Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna's previous ruling from Rav and Shmuel, as that - perhaps there too, he only declared 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' for that reason (so that when he recovers and retracts from his illness, people will not take him for a wealthy man).

We reject the answer that Rav Huna is speaking when P'loni is holding a Sh'tar - because of the inference that Rav and Shmuel are speaking when he is not, in which case it would be an oral loan, which one cannot claim from Yesomim.

The principle 'Mitzvah Le'kayem Divrei ha'Meis' will not apply there in any case - since Rav and Shmuel are speaking during the Shechiv-M'ra's lifetime.

So Rav Nachman establishes both cases when P'loni is holding a Sh'tar - and the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa of Rav and Shmuel lies in the fact that the Sh'tar was not verified. 'T'nu' verifies the Sh'tar (and P'loni can claim without a Shevu'ah). Otherwise (if he did not sway 'T'nu') we are afraid that he only said 'T'nu' in order to convey the impression that he is not wealthy, and the claimant cannot claim before he has verified the Sh'tar ...

Whereas Rav Huna is speaking - where the Sh'tar has already been verified.

If a Shechiv-M'ra says 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi be'Yadi', Rabah believes the Yesamim to say that they paid. In a case where he said 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', and the Yesamim claim that they have paid, he holds - 'Ein Ne'emanin'.

We refute this dual ruling however with the words 'K'lapei Laya' - which means that the reverse would be more logical ...

... since when he said 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', which is an order, the Yesomim are more likely to have subsequently paid, than if he said 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi', which does not obligate them to pay (and which he may have only said in order to convey the impression that he and his sons are not wealthy [as we learned earlier]).

So we amend Rabah's statement. What he really said in a case of ...

... 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' was that - if the Yesomim testified that their father then told them that he had paid, we assume that he subsequently recalled his debt, and they are believed.

... 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', and the Yesomim testified that their father then told them that he had paid - they are not believed, because had he paid, he would not have (forgotten and) told them to pay in the first place.

In a case where Reuven claims money from Shimon, who admits to the claim in front of two witnesses - he must also declare 'Atem Eidai' before the witnesses can tie him down to his admission ...

... otherwise, he can claim that he was merely pulling the creditor's leg.

Rava asks - whether a Shechiv-M'ra who admits to the claimant's claim is also required to declare 'Atem Eidai', or whether his admission is conclusive anyway.

He also asks - whether the Shechiv-M'ra needs to say 'Kesuvu' before one records his instructions on a Sh'tar, or whether one does so anyway.

Rava concludes with regard to ...

... the first She'eilah - that it is not necessary to declare 'Atem Eidai' (since a person on his death-bed does not usually pull peoples' legs).

... the second She'eilah - that 'Divrei Shechiv-M'ra ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami', in which case, he does not need to say 'K'suvu' (one writes the Sh'tar anyway).

Our Mishnah draws a distinction between whether Reuven lends Shimon money with a Sh'tar - in which case he can claim Meshubadim (from the debtor's purchasers), or without one - in which case he cannot.

The former ruling will apply - even if Acharayus is not written in the Sh'tar, because of the principle 'Acharayus Ta'us Sofer hu', as we already discussed earlier in the Perek.

If Reuven produces a signed i.o.u. that Shimon owes him money, he can only claim from b'nei-Chorin, and not from Meshubadim - because the Kol (that protects the purchasers) is only created by a combination of a Sh'tar and witnesses.

If Arvus appears on the Sh'tar after the witnesses signatures, the creditor can only claim from the Areiv's b'nei-Chorin - because since the Arvus is not signed, it is considered an oral loan, which one cannot claim from Meshubadim.

This is the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael. According to ben Nannes however, he cannot even claim from his b'nei-Chorin either - because it was not the Areiv who caused the creditor to enact the loan (as he is where the Arvus appears before the witnesses' signatures).

ben Nannes illustrated this with a Mashal - of Reuven who promises to pay Levi's debt to Shimon provided Shimon stops strangling Levi (where his sole concern is to save Levi, and not to pay Levi's debt).

