Why does the court reject the response 'I don't owe anything' and require a specific answer?
The person may think he doesn't owe anything because he paid through a third party or gave a gift, when legally he still owes. Courts require specifics to prevent inadvertent false oaths.
Question 2
What makes someone a 'muchzak kafran' (established liar)?
A person is presumed a liar only when two witnesses come before the court and contradict the specific denial made in court — not based on reputation or informal statements.
Question 3
A defendant admitted a debt casually in the presence of witnesses who overheard him (not designated). The next day he denies it in court. Witnesses contradict him. Is he a presumed liar?
Witnesses must be formally designated (or the lender must state it in the borrower's presence with silence). Overheard casual conversation is not binding testimony, so no 'established liar' status results.
Question 4
Someone known as 'full of debts' told people he only owed one specific person. That person sued him and he denied it in court. Is he a liar?
Such casual statements about one's own finances are not binding legal admissions. The court allows heset even when contradicted by what appears to be a prior admission.
Question 5
A borrower denied the loan in court ('never happened'), then the lender produced witnesses it happened, then the borrower says 'yes I borrowed but I paid.' Is this claim accepted?
The Rambam rules: saying 'I never borrowed' is legally equivalent to 'I never repaid.' Once witnesses establish the loan, the borrower is a presumed liar and cannot claim repayment.