QUESTION: HOW DOES ANSWER (m)2.: [2. Chachamim say that these words do not include the barrels. Shimon totally denied the claim, so he need not swear.] ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED IN (i) & (j)??? I CAN STILL SAY: If Chachamim would agree that these words include the barrels, they would agree that he must swear, AND SO:
This refutes R. Chiya bar Aba!
I. Michael Aronson, Raanana, Israel
Rashi DH "Ela" explains that the final answer of the Gemara is actually said by R. Chiya bar Aba, so, although at first glance, your Kashya appears to be justified, it is quite clear that it is inherently flawed, and it is a matter of finding out why.
The distinction between the first answer that you quote and the final one is that in the former, the owner is claiming ten barrels of oil (both the barrels and the oil), and the Shomer admits to the barrels, a classical case of 'Ta'ano Chitim u'Se'orim, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad mei'hen'. The Chachamim hold that he is Chayav - a Kashya on R.Chiya bar Aba, who says that he is Patur.
Whereas in the latter answer, where the one claims ten barrels of oil, and the other admits to five, he is Chayav on the barrels alone, because of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' (not because of 'Ta'ano Chitim ... '), and the Shevu'ah on the oil is due to the principle of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah', as Rashi explains.
I think you will agree that there is nothing whatsoever to ask on R. Chiya bar Aba. On the contrary, he is the one who says it.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
""Whereas in the latter answer, where the one claims ten barrels of oil, and the other admits to five, he is Chayav on the barrels alone, because of 'Modeh be'Miktzas' (not because of 'Ta'ano Chitim ... '), and the Shevu'ah on the oil is due to the principle of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah', as Rashi explains."
[M. ARONSON SAYS: THIS IS ONLY ACCORDING TO ADMON.]
""I think you will agree that there is nothing whatsoever to ask on R. Chiya bar Aba. On the contrary, he is the one who says it."
[M. ARONSON SAYS: YES, R. CHIYA BAR ABA HAS NO PROBLEM WITH ADMON. HIS PROBLEM IS WITH THE CHACHAMIM! -- I QUOTE FROM THE SUMMARY PAGE ON THE INET SITE -- (M) ANSWER # 2, 2. Chachamim say that these words do not include the barrels. Shimon totally denied the claim, so he need not swear. HOW DOES THIS EXPLANATION OF THE MISHNA SHOW THAT R. CHIYA BAR ABA DOES NOT DISAGREE WITH THE CHACHAMIM? THE SHOMER NEED NOT SWEAR BECAUSE THE WORDS DO NOT INCLUDE THE BARRELS; SO WE CAN ASSUME THAT IF THE WORDS HAD INCLUDED THE BARRELS, THEN THE CHACHAMIM WOULD HAVE REQUIRED HIM TO SWEAR, WHICH GOES AGAINST R. CHIYA BAR ABA.
NOTE: AS FAR AS THE CHACHAMIM ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO Modeh be'Miktzas' HERE.
WHAT AM I MISSING?
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
M. ARONSON
I will begin with the closing words of your first paragraph: "If the words had included the barrels, then the Chachamim would have required him to swear". In other words, they would have agreed with Admon, that he would be Chayav to swear because of Modeh b'Miktzas (NOT BECAUSE OF 'TA'ANO CHITIM U'SE'ORIM ... '). As I pointed out last time, Rashi says this in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba himself. And as I explained then, there is nothing to ask on him, since neither Admon nor the Chachamim are talking about a case of 'Ta'ano Chitim u'Se'orim, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achad Meihem'.
In other words, your second paragraph 'Note ... ', is incorrect. 'As far as the Chachamim are concerned, there is no Modeh b'Miktzas', yes! but that is only because the words do not include barrels. If they did, there would be.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv.
Eliezer Chrysler