אמר אלא לברר א"ל אנא נמי לברר קאמינא:
say that the litigant loses the case if he cannot produce verification of his extraneous claims, but only that he is told to verify those claims if he can. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to Rabbi Abba: I, too, am saying only that you are required to verify your claim if you can; if you cannot, you will not be required to pay.
מתני׳ מי שפרע מקצת חובו ר' יהודה אומר יחליף רבי יוסי אומר יכתוב שובר אמר רבי יהודה נמצא זה צריך להיות שומר שוברו מן העכברים אמר לו רבי יוסי כך יפה לו ולא ירע כחו של זה:
MISHNA: In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to this arrangement: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice, as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him; it is better that this procedure be followed, and the strength of the claim of this creditor not be weakened.
גמ׳ אמר רב הונא אמר רב אין הלכה לא כרבי יהודה ולא כרבי יוסי אלא ב"ד מקרעין השטר וכותבין לו שטר אחר מזמן ראשון
GEMARA: Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rather, the halakha is that the court tears up the original promissory note and writes a different promissory note for the creditor, listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document.
אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב הונא ואמרי לה רב ירמיה בר אבא לרב הונא אי שמיעא ליה לרב הא [ברייתא] דתניא עדים מקרעין את השטר וכותבין לו שטר אחר מזמן ראשון הוה הדר ביה
Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said this to Rav Huna: If Rav would have heard this following baraita, as it is taught in a baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda the proper procedure is that the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for the creditor listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document, he would have retracted his statement that the court tears the promissory note and writes a new one.
אמר ליה שמיע ליה ולא הדר ביה
Rav Huna said to him: Rav heard the baraita, and nevertheless he did not retract his statement. While Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita that the witnesses write a new promissory note, Rav maintains that this must be done specifically by a court. Why is this?