Question (Bei Rav): If a worker claims that he was hired for two (Zuz), and the employer says that he hired him for one, who swears?

Answer (Shmuel): In this case, the employer swears and the worker loses, for people remember the wage. (There is no more reason to say that the employer forgot. Therefore, the worker does not collect without proof.)

Question (Beraisa #1): (If a worker claims that he was hired for two Zuz, and the employer says that he hired him for one, for the worker) to take money (from the employer), he must bring proof.

Inference: If he cannot bring proof, he has no claim.

According to Shmuel, the employer should have to swear (to avoid paying two)!

Answer (Rav Nachman): No, the Beraisa means as follows:

If the worker can bring proof, he collects;

If he cannot bring proof, the employer must swear, and then the worker loses.

Question (Beraisa #2): If Reuven gave his garment to a craftsman (Shimon) to be fixed, and they argue about whether he was hired for one or two, if Shimon still has the garment, Reuven must bring a proof or pay two. If he returned the garment to Reuven, if it is within the time to claim his wage, Shimon swears and collects. If the time has passed, Shimon must bring proof to collect two from Reuven.

Summation of question: In the middle clause, why does Shimon swear and collect? According to Shmuel, Reuven should swear and be exempt!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Beraisa #2 is like R. Yehudah, who says that whenever the Torah obligated the employer to swear (e.g. here, for Reuven agrees that he owes one), Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects.

Question: Where do we find that R. Yehudah says this?

Suggestion: He says so in our Mishnah.

Rejection: There, R. Yehudah allows the worker to collect less freely than Chachamim!

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The worker may swear and collect only when the employer partially admitted to the claim.

Answer: He says so in the following Beraisa.

(Beraisa): A worker can swear and collect within the time to claim his wage, but not after the time has passed;

R. Yehudah says, that is only when the employer admits that he owes part of the wages (and the worker says that he owes all), or when he says that he hired him for one (and the worker says that he was hired for two);

However, if the employer says that he never hired him, or he paid all his wages, the worker must bring proof in order to collect.

Question (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): It is illogical to say that Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue with it!

R. Yehudah is stringent (he allows the worker to collect only when the employer partially admits), and Chachamim are more lenient about the worker;

Will we say that where R. Yehudah is lenient (to allow a craftsman to swear (in the proper time) and collect after returning the garment), Chachamim are stringent?!

Counter-question: If Beraisa #2 is Chachamim, who is the Tana of Beraisa #1?

It is not Chachamim, nor R. Yehudah (for both agree that when they argue about the wage, the worker swears and collects)!

Answer (Rava): It is logical to say that Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, and Chachamim argue!

R. Yehudah says that when the Torah obligates the employer to swear, Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects;

If the employer need not swear mid'Oraisa, only mid'Rabanan, Chachamim did not make a second enactment for the worker.

Chachamim say that even when the employer's oath is only mid'Rabanan, Chachamim enacted that the worker swears and collects (if he says that he was not paid);

They hold that everyone remembers the wage, so when they argue about the wage, the worker does not swear and collect.

(Mishnah): The case of a Nigzal - witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security...

Objection: Why does Yehudah swear and collect? Perhaps Levi did not take anything!

(Rav Nachman): If Reuven took an axe and said 'I will cut Shimon's date tree', and we later see it cut and lying on the ground, we do not say that Reuven (surely) cut it and he must pay;

This is because people often make empty, exaggerated threats.

Here also, perhaps Levi never took a security!

Answer: The Mishnah means that witnesses testify that Levi took a security.

Question: We should ask the witnesses what he took! (Why must Yehudah swear?)

Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The case is, Yehudah claims that Levi took vessels that can be hidden under one's garment.

(Rav Yehudah): If witnesses saw Reuven leave Shimon's house with vessels hidden under his garment, and Reuven claims that he bought them, he is not believed.

This is only if Shimon does not normally sell his vessels, and Reuven took vessels that people do not normally hide, and Reuven does not normally hide (even such) vessels;

If any of these is not true, Reuven is believed.

This is only if Shimon claims that he lent to him the vessels, but we do not believe him if he claims that Reuven stole them. (Ritva - in the Mishnah, he is believed to say that Reuven stole them! That is when witnesses saw Reuven enter his house without permission to take a security.)

Version #1 (Rashi): We believe Shimon only about vessels that are normally lent or rented. Regarding other vessels, Reuven is always believed.

Version #2 (Tosfos): When we said that Reuven is believed (e.g. if Shimon normally sells his vessels, or about vessels that people normally hide, or if Reuven normally hides vessels, or if Shimon claims that Reuven stole them), this applies only to vessels that are not normally lent or rented;

Shimon is always believed about vessels that are normally lent or rented. (end of Version #2)

Support: Rav Huna bar Avin taught that if Levi is holding vessels that are normally lent or rented, and they used to belong to Yehudah, he is not believed to say that he bought them.

Rava allowed a man to collect a scissors (used by people who comb garments) and a Sefer of Agadah from orphans, because these were known to belong to him. (We assume that he lent them to their father.)

(Rava): (The Mishnah teaches that if witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house to take a security, Yehudah swears about what was taken, and he collects.) Even one who guards Yehudah's house, or the guards's wife may swear.

Question (Rav Papa): If one works for and boards with Yehudah, may he swear?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Yemar): If Yehudah claims that Levi took a silver cup, what is the law?

Answer (Rav Ashi): If we estimate that Yehudah is wealthy enough to own such a cup, or if he is so trustworthy that people would deposit it by him, he is believed. If not, he is not believed.

(Mishnah): The case of a Nechbal... (Levi swears that Yehudah wounded him, and collects).

(Rav Yehudah): Levi swears only about a wound that he could have inflicted on himself. For a wound he could not do to himself (e.g. on his back), he collects without swearing.

Question: Perhaps he scratched himself against a wall!

Answer (R. Chiya): The case is, he was bitten on his back.

Question: Perhaps someone else bit him!

Answer: The case is, Levi was secluded with Yehudah. No one else was there.

(Mishnah): If the defendant is suspected of swearing falsely, even a vain oath.

Question: Why does it say even a vain oath?

The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush;

Not only (if he swore falsely) an oath which denies money, but even a vain oath disqualifies him from swearing.

Question: The Mishnah should say that he is disqualified also for a false Shevu'as Bituy!

Answer: The Mishnah lists only oaths that are false the moment they are said. One who swore a false oath of Bituy never intended to swear falsely (even if later he did not fulfill his oath. Rashi - he is not suspected to swear falsely. Tosfos - he is suspected, but the Tana did not teach such cases).

Question: Indeed, a (future) oath of Bituy such as 'I will (or will not) eat' is not false the moment it is said;

However, a oath of Bituy (in the past) such as 'I ate (or did not eat)' is false the moment it is said! (Why does the Mishnah omit it?)

Answer: The Tana taught vain oaths. This includes false oaths of Bituy in the past.