(R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): Whenever two [witnesses] obligate money, one obligates a Shevu'ah.

Question: Two obligate [returning] land [and one does not obligate a Shevu'ah on land]!

Answer: There is different, for we do not swear about land.

Question: Two obligate a fine [and one does not obligate a Shevu'ah about a fine]!

Answer: There is different, for we do not swear about a fine (since one does not pay through admission, only through witnesses).

Question: Two obligate a Perutah, and our Mishnah teaches that Shevu'as ha'Dayanim, the claim is two Kesef and the denial is a Perutah (and the same applies to a Shevu'ah through one witness)!

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses a Shevu'ah through his admission. Shmuel discusses one Mushba through others.

Rav Chisda and his Talmidim argue [with Shmuel]. Every Shevu'ah imposed by the Dayanim, whether through his mouth, the claim must be two Kesef and the denial is a Perutah. (These last words are not precise. Really, a Shevu'ah through one witness does not require any admission.)

Opinion #1 (R. Yochanan): [A Shomer] who claims that [the deposit] was stolen is not obligated [to swear] unless he admits partially.

Opinion #2: All [R. Yochanan's] colleagues all argue with him.

Question: How do all his colleagues explain "Ki Hu Zeh"? (It implies that he admits only to this!)

Answer: It discusses one who claims money (Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas).

Question: If it discusses one who claims money, could it say "Yeshalem Shenayim l'Re'ehu"?! (Kefel does not apply to a loan, for one is liable even if Ones occurred!)

Answer: Eruv Parshiyos applies here. (The words "Ki Hu Zeh" written here apply elsewhere, to the Parshah of a loan.)

(R. Zeira): He is liable only if the denial is two Kesef, aside from the admission.

Remark: This is like the colleagues who argue with R. Yochanan. (NO'AM YERUSHALMI - we learn from Kesef Oh Kelim in Parshas Shomerim that the claim is two Kesef. R. Yochanan holds that this includes the admission, for "Ki Hu Zeh" applies to Shomerim. R. Zeira holds like the colleagues who hold that the Torah does not discuss admission regarding Shomerim, so the denial is two Kesef. We learn from Shomerim to loans, which require admission, that the denial is two Kesef.)

(Mishnah): "You owe to me a Maneh." "I do not owe to you" - he is exempt.

Question: Even if he claimed any amount, and the defendant totally denied, he is exempt!

Answer: (This is needed for the inference.) "You owe to me a Maneh." "I owe you only a Perutah", he is obligated. (Maneh is an amount of money. It is not any particular kind of coins or metal, so a Perutah is considered an admission of the same species claimed - HA'MASHBI'ACH.)

(Rav and R. Yochanan): [Our Mishnah] is if he lent to him with witnesses, but if he lent to him without witnesses, he can say "you lent to me, and I paid you half."

(R. Yudan): We do not say about money Migo, e.g since he could say "you did not lend to me", he can say "you lent to me, and I paid you half" (and be believed without a Shevu'ah.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon, and Shimon totally denied...

(Asi): One who lends to his friend, he must pay him in front of witnesses.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon, and Shimon admitted, and the next day, Reuven claimed it again - if Shimon answers 'I paid you', he is exempt. If he answers 'I do not have (i.e. never had) your money', he is obligated [to pay. According to Asi, he should not be believed to say that he paid!]

Answer (R. Avin): Asi means that one who lends to his friend with witnesses, he must pay him in front of witnesses. (We explained this like HA'MASHBI'ACH.)

Explanation (R. Bun): People normally lend to their colleagues without witnesses, and claim with witnesses. (Therefore, claiming in front of witnesses does not show adamancy that he pay in front of witnesses, but lending with witnesses shows that he is adamant about this. This is based on NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)