Question: Does R. Chanina also require that the debt be written (to be collected from Meshubadim), or is it sufficient that it has a limit?

Answer: We can learn from the following. A case occurred in which a man died and left two daughters and a son. The first daughter took Parnasah (a 10th of the estate for a dowry). The son died before the second took Parnasah.

(R. Yochanan): The second daughter forfeits her claim to Parnasah.

Question (R. Chanina): Parnasah may be collected from Meshubadim, unlike food for the daughters. How can you say that she does not receive Parnasah?!

Parnasah is limited, but it is not written, and R. Chanina says that it may be collected from Meshubadim!

Rejection: People hear about Parnasah, therefore it is as if it is written.

Question (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach - Mishnah): (When Leah married Reuven, she stipulated that he feed her daughter Dinah (from a previous marriage) for five years; she made the same Tanai when she married David). If Reuven and David died, their own daughters are fed from Bnei Chorin (of their fathers). Dinah is fed from even Meshubadim, for she is like a creditor (even though the debt was not written)!

Answer: The case is, formal acquisitions were made to obligate Reuven and David. (Rashi - presumably, these were written; Tosfos - this is as good as being written.)

Question: If so, acquisitions should also enable their own daughters to eat from Meshubadim!

Answer: The case is, acquisitions were only made for Dinah, not for their own daughters.

Question: Why does the Tana pick such a case, that acquisitions were made only for Dinah?

Answer #1: Dinah was alive when Leah got married, so an acquisition helps for her. The husbands' own daughters were not alive at the time, so acquisitions would not help for them.

Objection: Why must we say that the husbands' daughter were not yet alive? Perhaps they were previously married to Leah, and have daughters from the previous marriage!

Answer #2: Rather, since a Tanai of Beis Din (the enactment of Kesuvah) obligates feeding their own daughters, an acquisition does not help for them. There is no Tanai of Beis Din for Dinah, so an acquisition helps for her.

Objection: Why should a Tanai of Beis Din weaken the power of acquisition for the daughters?!

Answer #3: Rather since a Tanai of Beis Din obligates feeding their own daughters, we do not allow them to take Meshubadim, because we are concerned lest their fathers left money for them.

Question (Beraisa - R. Nasan): When do we say that consumed Peros and improvements to stolen land may not be collected from Meshubadim? This is when the land was bought before the Peros and improvements;

If the Peros and improvements came first, they may be collected from land sold later! (Rashi - they are neither written nor limited. We challenge all the Amora'im! Tosfos - they are only limited, but not written. We challenge Ula, and show that R. Chanina must hold that it suffices to be limited.)

Answer: Tana'im argue about this:

(Beraisa): We do not collect consumed Peros, improvements to stolen land, or food for the widow and daughters from Meshubadim, because they are not written. This is an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam;

R. Yosi says, even without an enactment we do not collect these from Meshubadim, for they are unlimited! (Rashi; Tosfos - the enactment for Tikun ha'Olam is not because they are not written, rather, because they are unlimited!)

(Mishnah): One who finds an Aveidah does not swear...

(R. Yitzchak): If Reuven claims that he lost two wallets tied together, and that Shimon found them, and Shimon says that he only found one , Shimon must swear;

If Reuven claims that he lost two oxen tied together and that Shimon found them, and Shimon says that he only found one , Shimon need not swear.

Question: What is the difference between the cases?

Answer: Wallets do not come untied by themselves, but oxen do.

Version #1 - Rashi - (R. Yitzchak): If Reuven claims that he lost two oxen tied together and that Shimon found them, and Shimon admits to finding them, but claims that he returned one of them, Shimon must swear.

Version #2 - Tosfos - Support (Beraisa): If Reuven claims that he lost two oxen tied together and that Shimon found them, and Shimon says that he only found one , Shimon need not swear;

If Reuven claims that he lost two wallets tied together and that Shimon found them, and Shimon says that he only found one , Shimon must swear. (end of Version #2)

Question: Doesn't R. Yitzchak agree that an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam exempts the finder of an Aveidah from swearing?!

Answer: R. Yitzchak holds like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Sometimes one swears due to his own claim. If Reuven says 'Shimon's father deposited one Maneh by me, and I returned half', he must swear;

Chachamim say, he is like one who returns an Aveidah; he is exempt.

Question: Doesn't R. Eliezer ben Yakov exempt one who returns an Aveidah? (Surely he is believed, Migo (since) he could have denied finding anything!)

Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, Shimon, a minor, claims that Reuven owes the full Maneh.

Question: The claim of a minor means nothing!

(Mishnah): We do not swear to counter the claim of a deaf person, lunatic or minor.

Answer #1: Rav meant, Shimon is an adult, but in his father's affairs he is (ignorant) like a minor.

Question: If so, why does R. Eliezer ben Yakov say that Reuven swears due to his own claim? He swears due to Shimon's claim!

Answer #1: It is Shimon's claim, but Reuven's admission.

Objection: Every case of the oath (of Modeh b'Miktzas) is due to his own (partial) admission!

Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question k:1): Really, Shimon is a minor. R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Chachamim argue about Rabah's teaching);

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (to Question k:2:i): R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that Reuven swears due to what Chachamim call Reuven's own claim. They argue about Rabah's teaching);

(Rabah): The Torah required one who makes a partial admission to swear, because one is not brazen enough to lie and deny his creditor's claim.

Really, he would like to deny the whole claim, but he lacks the audacity to do so to his creditor.

Since he lacks the audacity, he would prefer to admit to the entire claim. He is not doing this, because he cannot pay the whole claim now. He is stalling until he can pay it all.

The Torah imposes an oath on him so he will admit to the whole claim.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that likewise, one cannot be brazen to deny the claim of his creditor's son. Therefore, he is not like one who returns an Aveidah. (Rather, he must swear.)

Chachamim say that one cannot be brazen to deny his creditor's claim, but he can be brazen against his creditor's son;

Since he could have denied the whole claim, but did not, he is like one who returns an Aveidah (and need not swear).