Question: If so, the son should also pay the Chomesh (for his own false oath)!

Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Chomesh is not paid for denial of money when there is a lien on land to pay it.

Answer #2 (to Question (i) - Rava): The case is, the father had deposited the stolen object with others;

The son pays the principal, for the stolen object is intact;

He does not pay the Chomesh, for he swore truthfully. He did not know where it was.

(Mishnah): If Shimon pardoned the entire obligation, except for less than a Perutah of the principal (Reuven need not travel to return it).

Version #1 (Rav Papa): This is only when the stolen object is not around. If it is around, he must return it, lest it rise in value to a Perutah.

Version #2 (Rav Papa): This is even if the stolen object is around. We are not concerned lest it rise in value to a Perutah.

(Rava): If Reuven stole three (equal) bundles, worth a total of three Perutos, and they declined in value, they are now worth two Perutos, and he returned two, he must (even travel to) return the third.

Support (Mishnah): If one stole Chametz, and Pesach passed, he can say 'here is your Chametz.'

Inference: If he did not have the Chametz to return, he would need to pay its original value, even though now it is worthless!

Also in Rava's case, since it was worth a Perutah when he stole it, he must return it, even though it is not worth a Perutah now.

Question (Rava): If Reuven stole two bundles, and their total worth is one Perutah, and he returned one, what is the law?

Since he is not holding (a Perutah of) stolen property, he is exempt;

Or, since he stole (a Perutah) and has not returned (a Perutah), he must return the other?

Answer (Rava): He is not holding a Perutah of stolen property, nor has he returned the theft.

Question: Since he is not holding a Perutah of stolen property, he has returned all he must return!

Answer: Rava meant, even though he is not holding a stolen object worth a Perutah, he did not yet fulfill the Mitzvah of returning (therefore, he must return it).

(Rava): If a Nazir shaved (at the end of his Nezirus) and left two hairs uncut, it is as if he did not shave.

Question (Rava): If he shaved one of the remaining two, and the other fell out, what is the law?

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Does Rava ask if a Nazir may shave one hair at a time? (Surely, he may!)

Answer (Ravina): No, he asks about when one of the remaining two fell out before he shaved the other;

Since no hair remains, it is as if he shaved (and he may drink wine);

Or, since he left two hairs (and was obligated to shave them), and one fell out before he shaved either, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah (and he may not drink wine).

Answer (Rava): Two hairs do not remain; he did not shave.

Question: Since two hairs do not remain, he has shaved all he must shave!

Answer: Rava meant, even though two hairs do not remain, he did not yet fulfill the Mitzvah of shaving (so he may not drink wine).

(Rava): If a barrel was punctured, rendering it unable to block Tum'as Mes (Rashi - from passing to the upper story, if it rests in the opening in between; Tosfos - from entering the barrel, which is of earthenware and has a flush cover), and the hole was sealed with dregs, the barrel can block the Tum'ah.

Question (Rava): If one corked half the hole [and now the hole is less than the Shi'ur], what is the law?

Answer (Rav Yemar): A Mishnah answers this!

(Mishnah): If a barrel was punctured, and sealed with dregs, this saves it [from Tum'ah];

If he (partially) plugged up the hole with a twig (so the remaining holes on each side are not large enough to disqualify a barrel from blocking Tum'ah), this helps only if he plasters it;

If he used two twigs, he must put plaster in between and on both sides of them.

Inference: Without plastering, it is not considered sealed.

Question: [If corking half the hole helps, even without plaster] this should be as if he sealed half the hole! (Rather, corking half does not help.)

Rejection (Rav Ashi): If twigs are not plastered, they will not stay in place, so it is as if nothing was sealed. If he corked half, it will stay [even without plaster].

(Rava): If Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz, and Pesach passed, he can say 'here is your Chametz.'

Question (Rava): If he swore falsely (that he did not steal it), is he liable?

Since if the Chametz would be stolen from Reuven, he would have to pay Shimon, it is as if he swore to deny money (he is liable);

Or, since now it is here, and it is worthless, his oath did not matter (he is exempt).

