Mishnayos Shevuos Perek 6 Mishnah 3

The mishna resumes discussion of the oath imposed by the court in a case where the defendant admits to a part of a claim. If the claimant said: I have a litra, i.e., a specific weight, of gold in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a litra of silver in my possession, he is exempt from taking an oath, as his admission relates to a different item than that which the claim relates to. But if the claimant said: I have a gold dinar in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a silver dinar, or a tereisit, or a pundeyon, or a peruta in my possession, he is liable to take an oath, as they are all of one type; they are all coins. Since the claim concerns money, the difference between the different types of coins is disregarded, as the claim is essentially referring to the monetary value, not to a specific type of coin. If the claimant said: I have a kor of grain in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is exempt. But if the claimant said: I have a kor of produce in your possession, and the defendant responded: You have only a half-kor of legumes in my possession, he is liable, as legumes are included in produce. If one claimed that another owes him wheat, and the defendant admitted to owing him barley, he is exempt; and Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to take an oath. According to Rabban Gamliel, one who admits to a part of the claim is liable to take an oath even if the admission is not of the same type as the claim. With regard to one who claims that another owes him jugs of oil, and the latter then admitted that he owes him pitchers, i.e., the jugs themselves, but not the oil, Admon says: Since he admitted to him with regard to a part of the claim, and his admission was of the same type as the claim, i.e., the claim included both containers and oil and he admitted to owing him containers, he must take an oath. And the Rabbis say: The partial admission in this case is not of the same type as the claim, as he completely denied owing him oil. Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon as correct. If one claimed that another owes him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to owing him vessels but denied the claim of land, or conversely, he admitted to owing him land but denied the claim of vessels, he is exempt from taking an oath, as oaths are not taken concerning claims involving land. If he admitted to part of the claim about the land, he is exempt. If he admitted to part of the claim about the vessels, he is liable to take an oath concerning the entire claim, as property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that the oath about the movable property can be extended to require him to take an oath concerning the land as well.

לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶסֶף, פָּטוּר. דִּינַר זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף, וּטְרִיסִית וּפֻנְדְּיוֹן וּפְרוּטָה, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אַחַת. כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, פָּטוּר. כּוֹר פֵּרוֹת יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל פֵּרוֹת. טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִשְׂעֹרִים, פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּב. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה לוֹ מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן. טְעָנוֹ כֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְהוֹדָה בַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים, פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, פָּטוּר. בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן: