1)

(a)After teaching us the Din of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' by 'Nigzal',, the Tana adds the case of 'Mesachek be'Kuvya' - a person who gambols with dice.

(b)The Tana finds it necessary to insert it - in order to include a P'sul de'Rabanan in the list.

(c)He is only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan - because he is not guilty of stealing outright; it is just that he does not acquire the money he wins due to the principle of 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' (as we learned in Sanhedrin).

(d)When Rava asked Rav Nachman ...

1. ... whether, where they are both suspect, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah', and Rebbi Meir, 'Yachloku' (as it stands in our Mishnah), or vice-versa, he replied - that he did not know.

2. ... what the Halachah was - he gave the same answer.

(e)All the other opinions cited here, including Rav Yosef bar Minyumi quoting Rav Nachman, invert the opinions in our Mishnah. According to Rav Yosef bar Minyumi, when such a case came before Rav Nachman - he actually ruled 'Yachloku'.

2)

(a)When, quoting Raboseinu she'ba'Bavel, Rebbi Ami says (in connection with 'Hayu Sheneihen Chashudin') 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', he means that - the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai, where Hash-m made us swear that we would not steal (and that Shevu'ah will pertain here to the guilty party). Other than that, there is no Shevu'ah, and the case is dissolved.

(b)Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael hold - 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav lah', meaning that the Shevu'ah ends at the door of the one who was originally obligated to make it, and if he cannot do so, he loses the case.

(c)Rav Papa defines 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' as Rav and Shmuel; 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' as - Rebbi Aba.

3)

(a)When the Tana adds 'Yesomim' to the list of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin', he cannot be referring to an ordinary debtor - because seeing as their father could have claimed from him without a Shevu'ah, why should they have to swear?

(b)In fact, he is referring - to a debtor who is also an orphan (and from whom the father would have therefore only been able to claim with a Shevu'ah).

4)

(a)Rav and Shmuel establish the current Halachah to a case where the creditor died in the lifetime of the debtor exclusively, because, had the debtor died first - the creditor would have already been Chayav a Shevu'ah to the debtor's Yasom, and an heir does not inherit money that requires a Shevu'ah ...

(b)... because he is unable to swear that he did not receive the money (like his father would have had to).

(c)The practical application of this ruling is that - the Yesomim would lose their claim.

(d)This proves that 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' are synonymous with Rav and Shmuel - because we see that there where neither party is able to swear, the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai (despite the fact that the Shevu'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan [see Toras Chayim]; whereas according to those who say 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomo' the Yesomim would claim without a Shevu'ah [presumably, because it is only a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan). Clearly then, they are the ones who hold 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai', which according to Rav Papa, is the opinion of Raboseinu she'be'Bavel.

5)

(a)In the case (already discussed in Shevu'as ha'Eidus) that came before Rebbi Ami, where Reuven grabbed a lump of silver from Shimon in front of one witness, subsequently admitting that he had grabbed it, but claiming that it belonged to him anyway, Rebbi Ami was in a dilemma - since, on the one hand he could not make him pay, since there was only one witness, whilst on the other, Reuven could not be made to swear, since he did not deny the testimony of the witness.

(b)Rebbi Aba, who was sitting in front of Rebbi Ami at the time, ruled 'Mitoch she'Eino Yachol Lishava, Meshalem' (meaning that since the defendant was unable to counter the witness's testimony with a Shevu'ah, he had to pay, as we learned in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus'') ...

(c)... which is synonymous with 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mechuyav Lah', a proof that 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' is Rebbi Aba.

6)

(a)Rava supports Rebbi Aba's ruling from a Beraisa cited by Rebbi Ami, which Darshens from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hash-m Tih'yeh bein Sheneihem" - 've'Lo bein ha'Yorshin' (meaning that Yorshin do not swear to Yorshin).

(b)This cannot refer to a case where Reuven's heirs claim that their father lent Shimon's father a Manah, and Shimon's heirs admit to fifty Zuz and deny the other fifty - because, if the Yorshin are sure of the facts, there is no reason for them not to swear, just as their father would have done.

(c)The case must therefore be - where they respond with a Safek (claiming that their father might have only borrowed fifty Zuz).

(d)This supports Rebbi Aba's opinion - because it is only if their father would have had to pay under such circumstances (like the opinion of Rebbi Aba) that a Pasuk would be required to exempt his heirs; but if he would have been Patur, it is obvious that they would be Patur too.

(e)Rav and Shmuel Darshen the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hash-m Tih'yeh bein Sheneihem" like Shimon ben Tarfon in a Beraisa, who interprets it to mean that - the Shevu'ah pertains to someone who causes his fellow-Jew to swear as well as to the person who actually swears (as we already learned in 'Shevu'as ha'Dayanim').

