and not accepted in another. Thus, it is accepted with regard to the elapsed period, but not with regard to the future period. For example, if in this case the owner says, “I rented it to you for four days,” and the dispute arises after two days have passed, then we accept the owner’s statement concerning the period that has elapsed, but do not accept it concerning the period to come, because the other party denies it, saying, “I did not take it for rent; rather, I took it as a loan for use.”
From this we learn that rulings may be divided. This is a juristic principle: when there is evidence establishing one aspect of a matter but not another, we rule according to the aspect that is established and leave aside the aspect that has not been established. This is a beneficial principle that will serve you in many issues. A parallel case is that of a man who claims that another stole money from his house and produces as witnesses one man and two women. This case entails two rulings: liability for the money and amputation of the hand. The prescribed punishment is not established by the testimony of one man and two women; rather, it is established by the testimony of two men. Yet liability for the money is established by the testimony of one man and two women. In this case, we say: the thief must compensate for the money, but his hand is not amputated. Thus, one case entails two different rulings, because the basis for one exists while the basis for the other does not; consequently, rulings may be divided.
His statement, “or the reverse,” means that the owner says, “I lent it to you for use,” while the other says, “Rather, you rented it to me.” We say: if this is immediately after the contract, then the statement of the one claiming a loan for use is accepted. In this case, the one claiming a loan for use is the owner, because the basic principle is that no rental contract exists. Thus, if the owner says, “Give it back to me,” it must be given back to him.
However, if this occurs after a period has elapsed, then the owner’s statement is likewise accepted, even though he is the one claiming a loan for use. But if he is the one claiming a loan for use, then he is not entitled to any rent for the elapsed period. That is, after a week, the owner says, “I