(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon (in front of witnesses), and Shimon admitted, and the next day, Reuven claimed it again:

If Shimon answers 'I paid you', he is exempt [even from swearing]. If he answers 'I do not have (i.e. never had) your money', he is obligated [to pay].

If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon (in front of witnesses), and Shimon admitted, and Reuven told him 'you must repay it in front of witnesses', and the next day, Reuven claimed it again:

[Even] if Shimon says 'I paid you', he is obligated, for he needs to pay in front of witnesses.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon, and Shimon admitted, and Reuven told him 'you must repay it in front of witnesses', and the next day, Reuven claimed it again, and Shimon says 'I paid you', he is obligated, for he needs to pay in front of witnesses.

Question: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer! Is the borrower not believed if] he says "I paid you in front of witnesses'?

Answer (Bar Kaparah): He said 'you must repay it in front of Ploni and Almoni.'

Question: Exert yourself! [Is the borrower not believed] to say 'I paid you in front of [different] witnesses'?

Answer (R. Ba citing Rav Hamnuna citing Rav Ada bar Ahavah citing Rav): A case occurred in front of Rebbi, and he said 'Ploni and Almoni will come' [to say whether or not he paid. Indeed, other witnesses do not help.]

If [one says that he bought land, and says that he has the] document and a Chazakah, Rebbi says, he [must] bring(s) the document. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, [it suffices to] bring [witnesses of] Chazakah.

(R. Ze'ira citing R. Yirmeyah): A case occurred in front of Rebbi, and he ruled like R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Question (R. Zeira, to R. Yirmeyah): Rebbi contradicts himself! There, he said that he [must] bring the document. Here he ruled that he [can] bring [witnesses of] Chazakah!

Suggestion: Should we say that [he ruled like R. Shimon ben Gamliel] before he retracted [to argue with him]?

Rejection: We can even say that it was after he retracted. (Rebbi did not say that if he cannot bring the document, he loses the land.) Rebbi merely wanted to clarify the truth. (The document is a better proof than the Chazakah.)

If one was Machazik based on a [sale] document, and it was found to be Pasul, it is not a Chazakah.

Opinion #1: There is an argument about this. (This is like Rebbi, who says that he must bring the document, and if not, he loses.)

Opinion #2 (R. Shmuel citing R. Zeira citing R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Avina): All agree to this;

Explanation #1 (R. Yosi): There, he said [from the beginning] that he has a document and a Chazakah. Here, he came [only] with a document. (When it is found to be Pasul, he is not believed to retract and say that he has witnesses of Chazakah.)

Explanation #2 (R. Yudan): There, he came with two sets of witnesses (one on the document, and one on the Chazakah). Here, he denies his proofs (his Chazakah was based on the document. Since the document is Pasul, also the Chazakah is invalid - HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

R. Merinus was a guarantor for his daughter-in-law. They were being judged in front of R. Chama, the father of Bar Kapara and R. Hoshayah. After admitting [that he was an Arev], he said that he paid.

They asked R. Chiyah Rabah, and R. Chiyah asked Rebbi. He said that one who is obligated in Beis Din, he is not believed.

Question: Why is he not believed?

Answer (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): If one pays by himself (he admitted before coming to Beis Din), he is believed to say that he paid. If [he admitted] only through others (in Beis Din), he is not believed. (We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

(R. Bun bar Kahana): Even Shevu'os are like this.

Question: What does it mean "even Shevu'os are like this"?

Answer (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): If one [agreed to] swear by himself (without coming to Beis Din), he is believed to say "I swore". If [he agreed to swear] only through others (in Beis Din), he is not believed.

(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed a Litra of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Litra of silver, Shimon is exempt;

If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar, and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, Trisis, Pundyon or Perutah (a smaller coin), Shimon is obligated [to pay it and swear that he does not owe more], for all coins are considered to be one Min.

(Gemara): [If one had pouches of coins of Ma'aser Sheni and Chulin, and he said] I have eight gold [pieces of Ma'aser Sheni] in a pouch, and eight gold Dinarim were found, they are Ma'aser Sheni. If he said 'I have eight gold Dinarim [of Ma'aser Sheni] in a pouch', and eight gold pieces were found, they are Chulin. (People are wont to call gold Dinarim "gold" Stam, but not vice-versa.)

[If he said] I have eight gold [pieces] in a pouch, and he went and found 50 [silver] Sela'im or 200 [silver] Zuz, [or he said] 200 Zuz or 50 Sela'im and afterwards he found eight gold Dinarim, they are Ma'aser Sheni;

(Mishnah): If he claimed a Litra of gold, and he admitted that he owes a Litra of silver, he is exempt. If he claimed a gold Dinar, and he admitted that he owes a silver Dinar... [he is obligated].

