Support: Rav Idi bar Avin taught that if one denied a loan (and it was found that he really owed), he may testify (we assume that he intended to stall, not to steal);

One who denied a deposit (and it was found that he could have returned it immediately) is disqualified from testimony.

Question: Ilfa taught that an oath acquires (liability for Ones)!

Inference: Denial does not acquire!

Answer #1: Here also, the deposit is in the swamp.

Answer #2: Ilfa said that an oath acquires (not liability for Ones, rather,) like Rav Huna taught;

(Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven denied owing money to Shimon and swore, and later, witnesses said that he owes Shimon, he is exempt;

"The owner will take, and he (the defendant) will not pay" - once the owner received (heard) an oath, the defendant need not pay.

(Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven denied owing money to Shimon and swore, and later, witnesses said that he owes Shimon, he is exempt;

"The owner will take, and he (the defendant) will not pay" - once the owner received (heard) an oath, the defendant need not pay.

(Rava): Presumably, Rav's law applies only to a loan, for a borrower acquires the money. One can say that the oath is in place of repayment;

A deposit always belongs to the owner, Reuven cannot acquire it through an oath!

However, Rav said his law even regarding a deposit, for the verse he expounds discusses a deposit! (Chasam Sofer (Chulin 40a) - this is like Rav holds, that a thief tunneling into a house acquires through his blood. Marcheshes (2:29:16) - once he swears, the owner despairs. Agra d'Kalah - also one who imposes an oath is punished, for he should have pardoned his money to avoid the need for a Shevu'ah. Therefore, he never collects later.)

Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi - Mishnah): If Levi accepted (answered 'Amen' to) an oath that the deposit he was guarding for Yehudah was lost; and witnesses testified that he ate it, he pays principal;

If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principal and Chomesh and brings an Asham.

Answer (Rav Nachman): The case is, he swore outside of Beis Din.

Question (Rav Acha bar Minyomi - Seifa): If Levi accepted an oath that the deposit was stolen, and witnesses testified that he ate it, he pays Kefel;

If Levi admitted by himself, he pays principal, the Chomesh and brings an Asham.

One does not pay Kefel for an oath taken outside of Beis Din!

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): I could say that the Reisha of the Mishnah discusses outside of Beis Din, and the Seifa discusses in Beis Din, but that is a poor answer.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The entire Mishnah is in Beis Din;

In the Reisha, Levi swore before Beis Din told him to. (Rav's law and) the Seifa discuss(es) when Beis Din administered the oath.

Rami bar Chama (to Rav Nachman): You do not hold like Rav. What forces you to (explain the Mishnah in such a way to) answer for him?

Rav Nachman: I just explain how Rav must learn the Mishnah.

Question: Rav learns from a verse. How can anyone argue with him?

Answer: The verse teaches that in every oath mid'Oraisa, the oath exempts one from paying. The one who is asked to pay swears and is then exempt

"The owner will take (hear the oath) and he (the Shomer) will not pay" - the one who was asked to pay, he swears.

Question (Rav Hamnuna - Mishnah): If Reuven made Shimon swear five times, whether in or outside of Beis Din (and he swore falsely), he is liable (an Chomesh and an Asham) for each oath;

R. Shimon says, the reason is, each time he could have admitted.

We cannot say that he swore by himself. It says that Reuven made him swear!

We cannot say that (this is only when) he swore outside of Beis Din. It says, (even) in Beis Din!

Answer (Rav Hamnuna): The Beraisa discusses two cases:

When he made him swear, it discusses outside of Beis Din

When he swore by himself, it discusses in Beis Din.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a Shomer claimed that the deposit was stolen, and he swore falsely, admitted that he lied, and witnesses testified that the Shomer himself took it:

If he admitted before witnesses came, he pays principal and Chomesh, and brings an Asham.

We cannot say that he swore outside of Beis Din or by himself. It says that (when witnesses testified) he pays Kefel!

Answer (Rava): Rav taught that he does not pay. He did not discuss when he admits;

It says "he will confess" - whether he originally swore that it was lost or stolen, he must pay the principal and the Chomesh (and bring an Asham)!

Also - if he claimed that a deposit was stolen, and witnesses testified that he stole it, Rav admits that he pays - the Torah obligated him to pay Kefel!

Rav's law is only when he claimed and swore that it was lost, and did not admit, and witnesses testified that he stole it.

Rav Gamda said Rava's answer in front of Rav Ashi.

