Study Bava Metzia folio 5A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: But according to Rav Sheshet, with regard to the one who says that in a case where the debtor says: Here you are, he is exempt from taking an oath, why was it necessary for the verse to exclude a claim of land ownership from the defendant’s obligation to take an oath when he admits
The Talmud answers that Rav Sheshet could have said to you: The verse was necessary in a case where the defendant dug pits, ditches, and caves in the land that he is returning to the plaintiff. Since the land has been damaged and is no longer in its prior state, the defendant is not effectively sayi
Alternatively, there is the case where one claimed that another owed him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to the claim involving the vessels and denied the claim involving the land. The verse teaches that although the defendant denied part of the claim and did not effectively say: Here
Come and hear a proof for R' Ḥiyya’s opinion, as Rami bar Ḥama teaches a baraita: All 4 types of bailees mentioned in the Torah require denial of part of the claim and admission of part of the claim in order to incur liability to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a depos
The Talmud elaborates: What are the circumstances in which the bailees both deny part of the claim and admit to part of the claim? Is it not referring to a case where the bailee said to the one who deposited the item: With regard to the items that I admit to having received from you: Here you are,