7)

(a)In the same Beraisa, Shimon ben Tarfon includes in the La'av of "Lo Tin'af" 'Okef Achar No'ef', which refers to - someone who encourages prostitution by supplying the women (such as the owner of a brothel).

(b)He Darshens this from "Lo Tin'af" - by reading it as 'Lo Tan'if' (see Agados Maharsha).

8)

(a)Shimon ben Tarfon explains the Pasuk in Devarim ...

1. ... "Vateragnu be'Ohaleichem" - in the form of an acronym 'Tartem ve'Ginisem be'Ohalo shel Makom' ('You spied out the land, and disgraced the place where Hash-m rested His Shechinah').

2. ... "ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol N'har P'ras", referring to the Euphrates as ''ha'Nahar ha'Gadol" - because it is the only one of the four major rivers (mentioned in Bereishis) that borders Eretz Yisrael.

(b)We cannot understand the Pasuk literally - because size-wise, it is the smallest of the four rivers.

(c)The same Tana extrapolates from here the adage 'K'rav Legabei Dehina ve'Idhen' which means that - if one touches oil, one becomes oily.

(d)de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from it the adage - 'Eved Melech ke'Melech' (one treats the servant of the king with the same respect as the king himself).

9)

(a)When Rebbi commented on the Tana Kama's ruling with regard to Chenvani al Pinkaso 'Torach Shevu'ah Zu Lamah', he was in fact objecting - to the fact that Chazal would cause a Shevu'as Shav (in the same way as ben Na'nes objects in our Mishnah).

(b)Rebbi meant either that both claimants ought to take without a Shevu'ah (like ben Na'nes), or that the storekeeper loses with the Shevu'ah of the workers.

(c)Rebbi Chiya cites our S'tam Mishnah, learned by Rebbi, which explicitly learns 'Sheneihem Nishba'in ve'Notlin mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis' - in order to alleviate Rebbi's doubts.

10)

(a)We ask whether Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's observation or not. We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi himself says 'Po'alin Nishba'in le'Chenvani' - suggesting that the workers swear and claim from the storekeeper, and not from the Ba'al ha'Bayis (as our Mishnah rules).

(b)To answer the Kashya, we explain this Beraisa to mean that - they actually swear to the Ba'al ha'Bayis, but in the presence of the storekeeper ...

(c)... to embarrass them, to coerce them to confess (in the event that they are lying).

11)

(a)According to Rav Huna, if two pairs of witnesses contradict one another, each one remains qualified to testify independently. He does not however, allow them - to combine (one witness from each pair) to testify in the same case.

(b)Rav Chisda says that - seeing as we know for sure that one of the pairs is Pasul, we cannot accept either of them in court.

(c)With regard to the above, we comment that, in a case of ...

1. ... two creditors, two debtors and two Sh'taros - Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will apply their respective rulings (it is acceptable according to Rav Huna, and unacceptable according to Rav Chisda).

2. ... 'Malveh ve'Loveh u'Sh'nei Sh'taros' - both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will agree, that since one of the Sh'taros is definitely Kasher, the Malveh is permitted to claim the smaller debt.

(d)When we say about a case of two creditors, one debtor and two Sh'taros, we mean that - according to Rav Huna (see Tosfos ha'Rosh), this is precisely the case in our Mishnah, which authorizes both claimants to claim from the Loveh.

12)

(a)We ask what the Din will be the reverse case ... two debtors, one creditor and two Sh'taros. According to Rav Huna, we might ...

1. ... not accept either claim against the debtors - since it is the same creditor who produces both sets of witnesses (one of which is definitely Pasul).

2. ... accept both claims - because, seeing as the creditor is claiming from two different debtors, perhaps each one is treated independently, like in Rav Huna's case.

(b)This She'eilah is confined to Rav Huna, because, according to Rav Chisda, if even where the two sets of witnesses are brought by two different creditors they are disqualified, how much more so, where they are brought by the same creditor.

(c)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

13)

(a)Rav Huna bar Yehudah asks from a Beraisa which rules that in a case where one witness gives the height of the new moon in the sky as ...

1. ... two ox-goads and the other, as three - their testimony is Kasher.

2. ... three ox-goads and the other, as five - it is Pasul.

(b)Initially, we interpret the Tana's ruling 'u'Mitztarfin le'Eidus Acheres' to mean that - either witness is permitted to join with somebody else to testify in cases of Mamon ...

(c)... in which case Rav Huna bar Yehudah is querying - Rav Chisda, who, under similar circumstances, disqualifies even two witnesses from testifying at all.

(d)To reconcile Rav Chisda with the Beraisa, Rava interprets it to mean that - either witness may combine with a third witness who sides with him, with regard to the same testimony ...

(e)... because, seeing as there are now two witnesses against one, we apply the principle 'Ein Devarav shel Echad be'Makom Shenayim' (one witness cannot be believed against two).