(Mishnah): The case of a Nigzal is that witnesses testify that Levi entered Yehudah's house and took a security without permission. Yehudah says 'give to me my Kelim that you took', and Levi denies taking. Yehudah swears [how much was taken], and collects.

R. Yehudah says, he swears and collects only if Levi partially admits, e.g. Yehudah claims that two Kelim were taken and Levi admits to one.

(Gemara) Inference: This is only if he entered his house, but not if he entered his Chatzer. This is only if he entered in order to take a security, but not if he entered for another reason.

(R. Yitzchak): This is only if there are witnesses [who saw him enter his house and leave with Kelim hidden under his garment].

Implied question: If two entered to take a security from him [what is the law]?

Answer: We learn from [a Beraisa about a Nechbal. If Ploni] was with two people and came out wounded [he swears and collects from them, for we can say that both wounded him. Also here,] we can say that both took a security.

What is the case [in which Ploni came out wounded from two people? Witnesses] saw the two beating him with sticks. (We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

If [witnesses] saw someone throwing pebbles [into Reuven's house], and broken Kelim were found there, he collects without a Shevu'ah.

Question: Can [a Nigzal] claim extraordinary matters [that it is bizarre for someone of his wealth to have them]?

Answer: [Yes, for] R. Yochanan taught that some people appear rich when they go in the market, and they are is poor in their houses, and some people are rich in their houses, but when they go in the market, they appear poor - "Yesh Mis'aser v'Ein Kol Misroshesh v'Hon Rav."

R. Ba told about an episode with the sharecropper of Bar Ziza. He deposited a Litra of gold with a person. Bar Ziza and his sharecropper died. The case came in front of R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi.

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi: Who will say that everything that Bar Ziza's sharecropper had [to deposit] was not of Bar Ziza?! [It is unreasonable that a sharecropper owned so much gold. The gold] should be given to Bar Ziza's sons.

Bar Ziza's sons came. [R. Yishmael] said that the adults should receive their half, and the younger will take their half [from the Shomer] when they grow up.

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi died, and the case came in front of R. Chiyah Rabah.

R. Chiyah: You cannot learn from here at all [that it was Bar Ziza's gold]. Some people do not want to publicize [their wealth! The gold] should be given to the sharecropper's sons.

The Shomer: I already gave half [to the older sons]!

R. Chiyah: What you gave, you gave based on Beis Din [you acted properly]. What you will give (the other half), you will give based on Beis Din.

Question: Can the sharecropper's sons tell Bar Ziza's sons "give to us what you took!"?

Answer: [No -] they can say [back] "what was done according to Beis Din was done."

Question: Can the younger sons [of Bar Ziza] tell the older sons "let us split with you [what you took]"?

Answer: [No -] they can say [back that what they received according to R. Yishmael's ruling is as if] we found a Metzi'ah.

Support: Rav Yitzchak said that that there is no [case] between the older and younger sons. It is as if [the older] received a gift.

(Mishnah): What is the case of a Nechbal? Witnesses testify that Levi was unbruised when he entered seclusion with Yehudah, and he left bruised. Levi says, 'you wounded me', and Yehudah denies this. Levi swears that Yehudah wounded him, and collects [the damages].

R. Yehudah says, this is only if Yehudah partially admits, e.g. Levi claims that he wounded him twice and Yehudah admits to once.

(Gemara): R. Yehudah used to call [a Nechbal] Chavati. As long as they are fighting, [there is concern lest he scratched himself on the wall, so] he swears and collects. (If they were not fighting, he collects without a Shevu'ah.)

If he was bitten in a place where he cannot bite himself, he collects without a Shevu'ah.

After this time (if there are not witnesses that the wound occurred when they were secluded together), if Levi says, 'you wounded me', and Yehudah says, 'you wounded me', this is like other claims (ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah).

(Mishnah): What is the case of a defendant who is suspected to swear falsely? [One is disqualified if he ever swore falsely] Shevu'as ha'Edus, Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, or even Shevu'as Shav.

If one of them plays dice (gambles), lends with Ribis, is Mafri'ach (races or sends) birds, or does business with Shemitah Peros, [the other] swears and collects;

R. Yosi says, if both are disqualified, the Shevu'ah returns to its place (this will be explained);

R. Meir says, they divide [the disputed money].

(Gemara): The following are Pasul [from judging or testifying]. A diceplayer - this is one who plays (gambles) with bone fragments. The same applies to one who plays with bone fragments, nut shells or pomegranate peels;

We never accept his testimony until he breaks his bone fragments and one checks that he did a full Teshuvah;

One who lends with Ribis, we never accept him until he tears his documents, and one checks that he did a full Teshuvah;

Mafrichei Yonim - the same applies to one who incites doves, or any other Behemah, Chayah or bird. We do not accept him until he breaks his boards [used to incite them] and does a full Teshuvah.

Socharei Shevi'is are merchants of Shevi'is. Who is a merchant of Shevi'is? It is one who sits idle all years of the Shemitah cycle, and in Shemitah, he begins doing business with Peros Shemitah;

We never accept him until another Shemitah comes and one checks that he does a full Teshuvah.

R. Yosi says, [we must check in] two Shemitos [that he repented].

R. Nechemyah says, he must return money [that he profited through Peros Shemitah], and not mere verbal repentance. He says, "here is 200 Zuz; distribute them to Aniyim, what I profited from gathered forbidden Peros."