Question (Rav Ashi): Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid of Rav. Surely, he knew what Rav said, and he asked from a case where he is liable because he could have admitted, because he knew that Rav exempts even when he admits!

Answer (Rav Acha Sava): Rav Hamnuna asked as follows: granted, if witnesses can obligate (to pay principal) one who already swore (this shows that he owes money), so he must bring a Korban for the last oath, for he could have admitted (his oath denied money);

But if witnesses cannot obligate one who already swore (it is as if he does not owe money), would he must bring a Korban for the last oath, because he could have admitted (and then he would pay principal)?! He did not admit!

(R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): If one claimed that a deposit was stolen (and really, he stole it), he pays Kefel. If he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four (if it was a Seh) or five (if it was an ox);

Just like a thief pays Kefel, and if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four or five, also one who claims that a deposit was stolen pays Kefel, and if he slaughtered or sold it, he pays four or five.

Question: One who claims that a deposit was stolen pays Kefel only if he swore. An actual thief pays Kefel even without swearing!

Answer: A Hekesh equates one who claims that a deposit was stolen to a thief (they are written adjacent to each other). We do not challenge a Hekesh!

This answer is like the opinion that one verse discusses an actual thief, and the other discusses one who claims that a deposit was stolen;

Question: According to the opinion that both verses discuss one who claims that a deposit was stolen, how can we answer?

Answer: It says "ha'Ganav (the thief)." The 'Hei' teaches that he (one who claims that a deposit was stolen) gets all the laws of a thief.

Question (R. Chiya bar Aba - Mishnah): If Shimon claimed that Reuven's deposit was stolen, and Reuven imposed an oath on him; and he answered "Amen", and witnesses testify that Shimon ate it, he pays Kefel.

If Shimon ate it, he must have slaughtered it first, yet he pays only Kefel!

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, he ate it without slaughter.

Question: Why didn't he answer that he slaughtered it, but it was Tereifah (according to R. Shimon, who holds that slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter)?

Answer: R. Yochanan holds like R. Meir, who holds that it is considered slaughter.

Question: Why didn't he answer that he ate a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal (which is permitted without slaughter)?

Answer: R. Yochanan holds like R. Meir, who holds that it must be slaughtered.

Question: Why didn't he answer that he was taken to trial, and Beis Din told him "go give to him"?

(Rava): Once Beis Din says 'go give to him', if he slaughtered or sold, he does not pay four or five;

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Once Beis Din ruled, (the theft is known, so) he has the law of a Gazlan (an open robber), who does not pay four or five.

(Rava): If Beis Din said "you must give to him", if he slaughtered or sold, he pays four or five;

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: This expression is not considered a final ruling, so he still has the law of a Ganav (covert thief), who pays four or five.

Counter-question: Why didn't he answer that the thief was a partner in the animal, and slaughtered without asking his partner?

Answer to both questions: There were other answers that R. Yochanan could have given. He chose one.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): If one found an Aveidah and later claimed that it was stolen, he pays Kefel.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "For any Aveidah that he will say (he will pay Kefel)."

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Beraisa): "When a man will give (to a Shomer... the Shomer must swear... and sometimes pays Kefel for it)" excludes what a minor gives.

Question: Perhaps that is only if he is still a minor when he claims it back! If he matured and claimed it, what is the source that the Shomer is exempt (from the oath and Kefel)?

Answer: "The matter of both of them (will be brought to the judges)" - both the giving and claim of the deposit must be the same, i.e. the owner was an adult.

Summation of question: R. Chiya bar Aba says that a finder pays Kefel regarding an Aveidah, even though no one gave it to the finder!

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The Beraisa discusses when the Shomer ate the deposit before the owner (Levi) grew up (Levi has no claim for anything that the Shomer did before Levi matured. However, the finder of the Aveidah swore falsely to an adult owner.)

Objection: This implies that if the Shomer ate the deposit after Levi grew up, he is liable;

If so, why did the Beraisa say that the giving and claim of the deposit must be the same (with an adult)? It should say that the eating and claim of the deposit must be the same!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): An Aveidah is different, because it came through (being lost by) an adult, unlike the deposit of a minor.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): If a Shomer claimed that a deposited object was stolen, he pays Kefel only if he partially denies the claim and partially admits to the claim.

Question: What is the source this?

Answer: It says "Ki Hu Zeh (i.e. this he admits to, but he denies something else)".

He argues with R. Chiya bar Yosef.