Bava Batra 33-34

On Bava Batra 34a, a principle is introduced in the name of Rabbi Abba, that in a case of monetary dispute, anyone who is obligated to take an oath but cannot do so must pay the other litigant. How should we understand this position?How does it square with similar situations, such as where a defendant would like to take an oath, but is not believed in court because of prior misdeeds? What does all this teach us about the role of oaths in general in monetary disputes?

Dr. Elana Stein Hain – [email protected]