Levi claimed 600 Zuz from Yehudah. Yehudah said 'I paid you with 100 Kavim of gallnuts. Each Kav was worth six Zuz.' Levi said that a Kav was worth four Zuz, and brought witnesses who said so.

(Rava): Yehudah is Huchzak Kafran (therefore, he is not believed to say that he paid the remaining 200 with money).

Question (Rami bar Chama): You yourself say that anything that is not incumbent on a person (Rashi - Yehudah need not say how he paid; R. Chananel - at the time, the witnesses were not asked to remember the price of gallnuts), he is not mindful about it (therefore, Yehudah is not Huchzak Kafran)!

Answer (Rava): People remember prices (therefore, he is Huchzak Kafran).

Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon, and showed the loan document. Shimon claimed that he paid him. Reuven said 'you paid a different debt, and not the loan of this document.'

(Rav Nachman): Reuven's admission that he received money taints the document (Tosfos - he cannot collect with it; R. Chananel - to collect, he must swear that he was not paid).

(Rav Papa): The document is not tainted.

Question: According to Rav Papa, why is this different than the following case (in which the document is tainted)?

Levi claimed a Maneh from Yehudah (from a business venture. Yehudah was supposed to buy cattle, slaughter and sell them), and showed the document.

Yehudah: You came to where I was selling, and I paid you!

Levi: You paid a different debt.

(Rav Papa): The document is tainted.

Answer: There, since the money was given to buy cattle, and he was paid where he was selling them, there are grounds to say that he paid that debt;

In the previous case, we have no such grounds. (Since he did not take back the document, there are grounds to say that it was for a different debt.)

Question: What is the Halachah?

Answer #1 (Rav Papi): The document is not tainted.

Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi): The document is tainted.

The Halachah is, the document is tainted.

This is only if he paid in front of witnesses, without mentioning the document. If he paid without witnesses, Migo that Reuven would be believed to say that he was not paid, he is believed to say that he was paid for a different debt.

Such a case occurred with Avimi brei d'R. Avahu (Kesuvos 85a).

Reuven lent money to Shimon. Shimon said, if you will say that I did not pay, I will trust you (i.e. and I will repay you). Shimon brought witnesses who saw him pay.

(Abaye and Rava): Shimon said that he will trust him!

Rejection (Rav Papa): He meant only if the two of them will argue, but he did not trust him against witnesses!

Levi lent money to Yehudah. Yehudah said, if you will say that I did not pay, I will trust you like two witnesses. Shimon brought three witnesses who saw him pay.

(Rav Papa): Shimon only trusted him like two witnesses, but not like three!

Version #1 - Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We follow the majority of opinions only regarding estimation (of property value). There, the more opinions, the better the estimate;

Regarding testimony, two witnesses are as good as 100!

Version #2 - Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Regarding testimony, two witnesses are as good as 100!

However, if he said 'I will trust you like three witnesses', and Shimon brings four witnesses that saw him pay, he is exempt;

Since Shimon specified three witnesses, he showed that he considers more witnesses to be more reliable.

(Mishnah): One need not swear to deny the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf-mute. We do not make a child swear.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "Ki Yiten Ish... money or vessels to guard", but when a child gives, nothing takes effect.

(Mishnah): We do swear to a child and to Hekdesh.

Question: The Reisha said that one need not swear to deny the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf-mute!

Answer #1 (Rav): We swear if the child claims money that was owed to his father. The Mishnah is R. Eliezer ben Yakov;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Sometimes, one swears due to his own claim. If Shimon told Reuven 'your father gave me a Maneh, and I returned half to him', Shimon must swear that he owes only half, due to his own claim;

Chachamim exempt him from swearing, like a Meshiv (one who returns an) Aveidah.

Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Yakov obligate a Meshiv Aveidah to swear?! (Rashi - an enactment exempts him; Tosfos - he is believed that he returned everything, Migo (since) he could have kept it all.)

Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, a child claims from Shimon.

Objection: Our Mishnah teaches that we need not swear to deny the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf-mute!

Answer: Rav really means that an adult claims (money of his father) from Shimon;

He calls him a child, because one is (ignorant) like a child regarding his father's affairs.

Question: In the Beraisa, R. Eliezer said 'sometimes one swears due to his own claim.' This is the case of another's claim!

Answer: It is another's claim, but his own admission.

Objection: The oath of partial admission always comes through another's claim, and his own admission! (Why did R. Eliezer says sometimes, and why do Chachamim argue?)

Answer #2 (to Question 3): Rather, R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about Rabah's law (Rashi - really, a child claims; Tosfos - an adult claims);

Question (Rabah): Why did the Torah say that one who partially admits to a claim must swear?

