Implied Question: The Gemara says later that Rav Nachman ruled that they should split the money. (This contradicts his answer to Rava that he does not know the law.)

Answer: He ruled afterwards (after he decided on the law).

Implied Question: The Gemara asks later that Rav Nachman's comment, "If there is etc." implies that Rav Nachman was unsure of the law. Didn't Rav Nachman (rule to split the money) etc.? (The Gemara there indeed asked the question above on an apparent doubt by Rav Nachman regarding the law. Why doesn't our Gemara ask this question?)

Answer: The Gemara later knew that when Rav Nachman said, "If there is etc." he had already ruled to split the money.

Explanation: This implies that he (Rebbi Abba) was his (Rebbi Ami's) student.

Implied Question: Earlier, Rebbi Ami called Rebbi Abba "our Rabbis in Bavel." (Doesn't this imply that Rabbi Ami was a student of Rebbi Abba?)

Answer: We find in Shabbos (147b) that Rav used the term "our Rabbis" to refer to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi who were his students. (It is therefore not proof that Rebbi Abba was his Rebbi.)

Question: However, there is a difficulty posed by the Gemara in Bava Metzia (24b). The Gemara there says that Rebbi Ami found slaughtered chickens between Teveria and Tzipori. He came before Rebbi Abba. Rebbi Abba said, go take them for yourself. This implies that Rebbi Abba was not his student (but rather more like his Rebbi).

Answer: According to the text that he went before Rebbi Ami, this is more understandable.

Implied Question#1: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Ami was greater than Rebbi Asi, as indicated by the fact that whenever they are mentioned together Rebbi Ami is listed before Rav Asi.

Implied Question#2: In Gitin (54b), regarding the discussion of one who makes something impure, or mixes Chulin with Terumah, or pours wine for Avodah Zarah, we say that a person came before Rebbi Ami. Rebbi Asi told him, "Rebbi, do you say this?" (This also implies that Rebbi Ami was greater.)

Answer#1: Even so, Rebbi Asi was Rebbi Ami's friend, and Rebbi Ami used to come ask advice from him.

Answer#2: Additionally, it is possible to say that (while Rebbi Asi was originally greater than Rebbi Ami) after awhile Rebbi Ami became the main Rav, and judges would come before him.

Explanation: I explained this in Bava Basra (34a).

Explanation: Chazal instituted turning around an oath specifically regarding someone who is suspected of lying, in order that people should not take his money away from him (by making claims they know he cannot swear about, hence making him pay). However, in our case and in the case where the defendant says he does not know about the other fifty Zuz, he must pay.

Explanation(cont.): So too in our Mishnah, being that the oath their father would have had to take is placed on the orphans and they cannot swear, the sons of the borrower must pay. This is because whether the claimant or defendant is liable to take an oath and they cannot pay, the defendant must pay.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara implies here that Rav Nachman rules that they should split the money as per the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, as he does not hold of Rebbi Abba's law. (Rebbi Abba would seem to say that if he cannot swear he should pay.)

Question: The Ri finds this difficult. In Bava Metzia (97b), we say regarding the Mishnah, "One who borrows a cow, if he borrowed it for half a day etc." that this should be difficult for the position of Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Nachman. (The Mishnah there discusses a case where a person borrowed and rented a cow that subsequently died. The owner says it died when it was borrowed, and the defendant says he does not know when it died. The Mishnah rules he is liable to pay.) Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Nachman say that if a person claims that his friend has a Manah, and the defendant claims he does not know whether or not this is true, he is exempt.

Question(cont.): The Gemara answers that the case is where they have an oath between them (meaning that when there is a partial admission oath that must be taken they will say he must pay, as opposed to the case of the Mishnah). This is as Rava states that if a person claims a Manah and the defendant says he only owes fifty, while he is unsure about the other fifty, being that he cannot swear he must pay. This (Rava's opinion) is like the opinion of Rebbi Abba!

Answer: Rav Nachman definitely does not hold like Rebbi Abba. However, he establishes the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (ibid.) as being according to Rebbi Meir, according to the way Rebbi Abba explains Rebbi Meir. He (Rav Nachman) himself holds like Rebbi Yosi.

