Shevuot 43B

גמ׳ אהייא? אילימא אסיפא ⁠– ותיפוק ליה דשבועה גבי מלוה!

Talmud: To which case is the final statement in the Mishnah, which says the creditor is the one who takes the oath, referring? If we say it is referring to the case in the latter clause of the Mishnah, where the debtor claims that the collateral was worth more than the loan, derive this halakha from the fact that the oath is anyway taken by the creditor, as he is the defendant in this case. The additional statement is superfluous.

אמר שמואל: ארישא. וכן אמר רבי חייא בר רב: ארישא. וכן אמר רבי יוחנן: ארישא.

In response, Shmuel says: This statement relates to the case in the first clause of the Mishnah, where the debtor is the defendant. And R' Ḥiyya bar Rav similarly says that it relates to the first clause. And R' Yoḥanan similarly says that it relates to the first clause.

מאי רישא? סיפא דרישא: ״סלע הלויתיך עליו ושקל היה שוה״, והלה אומר: ״לא כי, אלא סלע הלויתני עליו ושלשה דינרין היה שוה״⁠ – חייב. דשבועה גבי לוה היא, ושקלוה רבנן מלוה ושדיוה אמלוה.

The Talmud asks: What did the amora’im mean by: The first clause? The Talmud answers: They were not referring to the very first halakha in the Mishnah, but rather to the latter part of the first clause: There is a case of a creditor who claims: I lent you a sela on the basis of that collateral and it was worth a shekel. And the other individual, the debtor, says: That is not the case; rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth 3 dinars, i.e., 3/4ths of a sela. In this case, he is liable to take an oath. As in this case, the oath should in principle be taken by the debtor, since he is the one who admitted to a part of the creditor’s claim, but the rabbis removed the obligation to take an oath from the debtor and imposed it on the creditor, deeming him liable to take an oath that the collateral was not worth more than a shekel.