Shevuos 6:1-2

Shevuos 6:1

We now turn to oaths imposed by the courts. Let’s say that the plaintiff is suing for two coins of silver and the defendant admits to owing one prutah (a much smaller denomination, which was made of copper). If what he admitted is not of the same kind as what the plaintiff claimed, he is exempt from taking an oath. Two silver coins is different from one (copper) prutah, so in this case he is exempt. If the plaintiff claims that the defendant has two silver coins and one prutah of his and the defendant admits to the prutah, then he is liable to an oath (because he admitted to part of the claim). If the plaintiff says that the defendant has a maneh (100 shekel) belonging to him and the defendant denies it, he is exempt from taking an oath. If the defendant admits to having 50 dinar that belongs to the plaintiff, then he is liable (because he admitted to part of the claim). If the plaintiff says that the defendant has a maneh belonging his (the plaintiff’s) father and the defendant admits to having 50 dinar that belongs to him, he is exempt because this case is comparable to restoring lost property.

Shevuos 6:2

Let’s say the plaintiff says that the defendant has a maneh belonging to him, which the defendant admits in front of witnesses. The next day, the plaintiff asks for the money and the defendant replies that he already gave it to him. In such a case, he is exempt from taking an oath but if he denied ever having the plaintiff’s property, then he is liable. If the plaintiff says that the defendant has a maneh belonging to him, which the defendant admits, so the plaintiff says, “Only give it to me in front of witnesses.” The next day, the plaintiff asks for the money and the defendant replies that he already gave it to him. In this case, the defendant is liable to pay because he should only have given it to the plaintiff in front of witnesses.