Q&A: He Who Exacted Payment
He Who Exacted Payment
Question
Hello,
Why is the claim of “I was only joking with you” accepted when a lender sues a borrower for his money in a religious court, after the borrower admitted that he owes the lender, but did so outside of court and not in front of witnesses; whereas in a sale, when money was merely transferred to the seller but no acquisition has yet been completed through taking possession, the Sages curse one who backs out of the deal with the forceful curse of “He Who Exacted Payment”? In my eyes, from a moral standpoint, it seems that telling a lender “I was only joking with you” in response to a monetary claim is many times worse than backing out of a business deal, where it may be that the buyer reconsidered and withdrew. A lender who does not get his money back is harmed more than a seller who did not complete a sale.
What do you think?
Answer
I didn’t understand the connection. The borrower is claiming something that, according to him, is true. In the case of a sale, we’re dealing with someone who does not keep his commitment. The first is a discussion about credibility, and the second is about improper conduct. What does one have to do with the other?
Discussion on Answer
Absolutely not. At most, the original joking around was improper. But even if it was improper, what does that have to do with the fact that the claim of “I was only joking with you” is accepted? Whether it is accepted depends on whether it is true, not on whether it was proper.
Denying an admission, and with the excuse of “I was only joking with you,” doesn’t fall into the category of improper conduct??