1

The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: "He owes me a maneh that I lent to him," "... that I entrusted to him," "... that he stole from me," "... that he owes me as wages," or the like. Should the defendant answer: "I do not owe you anything," "I have nothing of yours," or "You are issuing a false claim," this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: "Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim. Say whether you borrowed from him or did not borrow from him," "... whether he entrusted an article to you or did not," "... whether you stole from him or did not," "... whether he hired you or did not," or lodge any other specific claim. Why do we not accept the general answer? Because it is possible that the person is making an error and this will lead to his taking a false oath. For it is possible that he borrowed money as the plaintiff claims and returned the debt to the lender's son or wife, or gave the lender a present of the value of the debt, and thinks that because of this, he is no longer liable for the debt. Hence, the court tells him: "Why are you saying that you are not liable? Maybe the law would hold you liable and you do not know. Instead, tell the judges the details of the matter, and they will tell you whether or not you are liable."

Even if the defendant is a wise man of great stature, we tell him: "You have nothing to lose by responding to his claim and telling us why you are not liable to him, whether it is because nothing of that nature ever happened, or because you were liable and you repaid the debt. You will not lose, because we follow the principle of miggo."

Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "This person owes me a maneh," or "He has a maneh of mine in his possession." We ask him: "On what basis do you make this claim? Did you lend him money? Did you entrust it to him for safekeeping? Did he damage your property? Tell us why he is obligated to you." For it is possible that a person will think that a colleague is obligated to him when he is not - e.g., he suspects that he stole from him he promised him to give him a maneh but did not, or the like.

The defendant's word is not accepted in the following situation. The plaintiff claimed that he lent the defendant a maneh, and the defendant denied ever taking the loan. Afterwards, the plaintiff brought witnesses who testified that the loan was given in their presence. In response, the defendant replied that he took the loan, but repaid it. We do not accept his claim. Instead, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.

If, however, in the latter situation, the defendant first replied: "I am not liable," "I do not owe you anything," "You are lying," or the like a different rule applies. Even though the plaintiff brings witnesses who state that the loan was given in their presence, if the defendant says: "That is true, but I returned the entrusted object" or "... repaid the loan," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations.

א

בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שֶׁבָּאוּ לְבֵית דִּין טָעַן הָאֶחָד וְאָמַר מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיו אוֹ שֶׁהִפְקַדְתִּי אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁגָּזַל מִמֶּנִּי אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ בְּשָׂכָר וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהֵשִׁיב הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. אֵין זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה נְכוֹנָה אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים בֵּית דִּין לַנִּטְעָן הָשֵׁב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וּפָרֵשׁ הַתְּשׁוּבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ זֶה טַעֲנָתוֹ וֶאֱמֹר אִם לָוִיתָ מִמֶּנּוּ אִם לֹא לָוִיתָ. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלְךָ אוֹ לֹא הִפְקִיד. גְּזַלְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא גְּזַלְתּוֹ. שְׂכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ לֹא שְׂכַרְתּוֹ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַטְּעָנוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִמֶּנּוּ תְּשׁוּבָה זוֹ. שֶׁמָּא טוֹעֶה הוּא בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְיָבוֹא לְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן וְהֶחְזִיר זֶה אֶת הַחוֹב לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹב וִידַמֶּה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁנִּפְטַר מִן הַחוֹב. לְפִיכָךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תֹּאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא אַתָּה מִתְחַיֵּב מִן הַדִּין לְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא הוֹדַע לַדַּיָּנִין פֵּרוּשׁ הַדְּבָרִים וְהֵם יוֹדִיעוּךָ אִם אַתָּה חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם גָּדוֹל אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֵין לְךָ הֶפְסֵד שֶׁתָּשִׁיב עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ וְתוֹדִיעֶנּוּ כֵּיצַד אֵין אַתָּה חַיָּב לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיוּ וְהֶחֱזַרְתָּ לוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ דָּנִין בְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְכֵן אִם טָעַן הַטּוֹעֵן וְאָמַר זֶה חַיָּב לִי מָנֶה. אוֹ מָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ מֵאֵי זֶה פָּנִים. הִלְוֵיתָ אוֹתוֹ. אוֹ הִפְקַדְתָּ אֶצְלוֹ. אוֹ הִזִּיק מָמוֹנְךָ. אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ נִתְחַיֵּב לְךָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּדְמֶה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲשָׁדוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְךָ מָנֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הֲרֵי שֶׁטָּעַן עָלָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָנֶה וְהֵשִׁיב זֶה וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא הַטּוֹעֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְחָזַר הַנִּטְעָן וְאָמַר כֵּן הָיָה וְלָוִיתִי וּפָרַעְתִּי אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל אִם הֵשִׁיב אֵינִי חַיָּב אוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה טוֹעֵן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהָלַךְ הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְאָמַר (הַנִּתְבָּע) כֵּן הָיָה אֲבָל הֶחְזַרְתִּי לוֹ פִּקְדוֹנוֹ אוֹ פְּרַעְתִּיו חוֹבוֹ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר:

2

The following rules apply when witnesses see that the plaintiff counted out money and gave it to the defendant, but did not know for which reason. If the defendant demands payment in a court of law, saying: "Give me the money that I lent you,"" and the defendant replied: "You gave me a present," or "You repaid a debt," his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and then is released of all obligations. If, however, he claims that he was never given any money, and the witnesses came and testified that money was counted out in their presence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established.