Observation: This makes the following Gemara in Kesuvos (12b) understandable. Rav Yehudah states that if someone claims a Manah and the defendant says he is unsure that he is liable. The Gemara does not say that this is according to Shmuel.

Observation(cont.): The Mishnah in Bava Metzia cannot be established as when they already have an oath that must be taken, and according to Rava. This is because he argues here on Rebbi Abba.

Observation(cont.): It is now understandable that Shmuel establishes that the Mishnah is according to the Tana later, and says this supports Rebbi Abba. However, he holds like Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Tarfon who derives the Pasuk regarding something else, and who argues on Rebbi Abba.

Question#1: The Ri has another difficulty with this Gemara. In Bava Basra (34b), the Gemara implies that the law follows Rebbi Abba who says that the Rabbanan thought to say before Abaye that the case there was similar to the case of Rebbi Abba's metal bar. The Gemara there indeed concludes that if Rebbi Abba's case is comparable to another case it is as follows etc. (This implies that Rebbi Abba's case was used to determine the law.)

Question(cont.)#1: Later (48b), we say that if a judge ruled like Rav and Shmuel, his ruling is valid. If he ruled like Rebbi Elazar, his ruling is valid. Rebbi Elazar holds like Rebbi Abba, that the orphans take and they do not lose. This implies that the opinion of Rav and Shmuel is just as valid as that of Rebbi Abba.

Question#2: There is an additional dificulty. We always say that the law follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters. Later, the Gemara says that if a judge rules like Rav and Shmuel, his ruling is valid. If he ruled like Rebbi Elazar, his ruling is valid. Rav Nachman who says that they should split the money is not even mentioned. This implies the law is unlike Rav Nachman.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains in Sefer Ha'Yashar that the law indeed follows Rav Nachman who says they should split the money when they are both suspected, as we rule like Rav Nachman in money matters, and we rule like Rebbi Abba in the case of the bar. This is as stated in Bava Basra (ibid.) and in the case where the person admits owing fifty and does not know about the other fifty, as stated by Rava (who holds like Rebbi Abba) in Bava Metzia (98a).

Opinion(cont.): Rav Nachman also holds like Rebbi Abba in the case of the bar and in the case where the defendant claims he does not know if he owes the other fifty, that because he cannot swear he must pay. Certainly we could also say when the claimant is obligated to swear that the claimant loses. However, being that the oath of the claimant is only Rabbinic in nature, and one does not lose and does not pay when he cannot swear unless he is obligated to take an by the Torah (that he cannot take).

Opinion(cont.): This is why orphans who claim from orphans in a case where the borrower died during the lifetime of the lender, or where a lender causes his document to be blemished, end up with a Rabbinic oath which is taken by the inheritors. They collect the money and do not lose according to Rav Nachman and Rebbi Abba.

Implied Question: When they are both suspected (of lying) the claimant loses half, even though he only must take a Rabbinic oath. (Why does he lose if he only has to take a Rabbinic oath?)

Answer: The reason is because we fine him, being that he is suspected of lying.

Opinion(cont.): Rav and Shmuel hold that even regarding a Rabbinic oath we apply the rule that being that he cannot swear, he loses everything. When they are both suspected the claimant also loses everything, as the Shevuah goes back to Sinai. Only in a case of orphans collecting from orphans do we say that if someone rules like Rav and Shmuel the ruling remains valid.

Opinion(cont.): This does not apply to a person who blemishes their document, as we do not want to add on to this category.

Opinion(cont.): Rebbi Abba also agrees with Rav Nachman in a case where both people are suspected of lying, as the law follows Rebbi Yosi who says that they should split the money, for the reason that we have stated.

Implied Question: We say that "Our Rabbis in Israel" refers to Rebbi Abba, but not because he holds like Rebbi Meir. (The simple explanation in the Gemara is that Rebbi Abba is identified as "Our Rabbis in Israel" because he holds like Rebbi Meir, who holds that the oath goes back to its place. How can we say he holds like Rebbi Yosi?)

Answer: Rather, we are using Rebbi Abba's position to explain Rebbi Meir's position that the oath goes back to the one who is obligated to take it, as we find Rebbi Abba often holds this way.

Answer: It is also possible to answer that Rav Nachman rules in a case of both being suspected that they should split the money because the claimant also must take a Rabbinic oath, and he cannot do so.

