on the issue of bundles of bills, isn't the resposnbility of custodian to know how much he was given to watch by each person. since apparenlty he forgot or did not do his job why shouldn't be held to a higher level and be forced to pay the money to both people.
on the issue of the vessels, are we saying that we take the more valuable vessel and then sell it and then give the other person the 100. isn't the other person gaining by being a lier, he is forcing the watcher to sell the object and it maybe worth less than it was at the time he got it. again why can't beis din be brought into this.
by breaking the vessel the liar gains and the true person loses out. why is this a fair solution to the issue, having broken it the vessel cannot be worth what it was originally, and who says that by breaking it you are giving the other party the same amount of value as the other one had. it may be possible the value is less, and he is losing because you are putting the second peace (the other half of the broken one) until eliayhu comes. again the non-liar loses out. this is not justice.
Sholom Rav,
The answer to your first question is no! The Gemara specifically states that, since the Tana is speaking of an instance where both men handed over the money wrapped in front of each other, the onus of clarifying how much each one gave lies on them (i.e. they ought to have brought witnesses).
Regarding your second question, bearing in mind that we do not know which one is lying, what would you propose one should do according to the Tana Kama? The smaller vessel belongs to one of them, so you give it to one of them. And by breaking the vessel or selling it and giving the equivalent value to the other litigant (based on the Beis-Din's assessment), you have treated the two litigants as fairly as possible.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler