Support (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, Trisis, Pundyon or Perutah, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for all coins are considered to be the same Min.

We understand why he must swear if the claim was the value of a gold Dinar, for the admission was like the claim;

However, if the claim was a gold Dinar, the admission was unlike the claim. He should be exempt!

Rejection (R. Elazar): The case is, he claimed a minted gold Dinar (Rashi; Tosfos - Reuven claimed that he gave to Shimon a gold Dinar to change into smaller coins, and did not receive them). He is liable because all coins are considered the same Min.

Support (Mishnah): All coins are considered to be the same Min.

Rav explains, this means that all the coins listed (i.e. even a Perutah) have the same law (each is sufficient admission to obligate an oath).

Suggestion: Since R. Elazar learns the Seifa like Shmuel (specific coinage, and not just the value), he also learns the Reisha (two Ma'os) like Shmuel!

Rejection: No. He learns the Seifa like Shmuel, but he could learn the Reisha like Rav (the value) or like Shmuel.

Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, he is liable (our text, Rashi; Tosfos - he is exempt).

Inference: We say that he claimed a coin due to the redundancy. Had he said only 'gold Dinar', we would say that he claims its value!

Answer: No, the Beraisa teaches that claiming a gold Dinar is like claiming a gold Dinar of gold, i.e. he claims a coin.

Support (for Rav - R. Chiya - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed a Dinar from Shimon, and he admitted to a Dinar less two Ma'os, he must swear (because he denies two Ma'os);

If he admitted to a Dinar less one Ma'ah, he is exempt (because he denies less than two Ma'os).

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak citing Shmuel): The minimal claim of two Ma'os only applies to the oath of partial admission. If Reuven claims even a Perutah and one witness supports him, Shimon must swear.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "Lo Yakum Ed Echad b'Ish l'Chol Avon ul'Chol Chatas" - one witness does not obligate payment, but he obligates swearing;

(Beraisa): Whenever two witnesses obligate payment, one witness obligates swearing.

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): If Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon must swear.

R. Yitzchak: Correct! Also R. Yochanan taught like this.

Inference: This implies that Reish Lakish (who often argues with R. Yochanan) disagrees!

Rejection: This cannot be inferred, for R. Yitzchak left before Reish Lakish had a chance to argue.

Version #1: Reish Lakish never disagrees with R. Yochanan until R. Yochanan finishes speaking.

Version #2: Reish Lakish was drinking when R. Yochanan said this law.

Support (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt. Raban Gamliel obligates.

Inference: Chachamim exempt because the admission was unlike (any part of) the claim, but if Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon must swear.

Rejection: No, Chachamim exempt even in that case;

The Mishnah discusses one who claimed only wheat, to teach that Raban Gamliel obligates even in this case.

Support (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed Kelim and land, and Shimon admitted to (all) the land but denied the Kelim, or admitted to (all) the Kelim but denied the land, he is exempt; (because an admission to land cannot obligate an oath, and we do not make a primary oath about land);

If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the Kelim, he is exempt (we do not make a primary oath about land);

If he admitted to part of the Kelim but denied (all) the land, he must swear (about the remaining Kelim, and also about the land);

Inference: When he admitted to all the Kelim but denied all the land, he is exempt because we do not swear about land. In a corresponding claim of two kinds of Kelim, if he admitted to one kind, he would be liable!

Rejection: No, even if two kinds of Kelim were claimed and he admitted to one kind, he is exempt;

The Mishnah teaches Kelim and land to teach that if he admits to part of the Kelim but denies the land, he must swear even about the land.

Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): When one must swear about Metaltelim, the claimant can also force him to swear about land (through Gilgul).

Answer: Primarily, this law is taught in our Mishnah. There, it is taught along with other laws of land.

(R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, he is exempt from swearing.

Question: R. Yitzchak said that R. Yochanan taught that he must swear!

Answer: Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt. Raban Gamliel obligates.

Inference: Chachamim exempt because the admission was unlike the claim, but if Reuven claimed wheat and barley, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, he must swear!

Answer: No, Chachamim exempt even in that case;

The Mishnah discusses when he claimed only wheat, to teach that Raban Gamliel obligates even in this case.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed Kelim and land, and Shimon admitted to (all) the land but denied the Kelim, or admitted to (all) the Kelim but denied the land, he is exempt;

If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the Kelim, he is exempt;

If he admitted to part of the Kelim but denied (all) the land, he must swear (also about the land);

Inference: When he admitted to all the Kelim but denied all the land, he is exempt because we do not swear about land. In a similar case of a claim of two kinds of Kelim, if he admitted to one kind, he would be liable!

Answer: No, even if two kinds of Kelim were claimed and he admitted to one kind, he is exempt;

The Mishnah teaches Kelim and land to teach that if he admits to part of the Kelim but denies the land, he must swear even about the land.

Question: Another Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): When one must swear about Metaltelim, the claimant can also force him to swear about land (through Gilgul).

Answer: Primarily, this law is taught in our Mishnah. There, it is taught along with other laws of land.

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa): If Reuven claimed an ox and Shimon admitted that he owes a Seh (or vice-versa), Shimon is exempt. If he claimed an ox and Seh and Shimon admitted to one of them, he must swear.

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is like Raban Gamliel.

Rejection: Raban Gamliel obligates even in the Reisha (Reuven claimed an ox, and Shimon admitted to a Seh)!

Answer #2 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa is Admon (38b, who obligates swearing for a claim of barrels of oil and an admission of empty barrels).

R. Chiya: This is not a flimsy defense, to say that perhaps the Beraisa is Admon. R. Yochanan explicitly said this!

(Rav Anan citing Shmuel): If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, if he rushed to admit because he sensed that Reuven was about to claim barley as well, Shimon must swear. If not, he is exempt.

(Rav Anan citing Shmuel): If Reuven claimed two needles, and Shimon admitted to one of them, he is liable;

The Torah specified "Kelim" to teach that one is liable for a claim of any two Kelim (Tosfos - as long as each is worth a Perutah; Rambam - even if they are not worth a Perutah).

(Rav Papa): If Reuven claimed Kelim and a Perutah, and Shimon admitted to the Kelim and denied the Perutah, he need not swear;

If he admitted to the Perutah and denied the Kelim, he must swear.

Rav Papa holds like Rav in one respect, and like Shmuel in another.

He holds like Rav regarding the denial (it must be two Ma'os (or two Kelim)). He holds like Shmuel regarding a claim of wheat and barley, and an admission of barley (he must swear).

Version #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh, and Shimon denied owing anything, he is exempt.

(Rav Nachman): Shimon must swear a (Rabbinical) oath called Heses.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: There is a Chazakah (i.e. human nature) that Reuven would not claim if Shimon did not owe him.

Objection: Just the contrary. There is a Chazakah that one is not so brazen to deny owing his creditor!

Answer: Shimon intends to pay. He just wants to evade Reuven until he can pay.

(Rav Idi bar Avin): One who denies a loan (and is contradicted by witnesses) is not disqualified from testifying (we assume that he intended to pay when he is able);

One who denies a deposit (and witnesses testify that he did have it) is disqualified from testifying (surely, he intended to steal it).

Version #2 (Rav Chaviva) (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon in front of witnesses, and Shimon admitted that he owes it, and the next day, Reuven claimed it again, if Shimon answers 'I paid you', he is exempt.

(Rav Nachman): Shimon must swear Heses.

According to Version #1, surely Heses applies also to the case of Version #2.

According to Version #2, Heses only applies in the case of Version #2, when there are grounds to believe the claim, but not in the case of Version #1.