Answer (Rabah): There is a Chazakah that one (Shimon) lacks the audacity to deny the claim of his creditor (Reuven) (Rashi - because Reuven helped him; Tosfos - because Reuven would know that Shimon is lying);

Really, Shimon would like to admit to the entire claim. He admits to only part to stall until he can pay it all;

The Torah imposes this oath on him in order that he will admit to the entire debt.

R. Eliezer holds that just like one lacks the audacity to deny the claim of Reuven (his creditor), he cannot deny the claim of Reuven's son. Therefore, Shimon is not like a Meshiv Aveidah;

Chachamim say, he cannot deny Reuven's claim, but he could deny Reuven's son's claim (Rashi - the son did not help Shimon; Tosfos - the son does not know whether the debt was paid);

Since he chose to admit, he is like a Meshiv Aveidah, and he is exempt.

Question: The Reisha shows that the Mishnah is not R. Eliezer ben Yakov!

(Reisha): If Reuven claimed 'you owed my father a Maneh' (and I inherited it), and Shimon admitted that he owed 50, he (pays 50 and) need not swear, for he is like a Meshiv Aveidah.

Answer: There, Reuven's claim was uncertain (he does not know whether or not Shimon paid), so Shimon is exempt.

Answer #2 (to Question (e) - Shmuel): We swear to children and Hekdesh to collect from their property.

Question: Another Mishnah already teaches this!

(Mishnah): One who collects from orphans' property must swear.

Answer: The repetition teaches Abaye Kashisha's law.

(Abaye Kashisha - Beraisa): The laws of orphans, i.e. one who collects from orphans' property must swear, and we collect only low quality land from orphans, apply to adult orphans, and all the more so to minors.

Question: Another Mishnah already teaches the law of Hekdesh!

(Mishnah): One who collects from Meshubadim (property that the debtor sold or gave to someone else) must swear.

Why should we distinguish whether the property passed to a person or to Hekdesh?!

Answer: One might have thought that we only swear when a person received it, lest the borrower is scheming with the creditor to improperly take the property from the buyer (e.g. the loan was already paid), but we are not concerned lest one scheme to cheat Hekdesh. The Mishnah teaches that we are concerned even regarding Hekdesh.

Question: Rav Huna taught that if a Shechiv Mera (one who fears lest he die from his illness) made all his property Hekdesh, and said that a Maneh of (what we assumed was) his property belongs to Ploni, he is believed. There is a Chazakah that people do not scheme to cheat Hekdesh!

Answer: That applies only to a Shechiv Mera. He would not lie, for he does not stand to benefit from it;

We are concerned lest a healthy person scheme with the one who will take the property from Hekdesh (and they will share it).

(Mishnah): We do not swear about slaves, documents, land and Hekdesh;

The following laws apply to these. A thief does not pay Kefel (double) for them, nor four or five (if he later slaughtered or sold a stolen (Hekdesh) animal), a Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through Gilgul), a Shomer Sachar need not pay for them (in fact, all Shomerim are exempt from swearing and paying for them);

R. Shimon says, one swears about Kodshim that have Achrayus (a Neder, i.e. a vow to bring a Korban. If the animal is disqualified or lost, he must bring another). One does not swear about Kodshim without Achrayus (a Nedavah, an animal that he made a Korban. If the animal is disqualified or lost, he need not bring another.)

R. Meir says, some things are like land, but have the law of Metaltelim:

If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with ten vines laden with grapes', and Shimon said 'you entrusted me with only five', Shimon must swear;

Chachamim disagree. Anything connected to land is like land. He need not swear.

One must swear only about something with a measure, weight or number:

If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with a full house or wallet (e.g. of grain or coins) and Shimon said 'I don't know how much it was. Take what is there', he is exempt.

If Reuven claimed 'it was full up to the ledge', and Shimon said 'it was up to the window', he is liable.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that Kefel does not apply to these things?

Answer (Beraisa): "Al Kol Devar Pesha" is a Klal. "Al Shor Al Chamor Al Seh Al Salmah" are Pratim. "Al Kol Aveidah" is another Klal;

From the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything similar to the Pratim, i.e. something that can be moved and has intrinsic value;

We exclude land, for it cannot be moved. We exclude slaves, for the Torah equates them to land. We exclude documents, for they lack intrinsic value. "Re'ehu" (his fellowman) excludes Hekdesh.

(Mishnah): Nor four or five...

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: (The payment of four or five is Kefel, and an added two or three. Since the extra payment of Kefel does not apply, we could only obligate two or three above principal.) The Torah never obligated payment of three (for a Seh) or four (for an ox).