If you have ever had a mortgage or made car payments, you’ve borrowed money using collateral (your house or car, respectively) which the lender can repossess if you fall behind on payments. In these modern examples, the collateral is usually in possession of the borrower. A mishnah on today’s daf explores what happens when the collateral is instead in the hands of the lender — who then loses it. Here’s the first part of the mishnah:
In the case of one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the collateral was lost while in the possession of the creditor, and the creditor says to the debtor: “I lent you a sela on the basis of collateral that was worth a shekel (i.e., a half-sela). Therefore, you owe me a shekel.” And the debtor says: “That is not the case. Rather, you lent me a sela on the basis of that collateral worth a sela, so I owe you nothing.” In this case, the debtor is exempt.
The borrower and lender do not contest that the creditor had possession of the collateral, but they do contest what the (now lost) collateral was worth. While the borrower asserts it covers the entire loan, the lender claims it covers only half. Since the collateral has since been lost, its value can’t be ascertained in court. In this case, according to the mishnah, the court believes the borrower. No oaths are taken, no money changes hands.
The second case is slightly different:
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 collateral that was worth three dinars (i.e., three-quarters of a sela).” In this case, the debtor is liable to take an oath, due to the fact that he responded to the claim of the creditor with a partial admission.
This is a similar case to the first except that in this case the borrower says that the collateral was worth only three dinars (3/4 of the debt). Because he admits to owing something, the borrower is required to take an oath that the sum is accurate and then repays the final dinar that is owed.
The third and fourth cases brought by the mishnah are the inverse, with the borrower making a claim because the lost collateral was, he contends, worth more than the loan itself. In the third case, the borrower asserts that the lost collateral was worth twice the loan (and therefore, he is owed money), but the lender says they were equivalent. In this case, the lender is exempt, just as the borrower above is exempt, and no money changes hands. The reasoning is similar: The lender claims he owes no money, so he is not required to take an oath or pay. If he had admitted to owing something, then the legal answer would have been different, as it is in the fourth case of the mishnah.
In the fourth case, the borrower again claims that the collateral he provided was worth twice the amount of the loan, but the lender says it was worth 125% (the loan is a sela and the lender says the collateral is worth five dinars). In this case, the lender has to take an oath before the court due to the admission that he does owe something. Once he takes the oath, he then pays what is owed.
As in other cases, we see that there is a general principle that if someone claims they owe nothing, they are not required to take an oath. Presumably, they would not be so bold as to baldly deny any debt in court if they in fact owed the other party money. However, if they admit to some debt, then they take an oath as to the exact amount and pay up.
The mishnah concludes with a different general principle:
And who takes the oath? The one in whose possession the deposit had been located (i.e. the creditor) who took collateral from the debtor. The sages instituted this provision lest one party take an oath and the other party produce the deposit and prove the oath false.
At the end of the day, the mishnah summarizes, the person who swears must be the lender, not the borrower, because they are the one who was last in possession of the collateral. The mishnah explains the reasoning: If the borrower took the oath, and then the lender later recovered the lost collateral, and it turned out to be worth a different amount than the borrower swore, then the borrower would be found guilty of making a false oath — and thereby breaking one of the Ten Commandments. For that reason, since the lender was the one who most recently had possession of the collateral, and would be most likely to recover it if lost, the lender has the burden of taking the oath.
But this principle, frustratingly, does not seem to match the pattern we identified in the mishnah, in which the person accused of owing money to the other party — be it the borrower or the lender — assumes the burden of taking the oath. This becomes the first problem the Gemara tackles — ultimately curtailing the reach of this general principle based on the examples in the mishnah. The more practical solution, undoubtedly, is to make sure that everyone agrees on the value of the collateral before entering into a loan agreement.
Read all of Shevuot 43 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 13, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
