Shevuot 41B

תיובתא דרב אסי!

Evidently, he is not required to repay him in the presence of witnesses. The Talmud 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 Talmud 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 Talmud raises an objection against Shmuel’s opinion: We learned in the Mishnah that in a case where the claimant said: I have 100 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 Talmud suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.