ב הא דיהבי זמן שלשים יום דוקא כשתבעוהו תחלה בלא ראיה וחייבוהו ב"ד שישבע וזה טוען יש לי ראיה ואינה מצויה עתה בידי ואיני רוצה לקבל שבועתו אז נותנין לו זמן שלשים יום אבל אם טען תחלה יש לי ראיה ואינה מצויה עתה בידי מה צורך ליתן לו זמן לכשיביא ישיב לו הנתבע וכל זמן שלא יביא לא ישיב לו טענה ואם חזר ואמר אין לי ראיה ישיב לו בלא ראיה יש מי שאומר שנשבע ונפטר ואינו נאמן להביא עוד ראיה: הגה ואם הנתבע מבקש זמן כדי להשיב על טענת התובע אם נראה לב"ד שאינו אלא דחייה אין נותנין לו זמן וצריך להשיב מיד אבל אם נראה לב"ד שצריך זמן כדי לחשוב ולשים לבו על דברים שבינו לבינו נותנין לו זמן כפי הצורך (ב"י בשם תשו' הרשב"א) אבל אם כתוב בשטר שיפרע לו בלי דחייה כל תנאי שבממון קיים (ב"י בשם הריטב"א):
2 As to the ruling that they give [the claimant] a period of thirty days [to bring proof or to produce witnesses] — it applies only when they [the Judges] summoned him at first without evidence [submitted by the claimant] and the Court of Law [issued a verdict and] required him [the defendant] to take an oath, while the other party [the claimant] pleads, 'I have evidence, but it is not in my possession at present, and I desire not to accept his [the defendant's] oath,' then [the law is that] they give him a period of thirty days [to produce the evidence]. However, if he [the claimant] pleaded at first [i.e., before the verdict was given], 'I have evidence, but it is not in my possession at present,' [then] what need is there to grant him time [to produce the evidence]? [Consequently, the law is that only] when he [the claimant] produces [it], the defendant must respond to him [the claimant], and as long as he [the claimant] produces no [evidence], he [the defendant] must not respond to him [by making] any [counter-] plea. If he [the claimant] returned and stated, 'I have no evidence,' he [the defendant] responds to him without [producing] any evidence [to substantiate his counter-plea]. There is an authority who states that he [the defendant] takes an oath and is exempt and [if the claimant] still [promises] to produce evidence, he is not relied upon. Rema: If the defendant requests [ an extension of ] time in order to respond to the plea of the claimant, [ then ] if it becomes apparent to the Court of Law that it is [ intended ] only [ as ] a [ mere ] delay [ of the case ], they do not grant him [ an extension of ] time, and he must respond forthwith. However, if it appears to the Court of Law that he does require [ an extension of ] time in order to examine and consider carefully the matters concerning him and the other party, they give him [ an extension of ] time as much as he requires. But if in the bond [ produced by the claimant ] it is written that he must pay him without delay, [ the law is that ] every stipulation made in monetary matters is binding.