Version #1: The text does not say "he does not acquire that carob tree", for we conclude that also the other carob trees he does not acquire!

Version #2: However, according to texts that say below "rather, for money. Also here, for money!", the text can say so. He did not acquire the value of that carob tree in the land (i.e. the seller sold the entire field, except for a patch worth as much as that tree).

Implied suggestion: According to the opinion (Kesuvos 19a) that [even] if [the borrower] admits that he wrote (authorized) a document, [the lender] must validate it, and [if he does not, the borrower] is believed to say that it was paid, and [the lender] cannot say "[if so,] why do I [still] have your document" [also here, we do not say so]!

Rejection #1: There, sometimes [the borrower] leaves the document with [the lender even after paying the loan] until [the borrower] will pay the scribe's fee, for the borrower must pay for the writing of the document, and sometimes the borrower does not have money to pay the fee, and he gives to him [the document] for [security, until he pays] it;

However, here, the Shomer need not pay a fee. (All could agree that the depositor can claim "why do I have your document?!")

Rejection #2: There, the borrower trusts the lender to leave the document with him, for it says "Tumas Yesharim Tanchem" (he prospers because he is straight), like we say in Bava Metzi'a (35a);

However, the Shomer does not trust the depositor. He would never return the deposit until [the depositor] returns the document to him.

Rejection #3: The borrower is not so meticulous about the lender (not to pay unless he will get back the document immediately), since the lender did a favor for him.

Suggestion: We ask that the Migo (since he would be believed to claim 'it was lost through Ones', he is believed to say 'I returned it') [is invalid, for the document proves that he did not return it. It is considered as if] there are witnesses against it.

Rejection: If so, what was the answer "according to you, when he says 'it was lost through Ones', can [the depositor] say 'why do I have your document?!'"

When he says that Ones occurred, it is not proven that this is not true. Even though [the depositor] has the document, it can be that Ones occurred!

Explanation (Ri): Rather, the Makshan thought that this that [Rav Chisda] said that he is believed, he means that he is totally believed, even without a Shevu'ah;

Therefore, [the Makshan] thought that without the Migo of Ones, [the Shomer] can say 'I returned it.' If [he is believed] through the Migo of Ones, why is he believed without a Shevu'ah?!

This is why he asked "he should say to him 'why do I have your document'?!"

[Rav Chisda] answered he is believed due to the Migo. [Rav Amram] asked "when he says that Ones occurred, he need to swear!"

Question: In Bava Kama (106a), in the Sugya of a Shomer who claims that the deposit was stolen, R. Tam explained that he must take Shevu'as ha'Shomerim only when there was partial admission.

[If so,] why does it say here that he would need to swear? Indeed, he need not swear mid'Oraisa [for he does not admit at all]!

Suggestion: [Rav Amram] means that he would need Shevu'as Heses (mid'Rabanan).

Rejection #1: How could Rav Amram think that Rav Chisda meant that he is exempt even from Shevu'as Heses? (We hold that one can force someone to swear Heses to refute any claim!)

Rejection #2: It says in Shevuos (45b) that both Rami bar Chama and Rava hold that one who deposits in front of witnesses, [the Shomer] need not return in front of witnesses. If he deposits [and takes] a document, [the Shomer] must take back the document when he returns [or return in front of witnesses];

We must explain that he must take back the document when he returns if he does not want to swear, but he is believed through a Shevu'ah. [We must say so] to avoid a contradiction in Rava;

Rava says below that he is believed to say "I returned to you", Migo he could say that Ones occurred, for Rava said [regarding Shtar Kinyan Sudar, which is half a loan and half an investment] the Halachah is, [the investor] swears and collects half.

If he discusses Shevu'as Heses, how can he say that one who deposits in front of witnesses, [the Shomer] need not return in front of witnesses, and he is believed to say "I returned to you" without a Shevu'ah? Shevu'as Heses is always required [to refute a Vadai claim]!

Answer (R. Tam): The Shevu'ah here is mid'Rabanan, and it was enacted before Shevu'as Heses;

Source: This is like in Kesuvos (87b), one who admits that her Kesuvah was partially paid, or if one witness testifies that it was paid [she must swear to collect what she says she is owed]. It says there that it is a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan.

