of gallnuts [aftzei] that were worth six dinars for each kav at the time? The creditor said to him: Weren’t they worth four dinars for each kav at the time? Two witnesses came and said: Yes, they were worth four dinars per kav. Rava said that the debtor assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts. Rami bar Ḥama said: But didn’t you say that anything that is not incumbent upon a person is not on his mind? Perhaps he merely forgot what the price of gallnuts was at the time that he paid. Rava said to him: People remember the standard, set market price.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note attesting to the debt. The latter said to him: I already repaid you. The creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. Rav Naḥman said that the promissory note is undermined by the fact that the creditor admits that he received payment equal to the amount specified in the note, and his claim that there was an additional debt is unsubstantiated. Rav Pappa said that the promissory note is not undermined.

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav Pappa, in what way is this case different from the incident where a certain person said to another: Give me the hundred dinars that I claim from you, and this is the promissory note. The latter said to him: Didn’t you give me that money as an investment to be used for buying oxen to be slaughtered? And you came and sat in the slaughterhouse and received your money, including your share of the profits, from the sale of the slaughtered oxen. And the creditor said to him: That money you gave me was for a different debt. And Rav Pappa said that in that case the promissory note is undermined.

The Gemara answers: There, since the debtor said: You gave me the money for oxen and you took payment from oxen, and the creditor admitted that this had happened, the promissory note is undermined because there is no support for his claim that there was another debt in addition to the acknowledged transaction for the oxen. Here, say that the payment was in fact for a different debt.

What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Pappi said: The promissory note is not undermined, and Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The promissory note is undermined. And the halakha is that the promissory note is undermined.

And this statement applies in a case where he repaid him in the presence of witnesses and did not mention the promissory note to the creditor; but in a case where he repaid him privately, between the two of them, in the absence of witnesses, since [miggo] the creditor can say to him: This matter never happened, i.e., he could deny that he received any payment, he can also say that this money was for a different debt. And this is like the case involving Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, who repaid a debt in the absence of witnesses, and the creditor then claimed that the payment was for another debt (see Ketubot 85a).

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible whenever you say to me that I did not repay the debt. He then went and repaid the debt in the presence of witnesses, and the creditor later denied that he had been repaid. Abaye and Rava both say that the witnesses are not deemed credible and the creditor can collect payment, as the debtor deemed him credible at the outset. Rav Pappa objects to this and says: Although he deemed him more credible than himself concerning the possibility that the debtor would claim that he repaid the debt and the creditor would deny having been repaid, did he deem him more credible than witnesses? Therefore, he is exempt.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay the debt. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny the testimony of three witnesses, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Say that although the Sages say that we follow the majority of opinions, and the opinion of three people is therefore accepted against the opinion of two, this statement applies with regard to assessing value, as the more people there are, the more knowledgeable they are. But with regard to testimony, one hundred witnesses are like two, and two are like one hundred. Therefore, in this case there is no distinction between two witnesses and three witnesses.

The Gemara presents another version of the incident: A certain person said to another who had lent him money: I deem you credible like two witnesses whenever you say that I did not repay. He went and repaid the debt in the presence of three witnesses. Rav Pappa said that the creditor cannot deny their testimony, as the debtor deemed him credible like two witnesses; he did not deem him credible like three witnesses.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this: Two witnesses are like one hundred, and one hundred are like two. But if the debtor said to the creditor that he deems him credible like three witnesses, and then went and repaid him in the presence of four, then once he entered, by mentioning a larger number than what is necessary for testimony, the realm of opinions, in which three people carry greater weight than two, he has entered the realm of opinions, and four witnesses are deemed more credible than three. Therefore, the creditor is not deemed credible against them.

§ The mishna teaches: One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and the court does not administer an oath to a minor. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers that in the passage from which the halakhot of admission to part of a claim are derived, the verse states: “If a man delivers to his neighbor silver or vessels to safeguard” (Exodus 22:6). The word “man” indicates that the reference is only to adults, and delivery by a minor is nothing, i.e., it is not recognized as a halakhically significant act, as a minor is not halakhically competent.

§ The mishna teaches: But one does take an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury with regard to consecrated property. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say in the first clause that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor?

Rav said: The halakha that one takes an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is with regard to one who comes to court with a claim for a debt owed to his late father, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: There are times when although no one claimed of a person that he owes money, that person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one said to another: Your father had one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half; and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is only like one returning a lost item, as the son did not claim the money at all, and is exempt from taking an oath.

The Gemara asks: But is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost item is exempt from taking an oath attesting to the fact that he did not take anything from it? Rav said: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor advanced a claim against him. The creditor’s minor son claimed that the debtor did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The debtor’s partial admission came in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not comparable to the act of returning a lost item.

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita be referring to the claim of a minor? But didn’t you say in the mishna that one does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to an adult son; and why did Rav call him a minor? It was due to the fact that with regard to his father’s matters, one is like a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. Here, too, Rav explains that the halakha in the mishna that one takes an oath to a minor is referring to an adult claiming a debt owed to his late father.

The Gemara asks: If so, if the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna describe the individual as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language because although it is the claim of others, he is taking an oath on the basis of that claim and his own partial admission.