Study Shevuot folio 41B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Evidently, he is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. The Talmud suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi.
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: Rav Asi could have said to you: When I said that the debtor is liable to repay him in the presence of witnesses, it was with regard to a case where the creditor lent the money to him in the presence of witnesses at the outset, as he did not trust him. But here, h
Rav Yosef teaches another version of this discussion, like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter need not repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor said: Repay me only in the presence of wit
The Talmud raises an objection against Shmuel’s opinion: We learned in the Mishnah that in a case where the claimant said: I have 100 dinars in your possession, and the defendant said to him: Yes, and the claimant then said to him: Give the money to me only in the presence of witnesses, then if t
The Talmud answers: Shmuel could have said to you that it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If the creditor said to the debtor: I lent the money to you in the presence of witnesses and therefore you must repay me in the presence of witnesses, the debtor must either give h