The Threshold of a Claim and the Power of a Single Witness

One does not impose an oath on the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, for the verse says "when a man gives to his fellow," and the giving of a minor is nothing. The claim must be two silver maahs. Rav said: the denial of the claim must be two silver maahs. Shmuel said: the claim itself must be two silver maahs, so that even if he denied only a perutah's worth and admitted only a perutah's worth, he is liable. Rava said: the inference of the Mishnah supports Rav, and the verses support Shmuel. The inference of the Mishnah as Rav holds: as we learned, the claim is two silver maahs and the admission a perutah's worth, but it does not teach denial of a claim of a perutah. We also learned the admission is a perutah, but it does not teach denial of a perutah. And the verses as Shmuel holds: as it is written "money or vessels" - just as vessels are two, so money is two; just as money is something of value, and so forth - and the Merciful One says "that this is it" (Exodus 22:8). Rav says to you: that verse is needed for partial admission of a claim. And Shmuel says to you: "this" and "it" are both written, for if he denied part and admitted part, he is liable. And Rav says: one is for partial admission of the claim, and one for admission of the same kind as the claim. And Shmuel: do you not learn it of itself, that part of the claim is missing? Rather, Rav says to you: "money," when it comes at the start, comes for denial, for if so let the Merciful One write "when a man gives to his fellow vessels to keep," and I would say, just as vessels are two so all are two; why does the Merciful One write "money"? If it is not needed for the matter of the claim, apply it to the matter of denial. And Shmuel says to you: had the Merciful One written "vessels" and not "money," I would say just as vessels are two so all are two, but a thing of value we do not require; therefore it teaches us. The claim is two silver maahs. Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: they taught this only regarding the claim of a lender and the admission of a borrower. But for the testimony of a single witness, even if he claimed only a perutah, he is liable. What is the reason? As it is written, "one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or any sin" (Deuteronomy 19:15) - for any iniquity or sin he does not stand, but he does stand to impose an oath. And it was taught: wherever two witnesses obligate him in money, one witness obligates him in an oath. One who steals consecrated property from the owner's house is exempt. What is the reason? "And it is stolen from the man's house" - and not from the house of the Sanctuary. Rabbi Shimon says: consecrated property for which one bears responsibility, he is liable. What is the reason? "And it is stolen from the man's house."