Question: Still, why does he collect all of it? We should claim for the orphans that Ones occurred!

Answer: Something that is not common we do not claim for orphans. Ones has publicity. (Since there is no Kol, it is unlikely that Ones occurred.) Even though their father would have been believed to say that Ones occurred, we do not claim it for them.

Explanation: The one who says that he swears and collects half holds that he cannot say "why do I have your document?!", and we claim for [the orphans that their father could have said] "I returned it to you";

Even though we do not claim for them Ones, since their father would have been believed through this claim, Migo he could have said that Ones occurred.

Question: According to R. Aba, who holds that since he cannot swear, he must pay, why do we exempt them? They are obligated to swear, and they cannot swear!

Answer: Regarding orphans, we do not say 'since he cannot swear, he must pay', like we expound in Shevuos (47a) "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem", and not between the heirs.

Question: According to Rav and Shmuel, who [expound the verse differently, and] say there that one cannot bequeath a Shevu'ah to his sons, i.e. one cannot bequeath to his sons money that he must swear about it [to collect it], why are they exempt from paying?

Answer: "One cannot bequeath" means that we do not force [the defendant] to swear, and not to pay, like Rashi explained there, and if they come to collect through a document, they do not collect;

However, if [the orphans] are Muchzakim, and [others] come to collect from them, like here, we do not take from them, and they are exempt.

Proof: This is proven in Shevuos (48b). We answer "this is like Beis Shamai, who say that a document destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected";

Inference: Regarding something collected, one bequeaths a Shevu'ah to his sons.

Assertion: He does not swear about everything. Why should he swear needlessly, since they pay to him only half?

Therefore, he swears "they owe me, and they do not owe to me less than half." [He does not say "they owe me half"], lest he contradict his words (he said that they owe it all), like the case of two holding a Talis (Bava Metzi'a 5b).

Limitation: Only when there is a document against his sons he should have informed them that it is paid;

However, a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document), we say that he does not collect from orphans, even if their father left land, and even from adult orphans, unless [their father] admitted [that he still owes] and died [immediately], or they excommunicated him [for not paying] and he died in Niduy.

There (a Milveh Al Peh), we do not say that if it is true that he paid, he would have told them. He need not inform them everything that he borrowed and paid his entire life, only here, when there is a document, like I explained.

Implied question: Rava contradicts what he said in Shevuos (45b, that if one deposits with a document, the Shomer must take back the document or return in front of witnesses. Here he rules that the investor does not collect the half that is a deposit, for the Shomer is believed to say "I returned to you", Migo he could say that Ones occurred!)

Answer #1: I explained above (DH Sof. He must take back the document if he does not want to swear, but he is believed through a Shevu'ah.)

Answer #2 (Rivam): This is not difficult at all. There, [Shmuel taught that if there are no witnesses who know that a worker was hired, the employer is believed, Migo he could say that he never hired him]. Rava said "why do you call this a great teaching? If so (such a Migo is believed), when did the Torah obligate Shomrim to swear?! Since a Shomer could say that he never received the deposit, he is believed to say that it was lost through Ones!

[Rami bar Chama answered that the case is], witnesses saw the Shomer receive the deposit. [Rava asked that] also with witnesses, Migo that the Shomer could say "I returned it to you", he is believed to say that it was lost through Ones!

[Rami bar Chama answered that] the case is, the depositor took a document. I.e. since he deposited with a document, there is a Shevu'ah about Ones. Then we do not say that since the Shomer would not be believed to say "I returned it to you", and he would be believed without a Shevu'ah...

This is because if one deposited with a document, the Shomer must return it in front of witnesses.

According to letter of the law, even with a Shevu'ah, [the Shomer] would not be believed, if not that he is believed through a Migo of Ones, with a Shevu'ah.

Now, there is no difficulty from there at all. (Rava holds that always, if there is no document, the Shomer is believed to say "I returned it" without a Shevu'ah. If there is a document, the Shomer is believed to swear "I returned it", Migo he could swear that Ones occurred.)