This was not a question for Rabah;

(Rabah): If Yehudah had Levi's ox, but denied that he stole it and swore 'I am a Shomer Chinam', and later admitted, he is liable, because his oath would have exempted himself if the ox was lost or stolen;

If he swore 'I am a Shomer Sachar' and later admitted, he is liable, because this would have exempted him if it was injured or died;

If he swore 'I borrowed it' and later admitted, he is liable, because this would have exempted him had it died while working.

Even though now the animal is here, he is liable because his oath might have saved himself money (if it was lost or died...);

Similarly, Reuven is liable because his oath could have saved himself money (if the Chametz was stolen)!

Question (Rav Amram - Beraisa): "He denied it" excludes one who admits from the beginning;

Yehudah had Levi's ox, but denied that he stole it. He swore to one of the following claims-- you (or your father) sold or gave it to me, it chased after my cow, it came by itself, I found it straying on the road, I am a Shomer Chinam or Shomer Sachar, or I borrowed it. He later admitted.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable!

Rejection: "He denied it" excludes one who admits from the beginning.

Answer (Rabah): The Beraisa discusses a case of Heilach (he returns the animal immediately). I discuss when the animal is in the swamp (he does not return it immediately).

Question: The Beraisa mentions an oath 'you sold it to me.' This is not admission from the beginning!

Answer: Yehudah admits that he never paid for it, and says 'take it back for payment.'

Question: The Beraisa mentions 'you (or your father) gave it to me.' This is not admission from the beginning!

Answer: Yehudah admits that the gift was on condition that he act nicely to Levi, and that he did not fulfill this. He says 'take it back.'

Question: One case is 'I found it straying on the road.' Since he knew that it was Levi's, he should have returned it. Keeping it is like stealing it!

Answer (Shmuel's father): He claims that he did not know that it was Levi's.

(Beraisa - Ben Azai): If Reuven asked David to testify about Reuven's Aveidah, and David swore falsely that he knows no testimony, and later David admitted that he knew, there are three cases:

He says 'I knew that it was yours, but I did not know that Shimon found it (perhaps he bought it from you)';

He says 'I knew that Shimon found it, but I did not know that it was yours';

He says 'I did not know that it was yours, nor that Shimon found it.'

Objection: If so, David swore truthfully!

Correction: Rather, he says 'I knew that it was yours, and that Shimon found it.'

Question: What does Ben Azai come to teach?

Answer #1 (Rav Ami): In all three cases, the witness is exempt (from the Korban for a false oath that he does not know testimony).

Answer #2 (Shmuel): In all three cases, he is liable.

R. Ami and Shmuel argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa): If one imposes an oath on one witness that he does not know testimony (and he swore falsely), the witness is exempt (from a Korban, because the testimony of one witness cannot force someone to pay);

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obligates him.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Elazar holds that something that can cause a loss of money is considered like money. The first Tana holds that it is not like money.

(Rav Sheshes): If one denies a deposit, he is considered a thief, and he is liable even for Ones.

Support (Beraisa) Question: "And he denied it" teaches the punishment (this will be explained). Where does the Torah warn not to do this?

Answer: "Do not deny."

(Version #1 (our text, Tosfos) Suggestion: 'The punishment' refers to money ("he will return the theft" obligates him for Ones, until he returns it).

Rejection: No, it means that he must swear.

Version #2 (Rashi) Suggestion: 'The punishment' (liability for Ones) is because of his denial.

Rejection: No, it is for swearing falsely. (end of Version #2)

Question: The Seifa discusses when he swore. This implies that in the Reisha, he did not swear!

(Seifa) Question: "And he swore falsely" teaches the punishment. Where does the Torah warn not to do this?

Answer: "Do not lie."

Answer: Also the Reisha discusses swearing;

In the Seifa, he later admitted (so he pays principal, Chomesh and offers an Asham);

In the Reisha, witnesses testified against him (and he is liable even for Ones).

Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): A defendant is suspected to swear falsely (and may not swear, so the claimant swears and receives like he claimed) if he (ever) swore falsely that he does not know testimony, or about a deposit, or took a vain oath.

If one becomes a thief just for denying a deposit, denial alone should disqualify him from swearing (in the future), even if he did not swear (just like a thief is disqualified)!

Answer: The case is, the deposit is (an animal) in the swamp. If he denied without swearing, we assume that he is not trying to steal, he is just stalling until he can return it.