Rebbi Yishmael declared that the way to become wise is to study Dinei Mamonos, which he compared to a self-generating fountain. He advised going about this - by studying under ben Nannes.

Ula permits claiming a Milveh al Peh (an oral loan) from Meshubadim min ha'Torah - because he holds 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

The Chachamim forbade it however - to protect the purchasers, who will have no way of knowing which fields are Meshubad before purchasing them, and will then lose them to the creditors.

They did not extend this stringency to a Milveh bi'Sh'tar (a documented loan) - because they have a 'Kol', enabling the purchasers to protect themselves by making inquiries before buying fields.

Ula's source for 'Shibuda d'Oraysa' is from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - "Yotzi eilecha es he'Avot" (permitting the creditor to claim [in the prescribed manner] objects from the debtor's household as payment), and this extends to Karka too.

Rabah holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa', in which case by Torah law - the creditor is not permitted to claim from the purchasers at all.

And the reason that the Chachamim instituted the Din of claiming Meshubadim from them is - due to 'Ne'ilas Deles' (because if the creditors have difficulty in obtaining their loans, they will stop lending).

They did not however, incorporate oral loans in the decree - because it has no 'Kol' (as we just explained).

According to Rabah, the Pasuk "Yotzi eilecha es he'Avot", refers (not to the payment of the loan, but) - to a Mashkon that the creditor claims after the time of the loan has expired).

When Rabah ruled in 'Yesh Nochlin' 'Gavu Karka, Yesh lo, Ma'os, Ein lo', he was referring to - a B'chor claiming the Cheilek Bechorah from a loan owed to his father ...

The problem this creates is that Rabah now appears to hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa - whereas we just saw that he holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa'?

It is not feasible to resolve the discrepancy by switching the opinions of Rabah and Ula - because elsewhere, Ula rules that, min ha'Torah, a Ba'al-Chov claims Ziburis (from the worst-quality fields [even though he borrowed money]), a proof that Ula does indeed hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

We therefore resolve it - by pointing out that Rabah in 'Yesh Nochlin' was only explaining the opinion of the b'nei Eretz Yisrael (who maintain that a B'chor takes double from a loan), but that he himself holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa'.

Rav and Shmuel Rav and Shmuel say - 'Milveh al-Peh Eino Govah Lo min ha'Yorshin ve'Lo min ha'Lekuchos' - based on the principle 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa' (like Rabah).

Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold - 'Milveh al-Peh Govah Bein min ha'Yorshin u'Vein min ha'Lekuchos', because they hold 'Shibuda d'Oraysa' (like Ula).

We query Rav and Shmuel from the Beraisa which discusses Reuven who is digging a pit in the R'shus ha'Rabim when Shimon's ox falls into it and kills him. The Tana rules - that ...

... Shimon is Patur from paying.

... should the ox die, Reuven's heirs remain obligated to pay damages ...

... a Kashya on Rav and Shmuel, since claiming an oral loan from Yesomim is based on the principle 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'.

To resolve the Kashya, Rebbi Ila'a Amar Rav establishes the case - where the Beis-Din had already obligated Reuven to pay for the ox before he died (and Beis-Din's ruling renders every loan a Milveh bi'Sh'tar.

And Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the case where the ox did not kill Reuven outright, but made him a T'reifah - because if it actually killed him, Rebbi Ila'a Amar Rav's answer will make no sense (since a dead man cannot go to Beis-Din).

And in light of Rav Nachman, who said 'Meis ve'Kavro' (meaning that the ox killed and buried Reuven) - we finally establish the case where the Dayanim were actually sitting beside the pit when the accident occurred, and issued the ruling obligating him to pay just before he died.

Rav Papa rules that one may ...

... claim an oral loan from the heirs - because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' ...

... but not from the purchasers - because there is no Kol (and they have no way of protecting themselves, as we have already explained a number of times).

Rav Papa - is non-committal with regard to the She'eilah whether Shibuda is d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan. In fact, he could hold either (see Tosfos DH 'Govah').