(Beraisa): Chachamim later decreed that also shepherds (they graze their animals in others' fields), extortionists (they forcibly take things, and pay for them), robbers [mid'Rabanan, e.g. what is forbidden due to Darchei Shalom], and everyone suspected about money, their testimony is Batel.

(R. Avahu): This refers only to shepherds of small animals (i.e. that do not work. Chachamim did not decree to forbid work animals.)

(Rav Huna): Who is the Tana who taught that Mafrichei Yonim (are Pasul for Edus ha'Chodesh)? It is R. Eliezer, for a Mishnah [in Eduyos] teaches [in his name] that Mafrichei Yonim are Pasul for testimony.

Question (R. Mana, to R. Yosi): Is also this [Mishnah] of Sanhedrin like R. Eliezer?

Answer #1 (R. Yosi): It is like everyone. (All disqualify for monetary testimony);

Question: Here, (in Rosh Hashanah; the Gemara used the same wording here, even though here it should say "there") R. Yosi said that we already knew that he is Pasul for monetary testimony. What does [R. Eliezer] come to teach?

Answer: Rather, just like he is Pasul for monetary testimony, he is Pasul for capital testimony, and testimony of the [new] month is like capital testimony.

[The Seifa of that] Mishnah teaches, this is the general rule - any testimony for which a woman is not Kosher, also they are not Kosher for it. (This implies that Pesulim are Kosher for testimony for which a woman is Kosher, e.g. Sotah, Eglah Arufah, and testimony that a man died to permit his widow to remarry.) Who taught this? It is Rabanan.

Objection: Do Rabanan agree with R. Eliezer and argue with him?! (If the Reisha is like R. Eliezer and unlike Rabanan, you cannot say that the Seifa is Rabanan!)

Answer #2 (R. Yonah citing Rav Huna): All (even our Mishnah in Sanhedrin) is [only] like R. Eliezer. (Rabanan are Machshir even for monetary cases.)

This argument [of R. Eliezer and Rabanan] is like the following argument. It taught that an Ed Zomem is Pasul for all testimonies in the Torah. R. Meir says so;

R. Yosi says, when is this? When he is found to be Zomem in capital testimony, but if he was found to be Zomem in monetary testimony, he is Pasul only for that testimony.

R. Yosi is like Rabanan, and R. Meir is like R. Eliezer.

Question: One who is suspected of swearing [falsely], when do we accept him [that he repented, and allow him to swear]?

Answer: It is from when he comes to Beis Din and says "I am suspected."

Question: What is the case?

If he is obligated to swear to his colleague [and he admits that he is suspected, had he not admitted], would Beis Din tell a Chashud to swear?!

Answer #1: Rather, the case is, he went to be judged in a Beis Din that does not know about him (that he is suspected), and he tells them "that man (i.e. I) is suspected."

Answer #2: He is in a Beis Din [that knows that he is Chashud], and [his opponent] must swear to him, and he pardons the Shevu'ah. (If he forfeits his money lest his opponent swear Sheker, all the more so he would not swear falsely in order to gain money! This is based on HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

(R. Hoshayah, in front of R. Ami, citing Rabanan of Bavel): [R. Yosi said that if both are disqualified,] the Shevu'ah returns to [its place], i.e. Sinai. (Beis Din withdraws. Hash-m will punish one who lies to avoid paying his debts.)

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): The Shevu'ah returns to its owner [the one who should swear].

The one who says that the Shevu'ah returns to Sinai, it is as if there is no testimony here. Ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

The one who says that the Shevu'ah returns to its owner, [the claimant says] since you are suspected and you cannot swear to me, come pay me!

(Mishnah): A grocer on his ledger [swears and collects] - what is the case? It is not that he says 'my ledger says that you owe me 200 Zuz';

Rather, Levi told Yehudah 'give two Sa'im of wheat to my son, or a Sela to my workers', and Yehudah claims that he gave, and the workers say that they did not receive;

Yehudah swears and takes [from Levi], and [the workers] swear and receive [from Levi].

Ben Nanas says, [if we let] these and these swear, we come to a Shevu'as Shav! Rather, Yehudah receives without a Shevu'ah, and [the workers] receive without a Shevu'ah.

(Gemara): A grocer on his ledger - this is not one who gives on credit [and writes what he is owed], for [his opponent] says 'you wrote with this hand - erase with this hand [for I paid you]!'

Rebbi says, I say that they should swear in front of each other, due to shame (the liar will be embarrassed to swear falsely in front of the other, who knows that he lies).

[Our Mishnah] is when [Levi] did not stand up his workers with [the grocer, and tell them that the grocer will pay them], but if he took stood them up with him [and told them...], he does not owe anything [to his workers. Their claim is against the grocer.]

This is like the case of R. Yehudah bar Shalom. He stood up burden carriers with a grocer. They came, and he did not pay them.

The case came in front of R. Shamai. He said "if the grocer would tell them to take [their wages], both of them would take (the workers from the grocer, and the grocer collects from the employer. Therefore, we need not do so); rather, they can take already [from the employer, due to R. Nasan's law, since the grocer owes them and the employer owes the grocer. Why did R. Shamai need this? Why didn't he say simply that since the grocer did not pay the workers, they can claim from the employer? This shows like we said above, that if the employer stood them up with a grocer, their claim is only against the grocer. We explained this like GILYONEI HA'SHAS.]