If a person is a lender and takes a mashkon, a collateral for the loan they’re giving, they are now considered to be a shomer sachar, a paid shomer for it. So the ramifications would be that, if the mashkon is lost, he has to pay the borrower the value of the mashkon. If the mashkon, the collateral, was equal to the amount of the loan, then it’s a wash. Everything is considered paid up. If the mashkon was worth more than the loan, then the lender has to pay the difference to the person who borrowed the money from him. But if the mashkon was worth less than the loan, then the borrower has to pay the difference between the amount of the loan he received and the value of the lost mashkon. We’ll talk about these cases in terms of the oaths that go with them. The Mishnah says that, in all of these cases, if somebody lends money to a person with a mashkon, a collateral, and then that collateral is lost, there’s a disagreement about how much the mashkon was worth. We’ll have four different cases and say the halacha (law) for each one.
The lender tells the borrower, “I lent you a selah (a unit of currency), and the collateral you gave me was only worth a shekel.” A shekel is half of a selah. So you still owe me half of a selah, which is a shekel. The borrower replies, “Veha'lah omer lo: lo ki, ela selah hilvitani alav ve selah hayah shaveh.” He tells him, “No, that’s not true. You lent me that selah, but the collateral that I gave you was also worth a selah. So I owe you nothing, because the fact that you lost my mashkon, my collateral, which was worth a selah, evens out with the loan you gave me, which was worth one selah.” In this case, we say patur: the borrower is not obligated to swear that the mashkon was worth a full selah, because he is denying owing anything. He is saying that it was a wash, that the value of the mashkon equaled the value of the loan. He is saying he is fully paid up, so it’s not considered to be a modeh b'miktzat case, where he is only partially admitting, which would obligate him to take a full oath. He is saying he is fully paid up.
Second case. “Sela hilviticha alav ve shekel hayah shaveh.” The lender tells the borrower, “I lent you a selah, and the mashkon, the collateral, was worth only a shekel, only half of a selah, so you still owe me half of a selah.” The borrower replies, “Veha'lah omer lo: lo ki, ela sela hilvitani alav, u-shlosha dinarim hayah shaveh.” He says, “No, no, no. You lent me a selah, but the mashkon that I gave you was worth three dinarin.” Three dinarin is 75% of the value of that selah. It’s basically a shekel and a half. So now I owe you one dinar as opposed to one shekel. One dinar is half of a shekel. So, just to put this into percentages to make it easier, the lender said that the value of the mashkon was 50% of the loan. The borrower is coming back and saying, “No, it wasn’t worth 50% of the loan. The mashkon was worth 75% of the loan.” So now I only owe you 25% of the loan, which in this case would be one dinar. Therefore, hayav: the borrower would be obligated to swear because he is admitting that he is modeh b'miktzat. He is admitting that he has only had 75% of the loan paid back with the lost collateral, and therefore he still owes part of the claim, the 25%. So he would have to swear because it’s a case of modeh b'miktzat.
In these two cases, the lender claimed that the collateral was worth less than the amount of the loan, and that the borrower still owed him the difference. In these next two cases, the borrower is demanding money from the lender because he is claiming that the mashkon, the security, the collateral, was worth more than the loan. So now he is owed the difference.
Third case. The borrower tells the lender, “You lent me a selah, but the security I gave you was worth two sela'im (selahs). So now you owe me an extra selah.” The borrower is telling the lender, “You owe me a selah.” The lender replies, “No, no, no, that wasn’t the case. I lent you a selah, but the collateral that you gave me was worth the same. It was worth a selah as well. So, even Steven, I owe you nothing.” The lender here would not be obligated to swear that the mashkon was worth only a selah because he is denying owing anything. So it’s not a modeh b'miktzat case. The lender is saying that they’re even.
Fourth case. The borrower tells the lender, “You lent a selah to me, and the mashkon was worth two sela'im. The collateral was worth two sela'im. So now you owe me an extra selah.” The lender replies to the borrower, “No, I lent you a selah, and the collateral was worth five dinarim.” That’s basically 125%. It’s a selah plus one dinar. So now I only owe you one dinar as opposed to four dinar. Four dinarim would be equal to one selah. I only owe you one because the loan was worth five sela'im, as opposed to the eight sela'im that the borrower is trying to claim. Therefore, hayav: the lender in this case is obligated to swear because he is modeh b'miktzat. The claim against him was for an extra four sela'im, which is equal to one selah. And now the borrower is claiming, “No, no, no. I don’t owe you four dinarim. Four dinarim. I only owe you one selah. I only owe you one dinar.” So he is admitting to part of the claim.
Now we’ll go back to the second case. The second case was the borrower. We said that the borrower had to swear that the mashkon was worth three dinarim, as opposed to the two that the lender was claiming. But we mentioned that the lender in all these cases is considered to be a shomer sachar. Since he is collecting a collateral, he is a shomer sachar. A shomer sachar has to swear that he is no longer holding on to the mashkon, that it’s not in his possession anymore. That’s one of the shevuot (oaths) that he has to make. So now we’ll talk about how the borrower and the lender both have to make certain oaths. What is the order? “Umi nishba?” Who swears first? “Mi sheha-pikadon etzlo,” the one who was in possession of the deposit, the collateral, before it was lost and stolen. In other words, the lender has to swear first that the security, the mashkon, is no longer in his possession. The reason is that the borrower might swear first that the security was worth the higher amount, but maybe he’ll make a mistake in how he assessed its value. Then the lender is going to take out the mashkon and show that it was worth less than the borrower claimed. That would disqualify the borrower from ever giving testimony again because he seemingly gave false testimony. To prevent this, we don’t want people to become pasul (disqualified), or people scheming a little bit and waiting for the borrower to come out. Then they’re going to pull out the mashkon. So the Hachamim (the Sages) said that the lender has to swear first that he doesn’t have the deposit in his possession anymore. Then the borrower would swear what he thinks the value was.