Ketubot 18a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: He stated it this way because

the ordinary inhabitants of Judea and Galilee are considered like a time of emergency.

And the Gemara returns to the issue with which we began our sugya: Why did Rabbi Yehoshua state the wording, “This field belongs to your father

”?

And let him teach:

“Rabbi Yehoshua concedes with regard to one who says to his fellow: ‘I borrowed a maneh from you and repaid it to you,’ that he is deemed credible

by Torah law even without an oath ,”

,”

and why was it necessary for him to establish the case with a field, and to force the matter by saying, “It belongs to your father

”? And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach

in the

latter clause,

that if there are witnesses he is not deemed credible,

and

if we were to write in the latter clause

“If there are witnesses that he borrowed from him, and he says, ‘I repaid him,’ he is not deemed credible,”

that would not be correct, because

we have established

that

one who lends money to his fellow before witnesses need not have him repay him before witnesses,

and the borrower is deemed credible to claim that it was repaid. Therefore Rabbi Yehoshua stated his law with regard to one who says, “This property belongs to your father

”.

And let him teach:

“Rabbi Yehoshua concedes with regard to one who says to his fellow: ‘Your father has a maneh in my possession, and I fed him half of it

that is, I returned half of it to him

—that he is deemed credible,”

even though he is partially admitting and requires an oath, here he does not take an oath, since the other is not claiming against him, and there is no slaughtered ox before you; therefore we say: ha-peh she-asar hu ha-peh she-hitir.

And we consider it:

According to whom

is he deemed credible without an oath

? If according to the Rabbis,

whose words will be brought below,

they say

—

he is one returning a lost object,

and if so, even if the other claims against him he should be deemed credible; why did Rabbi Yehoshua inform us specifically of a case where there is no slaughtered ox before you?!

And if according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, he says

—

he requires an oath

even where the other does not claim against him. And the Gemara explains where the words of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis were taught:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: There are times when a person takes an oath on account of

his own

claim. How so:

One who claims to his fellow:

“Your father has a maneh in my possession, and I fed him half of it”—he takes an oath. And this is one who takes an oath on account of his own claim.

And the Sages say: He is merely like one returning a lost object, and he is exempt!

Because the Sages enacted that one who finds a lost object should not take an oath, for the rectification of the world; here too, since without his admission we have no basis for claiming against him, he is considered like one returning a lost object, and the Sages exempted him from the oath.

And

we challenge: Does

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov not have

the enactment of the Sages that

one returning a lost object is exempt?

After all, here, where he is not claiming against him, there is no greater case of returning a lost object than this: he comes and admits on his own. Why did Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov obligate him to take an oath?

And we answer:

Rav said:

In every case, even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, where the other does not claim against him, he does not take an oath because he is one returning a lost object; but here the case is

in

a situation where the one who

claims against him is a minor,

and therefore he is not considered one returning a lost object, and he takes an oath concerning his claim.

And Rabbi Eliezer informed us that one takes an oath concerning the claim of a minor, although it is considered his own claim, since now the reasoning of one returning a lost object does not apply.

And we challenge:

And

does one take an oath concerning the claim of a minor?! And

d

o you not

know what the Master said: One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor?

And if our sugya is dealing with the claim of a minor, why did Rabbi Eliezer administer an oath?

And we answer:

What does “minor”

mean, as Rabbi Eliezer said that one takes an oath concerning his claim

?! An adult! And why does he call him a minor,

because

with regard to his father’s affairs he is a minor.

And we challenge:

If so,

why did Rabbi Eliezer say that we find a person taking an oath concerning

his own claim,

whereas in our sugya

it is the claim of another?

For we are dealing with a case where an adult is claiming against him.

And we answer: Here we are dealing with

the claim of another and his own admission,

and this is Rabbi Eliezer’s innovation: that he takes an oath concerning his own admission.

And we challenge: After all,

all of these claims

also deal with

the claim of another and his own admission

in part; they

are,

so what did Rabbi Eliezer inform us by his statement that “a person takes an oath concerning his own claim

”?

And we answer:

Rather, here

we are indeed dealing with one against whom a minor is claiming, and everything that we say, “One does not take an oath concerning the claim of a minor,” applies when the minor claims, “I lent you a maneh,” for then one does not take an oath concerning his claim, because it is stated: “When a man gives money or vessels to his fellow,” and we expound: specifically a man, but not a minor. But where the giver is an adult, even though the claimant is a minor—for example, a minor claiming, “You have a maneh belonging to my father”—Rabbi Eliezer holds that one takes an oath concerning his claim.

But the Rabbis disagree with him even when the claimant is an adult, because they hold that he is considered one returning a lost object, since he claims against him on the basis of his father, and

in

this they disagree over the principle of Rabba.

For Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that one who partially admits the claim must take an oath,

and did it not consider him one returning a lost object and exempt him, since he did not deny all of it? Because “

it is presumed that a person is not brazen before his creditor

,”

; and this one

in truth

wanted to deny the whole of it! And the fact that he did not deny it to him is because a person is not brazen!