(R. Chiya bar Yosef): This verse does not apply to the Parshah in which it was written (Shomrim), rather elsewhere, by loans.

Question: Why should the oath about loans apply to only when there was partial admission, the oath of Shomrim always applies?

Answer: This is like Rabah taught;

(Rabah): The Torah obligates a borrower to swear (when he partially admits to the claim) because it is human nature that a borrower is not brazen enough to (fully) deny the lender's claim;

If not for this, he would deny the entire claim.

Because borrowers are not brazen, he would like to admit to the full claim;

He denied part of it to stall until he has the money to pay the loan.

The Torah imposed the oath on him, in order that he will admit to the full claim.

A Shomer is brazen enough to deny the claim, so he swears even by full denial.

(Rami bar Yechezkel): The four types of Shomrim, a Shomer Chinam, borrower, Shomer Sachar or renter, swear only when there is partial denial and partial admission.

(Rava): He learns about a Shomer Chinam from "Ki Hu Zeh", which is written in the Parshah of Shomer Chinam;

He learns about a Shomer Sachar from a Gezeirah Shavah "Nesinah-Nesinah" from a Shomer Chinam;

Regarding a borrower it says "v'Chi (and when) one will borrow" - the 'Vav' equates this law to the previous Parshah (a Shomer Sachar);

Tana'im argue about whether a renter is like a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar;

In either case, we learned that he swears only if there was partial admission.

(R. Chiya bar Yosef): One who claims that a deposit was stolen pays Kefel only if he was Shole'ach Yad (took it for his own needs).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: "The Shomer will come to the judges, (to swear) that he was not Shole'ach Yad... (For any negligence, he pays Kefel)" implies that if he did take it, he pays Kefel.

Inference: This (Kefel) is only if he was Shole'ach Yad.

(R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): The case is, the deposited animal is at the feeding trough (he did not take it).

Question (R. Zeira): Does R. Yochanan teach that had he been Shole'ach Yad, he would be a Gazlan (not a Ganav), therefore he would not pay Kefel;

Or, does he teach that even if it is at the feeding trough, if he (falsely) claims that it was stolen, he pays Kefel?

R. Chiya bar Aba: I did not hear about this, but I heard a similar case.

(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): If a Shomer (claimed and) swore that the deposit was lost, then he swore that it was stolen, and witnesses later testified that he had it, he does not pay Kefel.

Suggestion: This is because he acquired the deposit through his first oath (and owes only principal. From then, it is considered his object, so he cannot pay Kefel for it.)

Rejection: No. Rather, once he swore (that it was lost), he is not obligated to swear again, so the second oath is not like a Shomer's oath to obligate Kefel.

Support (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan): If a Shomer swore that the deposit was lost, then he swore that it was stolen, and witnesses later testified that he had it, he does not pay Kefel, because he was obligated to swear only once.

(Rav Sheshes): If one claims that a deposit was stolen, and he took it (before he swore), he is exempt (from Kefel).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "The (Shomer) will come to the judges, if he did not Shole'ach Yad in his fellowman's object" implies that if he did take it, he is exempt (from Kefel).

Question (Rav Nachman): He must make three oaths: that he was not negligent, that he was not Shole'ach Yad, and that it is not in his domain!

Suggestion: The oath that he was not Shole'ach Yad is like the oath that it is not in his domain. Just like regarding the oath that it is not in his domain, if it is found that he swore falsely, he pays Kefel (for really, he stole it) - also, regarding the oath that he was not Shole'ach Yad!

Answer (Rav Sheshes): No, the oath that he was not Shole'ach Yad is like the oath that he was not negligent;

Just like if he swore falsely that he was not negligent, he (is like a Gazlan, who) does not pay Kefel, also regarding the oath that he was not Shole'ach Yad!