the *baraita* is imprecise. Why does the *tanna* refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of **his own claim?** This is not his own claim; it **is the claim of others.** The Gemara answers: The *baraita* employed that language for the following reason: It **is the claim of others, but** he is taking an oath on the basis of **his own** partial **admission.**


###### Ketubot 18a:8
[Ketubot 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:8)

כּוּלְּהִי טַעֲנָתָא, טַעֲנַת אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹדָאַת עַצְמוֹ נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **All claims** where an oath is required **are** cases of **a claim of others and his own admission.** However, in the *baraita*, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath.


###### Ketubot 18a:9
[Ketubot 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/18a:9)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בִּדְרַבָּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע — חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְהַאי בְּכוּלַּהּ בָּעֵי דְּלִכְפְּרֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּלָא כְּפַר לֵיהּ — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. **Here,** Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the statement of **Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that** one who **makes a partial admission** in response to **the claim** is required to **take an oath?** It is because there is a **presumption** that **a person** would **not be** so **insolent in the presence of his creditor** as to deny his debt. Presumably, **this** borrower who made a partial admission **would have liked to deny the entire** loan, **and** the fact **that he did not deny** the entire loan **is due to** the fact **that a person** would **not be** so **insolent** in the presence of his creditor.