Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it only asks from the Reisha 've'ha'Eidim Me'idin ... ', but not from the Seifa.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since Rava asks later from 'Hodeh' ...

Reason: ... since the Gemara does not yet differentiate between 'Hodeh' and Eidus - until the Gemara specifically answers to that effect later.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara not ask also from the Seifa?

Answer: It seems to be obvious that the Tana does not say that he will be Patur in a case of To'en Ta'anas Ganav, where he swears and then witnesses arrive ...

Reason: ... because if he would be, the case where the Torah says that one pays Kefel would never materialize.

Answer (cont.): But by 'Hodeh' - where he admits of his own volition, Rav thought that he is Patur ...

Implied Question: ... even though by Shevu'ah and Hoda'ah the Torah writes the Din of 'Chomesh' ...

Answer: Rav would establish that where he 'jumped' and swore, seeing as Chomesh and Asham apply even to a Shevu'ah that one made by oneself ...

Answer (cont.): ... but there where one swore under the auspices of the Beis-Din and then admitted, Rav wants to say that he is Patur ...

Reason: ... since it is in connection with the Shevu'ah of the Beis-Din that the Torah writes "And the owner shall accept it and he (the one who swore) need not pay".

Question: In that case, why, in the Reisha, does it present the case of 'To'en Ta'anas Avad'? It could just as well have presented that of 'To'en Ta'anas Ganav' ...

Question (cont.): ... since, seeing as he 'jumped and swore', he is not Chayav Kefel?

Question: But earlier the Tana mentioned 'Mashbi'acha Ani', and the Gemara established it where he 'jumped and swore'.?

Answer: 'Hishbi'a alav' implies through the Beis-Din, whereas 'Mashbi'acha Ani' implies that he 'jumped' and made him swear.

Clarifying Text: One now needs to add to the Beraisa and to explain as follows - 'Where is my ox?' 'It has been stolen'. 'I make you swear that it has'. 'Amen' ...

Clarifying Text (cont.): ... after which witnesses arrived and testified that the ox was still in his possession; so they went to Beis-Din, who ordered him to pay ...

Clarifying Text (cont.): ... following which he Shechted it, and witnesses testified that he ate it; upon which he is Chayav to pay double.

Implied Question: Even though one is now forced to add to the Beraisa and to explain it with a Dochek ...

Answer: ... the Gemara prefers that to establishing it where he ate Neveilah, which it sees as a bigger Dochek still.

Inference: This implies that if he swore and witnesses testified that he ate it, he will have to pay double.

Question: Why did he have to swear initially when he claimed that it was stolen? Why is he not believed with a 'Migu', because, since he could have claimed that he returned it whilst he was still a Katan, where he is believed without a Shevu'ah, he should also be believed when he says that it was stolen - without having to swear?

Answer: It speaks here where the Katan after he grew up, claimed that he gave him the Pikadon whilst he was still a Katan, and he knows that he still has it in his possession ...

Reason: ... in which case, he cannot claim that he fed it to him whilst he was still a Katan - because if so, he will be denying the owner's claim that he still has it, in which case it is not a 'Migu'.

Source: ... as the Gemara will state later (on Daf 107a) - that a person does not have the gall to say 'Lo Hadam' (Lo Hayah ha'Devarim me'Olam)!' (See Maharsha).

Clarification: And according to Rav Ashi he cannot make him swear at all on what he deposited by him when he was a Katan - even if the Pikadon is available ...

Clarification cont.): ... but according to the first answer, he can make him swear as long as it is available.