Sa’if 22, Mechaber: A plaintiff says he found an entry in his father’s ledger that the defendant owes his father a maneh. The plaintiff is certain the entry is in his father’s handwriting. Some halachic authorities are of the opinion that the defendant must take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial.
Ner Eyal: The halachic authorities the Mechaber refers to in Sa’if 22, who maintain that such an entry in the father’s ledger is sufficient to require the defendant to take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial, are the very same halachic authorities – namely, the Ra’avad and Rav Hai Gaon – referred by the Mechaber in Sa’if 21 earlier.
There, the issue discussed was whether hearsay evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff’s father money was enough to require the defendant to take an oath. Rav Hai Gaon and the Ra’avad were of the opinion that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to claim his father told him or told witnesses in his presence that the defendant owes him money. Such hearsay evidence would be enough to require the defendant to take a Shevuat Heiset oath of denial before judgment would be entered in the defendant’s favor.
The Rambam, however, was of the opinion that hearsay evidence is not sufficient to require the defendant to take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial, even if it came from the plaintiff’s father.
The father’s entry in his ledger that the defendant owes him a maneh, without the father or the son testifying firsthand that the defendant borrowed the money, is also a type of hearsay evidence. This is so even if the son recognizes his father’s writing in the ledger. Although it is evidence of a loan, it is still indirect evidence. Rav Hai Gaon and the Ra’avad, true to their positions in Sa’if 21, rule that the father’s writing in the ledger, recognized as such by his son, is sufficient evidence to require the defendant to take a Shevuat Heiset oath of denial before judgment is entered in the defendant’s favor. The Rambam, however, true to his position about hearsay evidence in Sa’if 21, would maintain that the ledger, unsubstantiated by first-hand testimony, is insufficient evidence to require the defendant to take the Shevuat Heiset oath of denial.
The argument between Rav Hai Gaon and the Ra’avad on the one hand and the Rambam on the other would be the same if, in response to the claim about the father’s entry in his ledger, the defendant admits he owes fifty dinarim but denies that he owes the other fifty. Rav Hai Gaon and the Ra’avad would require the defendant to take the Modeh Bemiktzat oath of partial admission before judgment is entered in the defendant’s favor. The Rambam, however, would rule that judgment would be entered in the defendant’s favor without the need to take the Modeh Bemiktzat oath of partial admission.