Study Bava Metzia folio 4B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 5 sela, and the debtor says: You lent me only 3, in this case R' Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to
In any event, the baraita teaches that R' 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 3 dinars, but had he admitted to owing only two, he
The Talmud 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 3 dinars is not to exclude a case where he admits that he owes only tw
The Talmud 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 R' Shimon ben Elazar says: Since the debtor admitted to part of the claim, he takes an oath, the
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