For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 107
To download, click/tap here: PDF
Steinsaltz writes: "One enigmatic rule in Jewish law is the law that distinguishes between two different responses to an accusation that one person owes money to another. The halakha is that if the defendant denies it entirely, we believe him without requiring him to bring any further proof; if he denies that he owes all of the money, but admits that he owes part of it, then he must pay the amount that he admits to and then take an oath that he does not owe any more.
Why do we trust the individual who denies it all, while making the person who admits that he owes some of the money take an oath?
In answer to this question, Rabba teaches, “Hazakah en adam me’is panav lifne ba’al hove – we work with the assumption that a person will not have the temerity to deny his obligation to the face of the lender.”
We review Yaakov Elman’s work on The Mishnah's Anthological Choices.