A person is never presumed by the court to be a liar unless he denies a matter in court and two witnesses come and offer testimony that contradicts the denial he made.

ב

רָאוּהוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא יָדְעוּ מַה הֵן. וּתְבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ. וְאָמַר מַתָּנָה נָתַתָּ לִי אוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן הָיוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמָּנָה לוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין אָדָם מֻחְזָק כַּפְרָן עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בְּבֵית דִּין וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְיַכְחִישׁוּהוּ בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּפַר:

3

There is a corollary to the above concept. The plaintiff claimed: "I lent you a maneh." The defendant denied the matter in court, saying: "The incident never occurred." Two witnesses came and testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and repaid the debt. After these comments were made, the lender stated: "I did not receive payment." The defendant is obligated to pay. The rationale is that anyone who says: "I did not borrow," is considered to have said: "I did not repay the debt," in the event that witnesses come and establish that he in fact took a loan. Thus, in the above situation, it is as if the borrower said: "I did not repay the debt," despite the fact that witnesses testify that he did. We postulate that the admission of the principal is considered as strong as the testimony of 100 witnesses and the borrower is held liable. The lender is not required to take an oath, for a presumption that the borrower is lying has been established.

A similar law applies if the lender produces a signed note saying that he is liable, and the borrower denies the entire matter and claims that he did not write the note. If the authenticity of the note was established in court or witnesses come and testify that it was his note, a presumption that the defendant is lying is established, and he is required to pay.

ג

מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ כָּפַר בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וּבָאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה מִמֶּנּוּ מָנֶה וּפְרָעוֹ. וְהַמַּלְוֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁלָּוָה כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְנִמְצָא הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ הוֹדָאַת בַּעַל דִּין כְּמֵאָה עֵדִים דָּמֵי וְאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה חַיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזַק זֶה כַּפְרָן. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ וְאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְזֶה אֵינוֹ כְּתַב יָדִי. אִם הֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כְּתַב יָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וּמְשַׁלֵּם:

4

There are times, however, when a person is not presumed to be lying despite the fact that his statements conflict with the testimony of witnesses. For example, a plaintiff claims: "I lent you a maneh, and it is in your possession." The defendant responds: "I paid you in the presence of so-and-so-and so-and-so," but those two witnesses come and deny having observed the matter. We do not say that a presumption that the defendant is lying is established. The rationale is that witnesses will remember only a matter concerning which they were designated to serve as witnesses. Hence, a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established, and the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.

Similarly, if the plaintiff claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent you when you were standing next to this pillar," and the defendant responded: "I never stood next to that pillar," a presumption that the defendant is lying is not established even though witnesses come and testify that he stood there. The rationale is that a person will not take notice of matters that are not significant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ד

מָנֶה הִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְהוּא לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּטְעָן וַהֲלֹא פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. וּבָאוּ עֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹכְרִין אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהֵם עֵדִים בּוֹ לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן וְיִשָּׁבַע הַלּוֶֹה הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וְאַתָּה עָמַדְתָּ בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּצַד עַמּוּד זֶה מֵעוֹלָם וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁעָמַד לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים דַּעְתּוֹ לִדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

5

When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, the borrower is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses, as explained. Accordingly, if the lender claims: "Give me the maneh that I lent to you; here are the witnesses in whose presence the loan was given." And the defendant claims: "I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so," we tell the borrower: "Bring them to court and be freed of responsibility." If they do not come, or they died, or they journeyed to another country, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. For the only reason we require the defendant to bring the witnesses is to clarify his position and be released from the obligation of an oath.

ה

תֵּן לִי מָנֶה שֶׁהִלְוֵיתִיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר הַנִּטְעָן פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אוֹמְרִין לַלּוֶֹה הֲבִיאֵם וְהִפָּטֵר. לֹא בָּאוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפְּרָעוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַצְרִיכִים אוֹתוֹ לַהֲבִיאָן אֶלָּא לְבָרֵר דְּבָרָיו וּלְהִפָּטֵר אַף מִשְּׁבוּעָה. שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

6

An admission made by the borrower outside of court may not be binding. For example, the plaintiff told the defendant in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the defendant agreed. The following day, the plaintiff lodged a claim against the defendant in court and brought the witnesses to support his claim. If the defendant claimed: "I was joking with you and I do not owe you anything," he is not held liable. He must merely take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not owe anything.

