Formulation of question: According to Rav Huna, Reuven must swear that it is not in his premises. How could he show it afterwards?!

Answer #1 (Rava): Witnesses testified that the security was burned (so we did not make Reuven swear).

Objection: If so, there is no concern that Reuven will show the security!

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): Rather, witnesses testified that the security was stolen.

Question: Also here, there is no concern that Reuven will show the security!

Answer: Reuven will toil to track it down to show that Shimon swore falsely.

Question: If so, even (in case 4) when Reuven swears, we should be concerned that Shimon will track it down to show that Reuven swore falsely!

Answer: It was stolen from Reuven's house. Reuven knows who was in his house, so he can track down the thief. Shimon does not know who was in Reuven's house, he cannot track him down.

Answer #3 (Abaye): The concern of the Mishnah is lest Reuven say 'after I swore, I found it', and he will show that Shimon swore falsely.

Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): (The question was based on a misunderstanding. Case 4 does not teach that Chachamim removed the oath from Shimon and imposed it on Reuven.) Rather, Shimon swears mid'Oraisa, and Reuven swears due to Rav Huna's concern. The Mishnah teaches that Reuven swears first, for if Shimon would swear first, perhaps Reuven would show the security and prove that Shimon swore falsely.

Question (Rav Huna bar Tachlifa - Mishnah): If Shimon says 'I borrowed one Sela, and the security was worth two. You owe me one', and Reuven says that the loan and security were both worth one, Reuven need not swear.

According to Rav Huna, Reuven must swear that he does not have the security. Through Gilgul (if one can force Ploni to swear about a matter, he can force him to include other matters in the oath), Shimon can make him swear also about its value!

Answer (Rav Kahana): The case is, Shimon trusts Reuven that he lost the security, so he exempts him from Rav Huna's oath.

Question: If he trusts him, he should also trust him about its value!

Answer: Shimon reasons that Reuven did not look so carefully to see its value.

Question: Reuven should trust Shimon, for Shimon surely knows its value!

Answer: Reuven does not trust Shimon at all.

Question: Why does the Tana assume that the borrower trusts the lender, but not vice-versa?

Answer: The borrower applies to the lender "Tumas Yesharim Tanchem" (he prospers because he is straight), and the lender applies to the borrower "v'Selef Bogedim Yeshadem" (he needs to borrow because he is crooked).

A case occurred in which Reuven deposited nose rings with Shimon. When Reuven claimed them, Shimon said that he forgot where he put them.

Rav Nachman: That is negligence. Shimon must pay.

Shimon did not pay; Rav Nachman gave Shimon's yard to Reuven for payment. Later, they were found; they had risen in value.

Rav Nachman: Reuven gets his rings back, and Shimon gets his yard back.

Rava: We were learning this Perek at the time. I asked Rav Nachman (from the Mishnah) 'If Shimon paid and did not want to swear...' - he did not answer;

Justifiably, he did not answer me! (My question was ill-founded.) There (Reuven wants Shimon to acquire the deposit, and Kefel if the thief is found) because Shimon did not force Reuven to go to Beis Din. Here, Reuven is upset that he had to go to Beis Din to get paid, so he does not want Shimon to acquire.

Inference: This shows that Rav Nachman holds that when property is collected to pay a debt, if the debtor later pays money, he receives back his property.

Rejection: No. The yard was collected by mistake, for the rings were never lost.

(Chachamim of Neharda'a): If a debtor's property was collected to pay a debt, he has 12 months to pay the debt and get back his property.

(Ameimar): I am from Neharda'a. I hold that he can always redeem his property!

The Halachah is, the lender can always redeem his property. This is (an enactment mid'Rabanan) based on "v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov (you will do what is straight and good)."

Clearly, if Reuven collected Shimon's field, and Levi collected it from Reuven, Levi has no more right to keep it than Reuven (i.e. Shimon can buy it back from Levi);

If Reuven collected Shimon's field, and then sold, gave or bequeathed it to Levi, Levi wanted land, not money (Shimon cannot force Levi to sell it).

If Leah collected Shimon's field and then married Levi, or if Reuven collected Leah's field and then she married Levi and she died, a husband is like a buyer (regarding his wife's property), so the original owner has no right to buy back the field.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): (When a woman marries, her husband eats the Peros of her property. If she said that it should be Nichsei Melug, when she is widowed or divorced, she takes back her property without compensation for any increase or decrease in value.) In Usha, they enacted that if a married woman sold her Nichsei Melug and then died, her husband takes it back from the buyers. (We consider him to be a previous buyer, from the time he married her.)

(Rav Acha or Ravina): If Shimon willingly gave Reuven his field (to pay his debt), later Shimon can pay money and take back his field.

(The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): Shimon has no right to get back his field.

The latter opinion considers collection of the field like a sale, for he willingly gave it;

The first opinion says that Shimon did not want to give it. He gave it to avoid the embarrassment of going to Beis Din.

Question: From when may the lender eat the Peros of the land he collected?

Answer #1 (Rabah): It is from when he receives the Adrachta (a document authorizing him to take Reuven's property for payment).

Answer #2 (Abaye): (It is from the day the Adrachta is signed.) When witnesses sign a document, the receiver acquires immediately.

Answer #3 (Rava): It is from when the days of announcement (to sell the field) are over.

(Mishnah): If Reuven rented Shimon's cow, and lent it to Levi and it died normally, Reuven swears that it died normally, and Levi pays Reuven;

R. Yosi says, one may not do business with through another's property! Rather, Levi pays Shimon.

(Gemara - Rav Idi bar Avin) Question: Reuven (exempts himself, and thereby) acquires the cow through his oath. Why can't Shimon say 'don't swear. I will demand my cow from Levi'?

Answer (Abaye): Reuven does not acquire it through his oath, rather, through the death;

The oath is merely to placate the owner.

(R. Zeira): Sometimes the owner pays multiple cows to the renter!

Reuven rented Shimon's cow for 100 days, and lent it back to Shimon for 90 days. Reuven rented it back for 80 days, and lent it back to Shimon for 70 days. It died during the 70 days. Shimon must pay a cow to Reuven for each time he borrowed it.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): The same cow was rented and borrowed each time. It should suffice that Shimon pay one cow (for all the times he borrowed, and provide Reuven with a second cow to use for the 20 days that the rentals cumulatively exceeded the borrowings)!

Answer (Ravina): If the cow were alive, it would suffice to return it (for all the times he borrowed it! However, it is not.).

(Mar bar Rav Ashi): Reuven never need return more than two cows, one for the borrowing, one for the rental;

The cow for the borrowing Shimon keeps. The cow for the rental he keeps for 20 days (like above).