An unqualified denial suffices according to the sounder opinion. Once admissible evidence has been produced against a defendant, he has no right to put the plaintiff on oath. However, if he pleads payment, discharge, purchase of the very item in dispute, or that it was given to him and delivered, he may require the plaintiff to swear to the contrary. The same ruling applies—on the stronger view—when he alleges that the plaintiff knows the witness to be immoral or lying.

If he asks for a delay in order to produce an exculpatory argument, he is granted three days.

When enslavement is alleged of an adult who responds, “I am free,” his word prevails. If the claim concerns a minor who is not in the claimant’s possession, it is not accepted without evidence; but if the minor is in his possession, judgment is entered in his favor unless that possession is known to stem merely from having found the child. Should the child, once discerning, deny the enslavement, his denial is disregarded—though another view treats him like an adult. According to the sound view, a lawsuit demanding a debt that has not yet fallen due is not entertained.

Section

If the defendant persists in silence and refuses to answer the suit, he is treated as a denier who refuses the oath (nākil). Where the claim is for ten units and he says, “The ten are not due from me,” that is insufficient unless he adds, “nor any part of them,” and the same precision is required in his oath. If he swears only to negate the ten, restricting himself to that, he remains a nākil; the plaintiff may then swear that he is entitled to less than ten—even a fraction—and may take it.

When the claim attributes the money to a specific cause—such as, “I lent you such-and-such”—it suffices for the defendant to reply, “You have no claim against me.” If the suit concerns a right of pre-emption, it likewise suffices for him to say, “You have no right against me,” or, “You are not entitled to take possession of the share,” and he swears in accordance with that answer. If instead he explicitly denies the stated cause, he must swear to that denial.

Another opinion allows him to swear a bare general negation.

If he is in possession of property that is pledged or leased and the owner claims it, it is enough for him to say, “I am under no obligation to hand it over.” Should he acknowledge the owner’s title yet allege that it is pledged or leased to him, the correct view is that his plea is not accepted without evidence. If he cannot produce evidence and fears that admitting the owner’s title will cause his plea of pledge or lease to be rejected, doing so is impermissible; otherwise it is allowed. His legal stratagem in such a case is to say, “If you claim absolute ownership, I am not obliged to deliver it; but if you claim it as pledged, then state that so I may respond.”

And if a specific item is claimed from him—