(R. Yakov bar Avina): Initially, we used to say that [one] gold Dinar, it is Prutrut (it is normal to add the value of smaller coins, and say that they are a gold Dinar), but gold Dinarim are not Prutrut (if he claims gold Dinarim, this does not refer to smaller coins).

Retraction: If he said [the value of] gold Dinarim [in] gold [coins], this would be proper [to say that he claims specifically gold. However, a Stam claim of gold Dinarim can even be of smaller coins!]

Support: A Beraisa was found that says that [if he claimed] gold Dinarim [of] gold [and the defendant admitted to smaller coins] he is exempt.

(Mishnah): If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of grain, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'im of legumes, Shimon is exempt;

If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of Peros, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'im of legumes, Shimon is obligated [to pay it and swear], for legumes are included in Peros.

If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt;

Raban Gamliel obligates (to pay the barley and swear, even though they are different Minim).

Admon says, If Reuven claimed barrels of oil, and Shimon admitted that he owes (empty) barrels, Shimon must (pay them and) swear, for he admitted to part of what was claimed;

Chachamim say, his admission is unlike the claim (so he is exempt).

Raban Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

If Reuven claimed Kelim and land, and Shimon admitted to (all) the land but denied the Kelim, or admitted to (all) the Kelim but denied the land, he is exempt (an admission to land cannot obligate an oath, and we do not make a primary oath about land);

If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the Kelim, he is exempt (we do not make a (primary) oath about land);

If he admitted to part of the Kelim but denied (all) the land, he is obligated (about the remaining Kelim, and also about the land);

Property without Achrayus (Metaltelim, when one must swear about them), is Zokek (obligates the defendant) to swear [through Gilgul] about property with Achrayus (land).

(Gemara): Our Mishnah discusses when he claimed wheat, and [the defendant] admitted to barley, but if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, all agree that he is obligated.

(R. Ami citing R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is not only when he claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley. Rather, [even] if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, Chachamim exempt.

R. Avahu taught like R. Ami.

Question: Why did the Mishnah teach [that when he claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley, Chachamim exempt and] R. Gamliel obligates? (It should have taught that he claimed two species, and he admitted to one, and even then Chachamim exempt!)

Answer: It comes to teach that the Ko'ach of R. Gamliel (the extremity of his opinion), how far he obligates.

Support: And so said R. Chiyah in the name of R. Yochanan. [Our Mishnah is] not only when he claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley. Rather, [even] if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, Chachamim exempt.

Rebuttal (Reish Lakish): This is wrong. Rather, our Mishnah is when he claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley, but if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, all agree that he is obligated.

Rav holds like Reish Lakish.

A man came to be judged in front of Rav. He claimed wheat, barley and spelt from his colleague. Rav said to [the defendant] "wait until he is Megalgel (adds all his claims that he demands that you include in your Shevu'ah) all that he wants, and in the end you will swear about everything." (This shows that he holds that if many species are claimed, and he admitted to one, he must swear.)

Question (R. Avahu): So Reish Lakish countered R. Yochanan. You hold that if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, Chachamim exempt. Our Mishnah teaches that if he claimed Kelim and land, and he admitted to the land but denied the Kelim, or admitted to the Kelim but denied the land, he is exempt;

Inference: [If you will say that] if he claimed Kelim and [another kind of] Kelim [and he admitted to one of them], he is exempt, all the more so for Kelim and land! (Why did the Mishnah teach them? Rather, this shows that one is liable for Kelim and Kelim!)

Answer (R. Yochanan): [Also Kelim and Kelim, he is exempt. It taught about Kelim and land, for] our Mishnah teaches that property without Achrayus (Metaltelim) is Zokek property with Achrayus (land) to swear about it.

Even what Reish Lakish taught does not argue with what our Mishnah taught, that if he claimed barrels of oil, and he admitted that he owes [empty] barrels, [Admon obligates and Chachamim exempt];

What is the case? If he claimed barrels and oil [and he admitted to one of them], all agree that the admission is part of the claim;

If he claimed oil, and he admitted to barrels, all agree that the admission is not part of the claim!

Answer (R. Zeira and R. Avahu citing Shmuel): He claimed Kankanei Shemen in our Mishnah. This opinion (Admon) holds [that this connotes] full [barrels], and this opinion (Chachamim) holds [that this connotes] empty [barrels].

Question: Granted, [we could say that Kankanei Shemen connotes] barrels and not oil. Can you say that it connotes that oil and not barrels?! (Chachamim say that he claimed only oil!)

Answer (R. Lazar citing R. Avin): He says [Kankanei] to express the quantity of oil. (Barrels of oil were a standard known size.)

Question: We should ask him [what he claimed]!

Answer: We discuss when he became mute [so we cannot ask him].

Our Mishnah teaches that if he denied some of the land, he is exempt. [If he denied] some of the Kelim, he is obligated [even on the land. HAGAHOS R. DINAR - this belongs above, at the end of R. Yochanan's answer.]