Question: This answer does not seem correct. If so, in the case where the orphans are collecting from orphans, Rav Nachman and Rebbi Abba should also hold like Shmuel! Being that the sons of the lender cannot swear, they should lose. In the entire Gemara, the implication is that they argue.

Question(cont.): Even if the sons of the borrower are also considered not being able to swear, they should still not lose more than half! Why does Rebbi Elazar hold that the sons of the lender can swear and collect everything? The implication is that Rebbi Elazar should hold like Rebbi Abba and Rav Nachman.

Question: However, there is a slight difficulty. How does the Gemara know later that Rav and Shmuel do not hold like Rebbi Abba in the case of the metal bar, and in the case where the defendant says he does not know if he owes the other fifty? It is clear that this is what the Gemara holds from its question, what do they derive from the Pasuk, "Shevuas Hash-m?"

Answer: It seems that if they held of the concept that if one cannot swear he must pay, the sons of the borrower should pay half, being that they cannot swear that their father paid, as explained by Rashi. Rather, they must not agree with this concept regarding making someone pay, but rather to make someone lose his claim.

Implied Question: This needs further study.

Question: This (Pasuk) is difficult according to the opinion in Bava Metzia (97b) that says that if a person claims a Manah and the defendant says he does not know whether he owes it or not, he is liable. This is because a claim of certainty defeats a doubtful claim. What is this Pasuk referring to? If it is a case where the defendant says that he owes fifty and does not know about the other fifty, there is no obligation for the father to swear at all. Rather, he has a monetary obligation to pay due to the fact that the certain claim beats the doubtful claim!

Answer#1: This opinion holds like Rav and Shmuel later (for the teaching of Shimon ben Tarfon).

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Pasuk means that the Shevuah of Hash-m should be between them when it applies. Whoever cannot swear must pay. This is unlike a case of inheritors, who are exempt when they cannot swear.

Explanation: The one who makes the person swear gets punished, even if he is correct, as explained by Rashi earlier (39b, DH "Chalah").

Proof: This is also apparent from the Beraisa's teaching earlier (39b) that, "And he will come to the thief" refers a person who tricks people by claiming money from people who do not owe him money. Later, the Gemara asks, why is the one who forced the oath included in the curse, "Go away (from the tents of these evil people)?" The Gemara answers that this is as stated by Rebbi Shimon ben Rebbi Tarfon.

Proof(cont.): Being that the Gemara had to quote this Beraisa (of Shimon ben Tarfon) and did not find enough proof from the Beraisa itself, it is clear that this is even if the plaintiff is right. (This point is established by Shimon ben Tarfon, not by the other Beraisa.)

Question: This is difficult. Rava says in Bava Kama (72b) that the concept of Eidim Zomimim is a novel concept, as why should we believe the second pair of witnesses instead of the first? On the contrary, the fact that we say that the second pair is still valid is novel, as when two pairs of witnesses contradict each other they are invalid according to Rav Chisda! (In other words, the argument should not be that we should believe the first pair, but rather that they should both be invalid!)

Answer#1: The Ri answers that Rava holds like Rav Huna. In Bava Basra (31b), the Gemara concludes regarding the positions of Rav Nachman and Rava that everyone agrees with Rav Huna (who argues on Rav Chisda).

Implied Question: The Gemara later states that Rava holds like Rav Chisda. (How can we say he holds like Rav Huna?)

Answer: It means that he holds like his ruling, but unlike his reasoning.

Observation: When the Gemara wanted to say that Rava holds like Rav Chisda, it could have asked, "According to you (what about the Gemara in Bava Kama quoted above)."

Answer#2: Additionally, according to the other reason regarding an Eid Zomeim (that he should only be invalid after being found to be a Zomeim, not retroactively) that the buyers who used him as a witness will lose, one can indeed explain that Rava holds like Rav Chisda.

Opinion: The law follows Rav Huna, being that Rav Nachman and Rava hold like him in Bava Basra. Rabeinu Chananel also holds this way, being that Rav Huna was Rav Chisda's Rav, as stated in Bava Metzia (33a). Additionally, the Beraisa (48a) stating, "One says it was two Merda'os tall etc." seemingly implies that it is according to the opinion of Rav Huna.