פירוש על שבועות 6:2

מנה לי בידך ואמר לו הן – in the presence of witnesses, and as for example when he said to them, “you are my witnesses” for he can no longer is able to claim that he was demented/raged in this.

“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me”, [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is exempt. [If he says,] “Nothing of yours is in my possession,” he is liable. In the first scenario, Shimon admits one day to owing Reuven a hundred denarii (a coin). When the next day Reuven claims them, Shimon counterclaims that he has already paid him back. In such a case Shimon is exempt since Reuven cannot prove that Shimon did not pay him back. If, however, Shimon changes his claim from the previous day, and now denies owing Reuven money, he is liable to pay. After having admitted to owing money on one day, he may not change his mind the next.

פטור – [exempt] from a Torah-based oath, but we make him take the oath of inducement [to clear him of suspicion, if he completely denied the case].

“You have of mine a hundred denarii”, he said to him, “Yes”. [And then he said], “Do not give them to me except before witnesses.” The next day he said to him, “Give them to me;” [and he replied,] “I have given them to you,” he is liable, because he should have given them to him before witnesses. If, when Shimon admits to owing money, Reuven tells him that he wants the money returned only in front of witnesses, and then the next day Shimon claims that he paid back the money, Shimon is not believed. Since Reuven specified that he wanted the money returned in front of witnesses, the burden is now on Shimon to prove that he did pay him back. Without witnesses he will not be able to do so.

אין לך בידי – there was never anything [concerning having anything in my hand].

Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah one, section four: Why is this compared to returning a lost object?

חייב – [he is liable] to pay, and is not considered believable with an oath, for he is presumed to be a denier, and he denied it in the Jewish court, but not before a Jewish court, he is not presumed to be a denier.