deferred, it will be two hundred, and the price is two hundred. The seller says that it is for immediate payment, while the buyer says that it is deferred. In this case, the circumstantial evidence supports the buyer. If we were to ask the people of the market, “How much is this worth for immediate payment?” they would say, “It is worth only one hundred.” And if asked, “How much is it worth if payment is deferred for two years?” they would say, “It is worth two hundred.” Thus, the circumstantial evidence supports the buyer, so his side is more likely to be correct. It should therefore be said: he is to swear that the price is deferred for two years, and judgment is to be given accordingly.

Accordingly, if the author intended his statement to be unrestricted, then it is open to objection. But if he did not intend that, and this case is excluded from it, then the matter is clear.

Thus, if they differ regarding the deferred term, the statement of the one who denies it is accepted, unless circumstantial evidence establishes that the statement of the one who affirms it is to be accepted; in that case, judgment is given on the basis of that evidence.

If someone were to ask: Circumstantial evidence is something apparent, so how can you give it precedence over the basic presumption, when the basic presumption is that there is no deferment?

We say: This is a principle that applies to all claims. Otherwise, what makes the claimant’s statement accepted when he has evidence, if not the circumstantial indication provided by testimony? And what led Solomon, peace be upon him, to judge that the child belonged to the younger woman when she disputed with the older woman (1), if not circumstantial evidence?

And what led the official in Joseph’s case to say: “If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth and he is of the liars; but if his shirt is torn from the back...”