Opinion#1: The Ritzva explains that the first example was cited, but this applies to all of the cases cited along with a worker in the Mishnah. Being that the oath was instituted for their good, one cannot use it as a springboard to make them take other oaths.

Question: This does not seem correct. The oath of a worker is not for his good. According to the letter of the law, he should be able to take his wages without taking an oath. He only swears in order to appease the mindset of his employer.

Opinion#2: Rather, the Ri explains, Rav Huna specifically said a worker because his oath is only to appease his employer. This is not such an obligation that enables the employer to use it as a springboard to make him take other oaths.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in a case where one witness testifies that the husband already paid a Kesuvah, the Gemara in Kesuvos (87b) tells us that the oath (the woman must take before she can collect her Kesuvah) is still just to appease the husband. (Why, then, do we say that one can make the woman take other oaths in that case if this cannot be done to a worker because he only swears to appease his employer?)

Answer: Even so, a Gilgul Shevuah is relative to that case, as she is only deemed exempt from taking a Shevuah (according to the letter of the law) due to the teaching from a Pasuk that one does not swear regarding land. She is also exempt because all of those who swear are supposed to swear and not pay. (In other words, being that she really should swear and is exempt due to Halachic technicalities (i.e. not swearing on land), the Rabbinic oath can be used as a springboard for other oaths. This is as opposed to a worker, who is really exempt based on logic, and only takes an oath to appease his employer.)

Implied Question: This (order of the Mishnah, listing Shoel after Shomer Chinam) is despite the fact that a Shomer Sachar is stated in the Pasuk immediately after a Shomer Chinam.

Answer: In our Mishah, the order is based on the most stringent Shomer being listed after the most lenient Shomer.

Text: We do not have the text "that they stole" or "if he slaughtered and (i.e. or) sold he pays four or five (times the amount of the sheep or ox respectively)."

Text(cont.): In Bava Kama (106b), the Gemara asks a question on Rav who says that if a guardian claims that the object was stolen (and it turns out he in fact had stolen the item), he pays Keifel. If he slaughtered and stole the animal, he pays four or five times. Our Mishnah says that if he ate it, he pays Keifel. It does not say that he pays four or five times the amount, even though one cannot eat a Kzayis of meat without first slaughtering the animal. This implies that our text should be that he ate the meat (as the text of the Mishnah appears in Bava Kama).

Implied Question: One cannot say that the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) is asking a question from a Beraisa.

Answer: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara there tries to say this is according to Rebbi Meir, because a general Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir (a sure sign that it is asking from our Mishnah, not a Beraisa).

Explanation: The Ri explains that the reason why our Mishnah does not state, "If he slaughtered and sold he must pay four or five times" even though it is true, is because the Pasuk does not discuss paying four or five times besides for a case where the person paying is the actual thief.

Text#1: Tosfos does not have the text here, "I make you swear, and he says amen." This is because a thief would have to pay even if he did not take an oath to this effect.

Text#1(cont.): Based on this, we do not have the text, "If he admitted on his own, he pays the principle, a fifth, and an Asham." One only must pay a fifth and bring an Asham if he swore.

Text#2: The Gemara in Bava Kama (106a) implies clearly that the text, "If he admitted etc." is the correct text, as the Gemara there deduces that this is only if he admits on his own, not after witnesses testified. The Gemara proves from there that if he is liable for Keifel, he is exempt from paying an extra fifth. The Mishnah here says, "I make you swear" (although it is not necessary, as stated above in (a)) in order to match the second part of the Mishnah.

Implied Question: Shmuel says in Bava Kama (75a) that if someone admits to a fine, and afterwards witnesses come and testify that he did this, he is liable. (This seems to be contradicted by our Mishnah!)

Answer: One must say that the Mishnah is discussing a case where the witnesses left (and never testified). A similar answer is given in the Gemara there.

Observation: The Gemara implies that this is indeed the Halachah.

Question: This is difficult. We should say that being that the category Shevuas Shomrim was taken out of the general rule of Shevuas Bituy, we should say that Shevuas Shomrim is a completely separate category, and is no longer relative to Shevuas Bituy. Rava states this concept earlier (25b) regarding Shevuas ha'Eidus (as a reason why one is not liable for both Shevuas ha'Eidus and Shevuas Bituy).

Answer: These Gemaros are incomparable. Shevuas ha'Eidus leaves the rule of Shevuas Bituy in a lenient fashion. This is why it is novel. However, here Shevuas Shomrim is more stringent than Shevuas Bituy as the person taking the oath is denying owing money. This is not the type of novel law that completely leaves the rule.