This ruling applies even when the defendant denies that the event ever happened. The rationale is that the defendant never designated the witnesses to serve in that capacity. And when a person is not charged with acting as a witness with regard to a situation, he will not necessarily remember its particulars. Therefore, even if the defendant said that the events did not ever take place, we do not accept the presumption that he is lying.

ו

אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן. לְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בְּךָ וְאֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם. פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם אַתֶּם עֵדַי וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עֵדוּת אֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן:

7

Morevoer, the defendant's denial is allowed to stand even in the following situation. The plaintiff hid witnesses behind a fence and told the defendant: "You owe me a maneh," and the defendant agreed. The plaintiff then told him: "Do you wish so-and-so and so-and-so to act as witnesses against you?"

He replied: "No. Lest you press me to judgment tomorrow; for I have nothing to pay you."

On the next day, he called him to court with these witnesses. Whether the defendant claimed: "I was speaking frivolously," or whether he claimed that the matter never took place, he may take a sh'vuat hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is the testimony is not committing until the borrower says: "You are my witnesses," or the lender makes that statement in the presence of the borrower, and the borrower remains silent. The defendant is not presumed to be a liar, because of testimony of this nature.

An incident occurred concerning a person called kav r'shu ("a full measure of indebtedness") - i.e., that he had many debts. He would say: "The only person to whom I owe money is so-and-so." When that person came and lodged a claim against him, he said: "I do not owe him anything." Our Sages said: "He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be released of all obligation."

Similarly, there was a person about whom people would gossip that he was wealthy. At the time of his death, he said: "If I had money, would I not pay so-and-so and so-and-so." After his death, so-and-so and so-and-so lodged a claim against the estate. Our Sages said: "They have no claim against the estate." For a person is wont to try to make himself appear as if he does not possess any money, and even as if he did not leave money to his children. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ז

וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הִטְמִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר וְאָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ אָמַר לוֹ הֵן רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ בְּךָ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אָמַר לוֹ לֹא שֶׁמָּא תִּכְפֵּנִי בְּדִין לְמָחָר וְאֵין לִי מָה אֶתֵּן לְךָ וּלְמָחָר תְּבָעוֹ בְּדִין בְּאֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים. בֵּין שֶׁטָּעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַלּוֶֹה אַתֶּם עֵדַי אוֹ יֹאמַר הַמַּלְוֶה בִּפְנֵי הַלּוֶֹה וְיִשְׁתֹּק הַלּוֶֹה אֲבָל בָּעֵדוּת הַזֶּה לֹא הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ קַב רְשׁוּ כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אָמַר מִי הוּא שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ אֶלָּא פְּלוֹנִי וּבָא אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי וּתְבָעוֹ וְאָמַר הוּא אֵינִי חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן אֶחָד הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מָמוֹן. בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיָה לִי מָמוֹן לֹא הָיִיתִי פּוֹרְעוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי וְלִפְלוֹנִי. וְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ בָּאוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי לִתְבֹּעַ וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶם כְּלוּם. שֶׁהָאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַרְאוֹת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעַל מָמוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ בָּנָיו בַּעֲלֵי מָמוֹן וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ:

8

As mentioned, witnesses who are hidden cannot give binding testimony, and similarly, when a person admits a debt on his own initiative while witnesses are listening, or a person tells a colleague in the presence of witnesses: "You owe me a maneh" and the colleague admits the obligation, the testimony of the witnesses is not significant. Nevertheless, in all these situations, when the principals come to the court, we tell the defendant: "Why don't you pay the debt you owe him?"

If he says: "I do not owe him anything," we tell him: "Behold you made a statement saying this-and-this in the presence of these individuals," or "You admitted the obligation on your own initiative." If he arises and makes restitution, that is desirable. If he does not offer a defense, we do not suggest one for him. If, however, he claims: "I was speaking frivolously with him," "The event never occurred," or "I did not want to appear wealthy," he is not liable and is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, as we have explained in the previous halachah.

ח

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּטְמִין עֵדִים אֵינָהּ עֵדוּת וְכֵן הַמּוֹדֶה מֵעַצְמוֹ וְעֵדִים שׁוֹמְעִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ וְאָמַר לוֹ הֵן. בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְבֵית דִּין אוֹמְרִין לַנִּתְבָּע לָמָּה לֹא תִּתֵּן מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלְךָ. אָמַר אֵין לוֹ אֶצְלִי כְּלוּם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ וַהֲלֹא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ בִּפְנֵי אֵלּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ הוֹדֵיתָ מֵעַצְמְךָ. אִם עָמַד וְשִׁלֵּם מוּטָב וְאִם לֹא טָעַן אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר מְשַׁטֶּה הָיִיתִי בּוֹ אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂבִּיעַ אֶת עַצְמִי נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי פָּטוּר וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: