Shevuot 41bשבועות מ״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 41b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
41bמ״א ב

תיובתא דרב אסי

Evidently, he is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi.

אמר לך רב אסי אנא כי אמרי היכא דמעיקרא אוזפיה בעדים דלא לדידיה הימניה הכא הא הימניה

The Gemara 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, he trusted him at the outset, as he lent it to him in the absence of witnesses. Therefore, the debtor is not required to repay the debt in the presence of witnesses.

רב יוסף מתני הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי יכול לומר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים

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 witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Rav Yehuda continued: When I said this in the presence of Shmuel, he said to me that the debtor can say to the claimant: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas.

תנן מנה לי בידך אמר לו הן אמר לו אל תתנהו לי אלא בפני עדים למחר אמר לו תנהו לי נתתיו לך חייב מפני שצריך ליתן לו בעדים תיובתא דשמואל

The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that in a case where the claimant said: I have one hundred 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 the next day the claimant said to him: Give the money to me, and the defendant responded: I already gave it to you, he is liable to pay, as he is required to give it to him in the presence of witnesses. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.

אמר לך שמואל תנאי היא דתניא בעדים הלויתיך בעדים פרע לי או יתן או יביא ראיה שנתן רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר יכול לומר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים

The Gemara 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 him the money or bring proof that he already gave it to him. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that he can say to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they subsequently went overseas.

פריך רב אחא ממאי דבשעת הלואה קאי דלמא בשעת תביעה קאי והכי קאמר ליה לאו בעדים הלויתיך בעדים היה לך לפורעני אבל בשעת הלואה דברי הכל חייב

Rav Aḥa refutes this answer: From where is it derived that the baraita is referring to a case where the creditor said this at the time of the loan? Perhaps it is referring to a case where he made no stipulation at the time of the loan, but rather said this at the time of the claim, when the debtor claimed that he had repaid the debt; and this is what he says to him: Didn’t I lend the money you in the presence of witnesses? You should have repaid me in the presence of witnesses. But if he made this stipulation at the time of the loan, all agree that the debtor is liable. Therefore, there is no evidence that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira agrees with the opinion of Shmuel.

אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא הלכתא המלוה את חבירו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים ורב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר המלוה את חבירו בעדים אין צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר אל תפרעני אלא בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים ואם אמר לו פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני והלכו להם למדינת הים נאמן:

In conclusion, Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava: In the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. But if the creditor says: Repay me only in the presence of witnesses, the debtor is required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. And if he said to him: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they went overseas, his claim is deemed credible.

סימן ראוב"ן ושמעו"ן דתנ"ו הלכת"א יזפ"י ופר"ע פלוני ופלוני עפצ"י סטרא"י בהימנות"א כבי תרי:

§ The Gemara cites several incidents involving loans and witnesses, and provides a mnemonic device for them: Reuven and Shimon, who learned halakha, borrowed, and repaid so-and-so and so-and-so gallnuts for a different debt, deeming them credible like two witnesses.

ההוא דא"ל לחבריה כי פרעתין פרעין לי באפי ראובן ושמעון אזל ופרעיה באפי תרי מעלמא אמר אביי באפי בי תרי אמר ליה באפי בי תרי פרעיה אמר ליה רבא להכי קאמר ליה באפי ראובן ושמעון כי היכי דלא נדחייה

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of Reuven and Shimon. The debtor went and repaid him in the presence of two other witnesses from the general public. When the case was brought before the Sages, Abaye said: The creditor said to the debtor to repay him in the presence of two people who would serve as witnesses, and he repaid him in the presence of two people. Therefore, the creditor has no further claim. Rava said to him: It is for this reason that the creditor said to him to repay him in the presence of Reuven and Shimon: So that he will not be able to dismiss him by saying that he repaid him in the presence of other witnesses.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה כי פרעת לי פרעין לי באפי בי תרי דתנו הלכתא אזל פרעיה בין דיליה לדיליה איתניסו הנך זוזי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain creditor who said to the debtor: When you repay me, repay me in the presence of two people who have learned halakha. The debtor went and repaid him between the two of them, i.e., in the absence of witnesses. Those dinars were subsequently taken from the creditor due to circumstances beyond his control.

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אין קבולי קבלתינהו מיניה דרך פקדון ואמינא ליהוי גבאי פקדון עד דמתרמו בי תרי דתנו הלכתא ומקיים תנאיה

The creditor came before Rav Naḥman for judgment, and said to him: Yes, I received the money from him; but since he did not repay me as stipulated, I accepted it only as a deposit. I accepted it as an unpaid bailee, not as payment, and said to myself: Let it be with me as a deposit until two people who have learned halakha happen to arrive, and the debtor will fulfill his condition. Since the money was taken from me due to circumstances beyond my control, and I had it in my possession only as an unpaid bailee, I am not responsible for it, and the debtor is still liable to repay me.

א"ל כיון דקא מודית דודאי שקלתינהו מיניה פרעון מעליא הוי אי אמרת לקיומי תנאיה זיל אייתינהו דהא אנא ורב ששת דתנינא הלכתא וספרא וספרי ותוספתא וכולא גמרא

Rav Naḥman said to him: Since you admit that you certainly took the money from him, it is a proper repayment. If you say that the debtor is still required to fulfill his condition, go bring the money now, as Rav Sheshet and I have learned halakha, and Sifra, and Sifrei, and Tosefta, and the entire Talmud. Let him give you the money in our presence, and the condition will thereby be fulfilled. Since he gave you the money intending to repay the debt, and did not agree to entrust it to you as an unpaid bailee, your claim is not valid.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי מאה זוזי דאוזיפתך אמר ליה לא היו דברים מעולם אזל אייתי סהדי דאוזפיה ופרעיה אמר אביי מאי ניעבוד אינהו אמרי אוזפיה אינהו אמרי פרעיה רבא אמר כל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי דמי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I lent you. The latter said to him: This matter never happened; you did not lend me money. The creditor went and brought witnesses who testified that he lent the money to him and that the debtor had repaid him. Abaye said: What is there for the court to do in this case? The same witnesses said both statements; they said that the creditor lent him the money, and they also said that the debtor repaid him. Rava said: Anyone who says: I did not borrow, is considered like one who says: I did not repay. Since there is testimony that he borrowed the money, and he admits that he did not repay it, he is liable to repay the debt.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי מאה זוזי דמסיקנא בך א"ל לא פרעתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני אתו פלוני ופלוני אמרי לא היו דברים מעולם סבר רב ששת למימר הוחזק כפרן אמר ליה רבא כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאינש לאו אדעתיה

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: Didn’t I repay you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so? The two people he mentioned, so-and-so and so-and-so, came and said: This matter never happened. Rav Sheshet thought to say that based on the testimony of the witnesses, the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts; his claim that he repaid the debt is no longer accepted, and he is liable to pay. Rava said to him: Anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind, i.e., he is apt to forget it.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי שית מאה זוזי דמסיקנא בך א"ל ולא פרעתיך מאה קבי

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the six hundred dinars that I claim from you. The latter said to him: But didn’t I repay you with one hundred kav