For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 3
To download, click/tap here: PDF
Our daf states that if the defendant denies a claim 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?
This is the struggle of our sugya and we explore notions of Halacha vs metahalacha…with the help of Prof Moshe Halbertal.