(Mishnah): If one of them was a gambler...

Question: Why must these cases be taught?

Answer: The previous cases were disqualified mid'Oraisa. These cases are disqualified only mid'Rabanan.

(Mishnah): If both parties were disqualified...

Question #1 (Rava): What is the correct text of the Mishnah? (Some versions switch the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yosi.)

Rav Nachman: I do not know.

Question #2 (Rava): What is the Halachah?

Rav Nachman: I do not know. (The following implies that Rav Nachman later resolved these questions.)

Version #1 - Answer (to Question #1 - Rav Yosef bar Minyomi citing Rav Nachman): R. Yosi says, they divide (the disputed money);

Also, Rav Zevid bar Oshaya taught a Beraisa that says so.

Version #2 (Rav Zevid - Beraisa - R. Oshaya): R. Yosi says that they divide. (end of Version #2)

Answer (to Question #2 - Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): A case occurred in which Rav Nachman ruled that they divide.

(Mishnah): The oath returns to its place.

Question: To where does it return?

Answer (R. Ami): Our teachers in Bavel say that it returns to Sinai (i.e. Hash-m will punish the guilty party for transgressing the oath on Sinai, which included the Isur to steal. Beis Din does not force the defendant to do anything);

Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael say that it returns to the defendant. (Since he cannot swear, he must pay.)

(Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Bavel' refers to Rav and Shmuel. The following shows that they say that it returns to Sinai.

(Mishnah): Similarly, orphans collect only after swearing.

Question: From whom do they (need to swear in order to) collect?

Suggestion: It is from (Shimon,) the one who borrowed from their father (Reuven).

Rejection: Reuven could have collected without swearing. Why must his orphans swear?!

Answer: Rather, they must swear in order to collect from Shimon's orphans.

(Rav and Shmuel): This is only if Reuven died before Shimon. However, if Shimon died first, Reuven could not have collected from the orphans without swearing that he was not paid;

One does not inherit (a claim to) money that his father could have collected only through swearing. (Rashi - since the orphans do not know whether the loan was paid, they cannot swear.)

(Rav Papa): 'Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael' refers to R. Aba. The following shows that he says that it returns to the defendant.

One witness testified in front of R. Ami that Reuven grabbed an ingot from Shimon. Reuven said 'yes, I grabbed it. It is mine!'

Question (R. Ami): What is the law? We cannot obligate Reuven without two witnesses. We cannot totally exempt him, for there is one witness!

Suggestion: He must swear to contradict the witness.

Version #1 (Rashi) Rejection: He cannot contradict him, for he admits that he took it, nor is he believed to say 'Shimon was holding my ingot.' He is unable to swear (in this case), just like a thief (is never believed to swear).

Version #2 (Tosfos) Rejection: Since he admits that he took it, and we assume that it was Shimon's (for Shimon was holding it), Reuven is like a thief (who is not believed to swear).

Answer (R. Aba): He must swear, but he cannot, therefore he must pay.

(Rava): A Beraisa supports R. Aba.

(R. Ami - Beraisa): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem" (an oath decides the dispute between the two parties,) not between their heirs.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: Reuven says 'your father owed my father 100', and Shimon says 'he owed 50.'

Rejection: Since Shimon is certain, he swears just like his father would have sworn!

Answer: Rather, Reuven says 'your father owed my father 100', and Shimon says 'I know that he owed 50. I do not know whether he owed more.'

If Shimon must swear in such a case (and since he is unsure, he cannot, so he must pay), we understand why a verse is needed to exempt his heirs;

However, if Shimon would be exempt in such a case, why do we need a verse to exempt his heirs?!

Question: What do Rav and Shmuel learn from "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem"?

Answer: They learn like Shimon ben Tarfon expounds;

(Beraisa - Shimon ben Tarfon): "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Sheneihem" teaches that (the punishment for) the oath is on both parties.

We can read "Lo Sin'af" like 'Lo San'if', i.e. do not be an agent to bring others to sexual immorality.

"Va'TeRaGNu v'Ohaleichem" - TaRtem v'GiNisem (you toured (Eretz Yisrael, i.e. sent spies) and debased Eretz Yisrael, Hash-m's abode (Ri mi'Gash; Maharsha - you debased Hash-m, who put His Ohel (the Divine Presence, in the Mishkan) amidst you.

"Ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar Peras" - if one touches someone anointed (with oil), the oil comes on him. (The Peras river was the smallest of the four rivers in Gan Eden, but it is called the big river because it is a border of Eretz Yisrael);

Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael says, also the slave of a king is called a king.

(Mishnah): A grocer swears based on his ledger...

Question (Rebbi): There is no reason for everyone (the grocer and the workers) to swear!

Answer (R. Chiya - Mishnah): (There is a need.) Both swear and collect from the employer.

Question: Did Rebbi accept this answer?

Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): The workers swear to the grocer (that he did not pay them, and the grocer does not collect from the employer. This shows that Rebbi did not accept the answer.)

Rejection (Rava): (Really, he accepted the answer.) The Beraisa means, the workers swear to the employer in front of the grocer. Since the grocer knows the truth, perhaps they will be embarrassed to swear falsely in front of him. (Also the grocer swears and collects.)

(Rav Huna): If two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, either pair may testify (by itself) in another case. (We do not know which pair is lying. When in doubt, we follow the Chazakah. They are valid witnesses.)

(Rav Chisda): Since we do not know which are lying, we do not accept testimony from either pair.

If each pair signed on a different loan document, the law is as follows.

If the lenders and borrowers in the documents are different, Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue like above (Rav Huna honors the documents, and Rav Chisda invalidates them);

If both documents are for the same lender and borrower, all agree that the lender collects the smaller loan. (One document is valid. We do not know which, therefore he collects the smaller);

If Reuven borrowed from two different lenders, (according to Rav Chisda, both documents are invalid. According to Rav Huna) this is just like our Mishnah (even though one party is certainly lying, since the employer does not know which, he must pay both. Here also, Reuven does not know which document is invalid, so he must pay both);

Question: If Shimon lent to two different borrowers, (according to Rav Chisda, both documents are invalid;) according to Rav Huna, what is the law? (Since one is invalid, neither borrower need pay. Or, do we consider this like two separate cases, and he collects both?)

This question is not resolved.