Study Shevuot folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Talmud: To which case is the final statement in the Mishnah, which says the creditor is the one who takes the oath, referring? If we say it is referring to the case in the latter clause of the Mishnah, where the debtor claims that the collateral was worth more than the loan, derive this halakha fro
In response, Shmuel says: This statement relates to the case in the first clause of the Mishnah, where the debtor is the defendant. And R' Ḥiyya bar Rav similarly says that it relates to the first clause. And R' Yoḥanan similarly says that it relates to the first clause.
The Talmud asks: What did the amora’im mean by: The first clause? The Talmud answers: They were not referring to the very first halakha in the Mishnah, but rather to the latter part of the first clause: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and
The Talmud notes: And now that Rav Ashi says that we maintain that two oaths are taken in this case, as this party, the creditor, takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, and that party, the debtor, takes an oath concerning how much the collateral was worth, this is what the Mishn
§ Shmuel says: With regard to one who lent 1,000 dinars to another and took from him the handle of a sickle as collateral, if the handle of the sickle is lost, the creditor has lost the entire sum of 1,000 dinars, even though the lost collateral was worth less. But if he took two handles as coll