Assertion: Here, the text properly says "and Hazamah", for through Hazamah, [one witness'] words are Batel.

Implied question: We cannot learn [to obligate a Shevu'ah about what he denies] from his mouth (admission), which does not pay for Hazamah, to witnesses, who pay for Hazamah!

Then (if we asked this), we could not say that one witness is Yochi'ach (proves that the law we seek to learn (a Shevu'ah about what he denies) does not depend on this), for [also one witness] does not pay.

Answer: This that one witness does not pay when he is Huzam is not a stringency (strength), rather, [a weakness;] it is because his testimony does not obligate paying!

Therefore, since through Hazamah, his words are Batel, it is considered that Hazamah applies to him.

Implied question: Below, we ask this (that Hazamah, i.e. to pay for false testimony, does not apply to one witness) against the Tzad ha'Shavah!

Answer: This is because we ask even a flimsy question against a Tzad ha'Shavah. (Essentially, Hazamah applies to one witness. Even so, against the Tzad ha'Shavah we ask that in one respect, it does not apply);

R. Chiya does not consider this a challenge even to a Tzad ha'Shavah, because the reason that the witness does not pay when he is Huzam is due to his weakness, because his testimony did not have power to obligate paying money.

Question: One who totally denies is Yochi'ach! This is through a claim and denial, and he is exempt [from swearing]!

Answer: In the Tzad ha'Shavah, there is a significant claim. When [the defendant] admits to part, or one witness contradicts him, it seems that he lies. Therefore, there is a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: Anan Sahadei (we can testify) that what he is holding [is his].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since this is like testimony of witnesses, he swears due to the first teaching of R. Chiya.

Question: Since he can prove this latter teaching of Heilach [from our Mishnah] only due to the first teaching, he could say "a Tana supports this" [also] regarding the first teaching! (Why did we retract to say that he said so regarding the latter teaching?)

Explanation #2: "Anan Sahadei" is not literal. [Rather,] what he is holding, now we consider it more than testimony of witnesses. It is as if [his opponent] admitted that it is his.

Question: In any case, we can ask that [in] our Mishnah, just like Reuven admits [about half] to Shimon, Shimon admits to Reuven, and even so, they swear, like we ask against the first teaching. How did it help [to say that the Mishnah supports the second teaching]?

Answer: Also now, it is proven due to the reason below. If Heilach were exempt, Rabanan would not enact a Shevu'ah with no analog in the Torah;

However, according to the first teaching of R. Chiya, even if one were exempt from a Shevu'ah when witnesses obligate him [partially], Rabanan would enact a Shevu'ah, for it is considered an admission, since his opponent holds [part of the Talis].

Question: This is difficult, for this that we do not say that our Mishnah supports the first teaching, is because what he holds is considered an admission;

This was not the question above, rather, just like Anan Sahadei for this litigant...!

Observation: It seems that the Halachah follows Rav Sheshes, for below (100a), regarding a minor slave, it asks "also, this is Heilach";

Disclaimer: However, Sefer Chefetz connotes that Heilach is Chayav. (See Tosfos Bava Basra 128b DH Hilchesa, who defends R. Chananel, who rules that Heilach is exempt.)

Question: He should be believed about three, Migo that if he wanted, he could have said two!

Answer: Since Heilach is exempt, if he said two, this is like one who totally denies, and one cannot be brazen [to his creditor. therefore, he has no Migo].]

According to R. Akiva, this is not brazen, for the document supports him.

Implied question: Since when he says two, he is obligated [to swear], why does R. Akiva consider him to be Meshiv Aveidah [when he says three? He said three to exempt himself from the Shevu'ah!]

Answer: When he says two, he seems more believed, because the document supports him.

Question: Since Heilach is Chayav, even when he says two, he does not totally deny, and when he says three, he should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said two. What is R. Shimon ben Elazar's reason [to obligate]?

Answer: He holds that what the document obligates him, he does not claim willingly, because it seems that he admits due to the document, and if not for the document, he would totally deny. [Therefore, he has no Migo to say two.]

Question: According to the opinion in Bava Basra (175b) that Shibud is mid'Oraisa, why does Modeh b'Miktzas swear? He denies [a debt with] a lien on land!

Answer: [The case is,] he pardoned the lien, or he does not have land at all, even Meshubadim (land that he sold after he borrowed).

Implied question: However, according to R. Yochanan, who said in Shevuos (37b) that one who denies money about which witnesses testify [that he owes] is Chayav Korban (Asham Gezelos), and one who denies money about which there is a document is exempt, because he denies [a debt with] a lien on land...

[Denying a debt known] through witnesses is not considered denying [a debt with] a lien on land, even though R. Yochanan holds that Shibud is mid'Oraisa!

Answer: This is because since Chachamim uprooted the Shibud on a Milveh Al Peh, due to loss of buyers, it is considered that he pardoned the Shibud;

The case is, [the borrower] has Meshubadim, but he does not have Bnei Chorin (land that he still owns). If he had Bnei Chorin, even if there are witnesses about the debt [without a document], he is exempt [from a Korban];

If he does not have even Meshubadim, even if [the lender] has a document against him, he is obligated.

Implied question #1: This is difficult for Seforim whose text in the Beraisa says "R. Akiva", for R. Akiva expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim in Shevuos (4b) and Nazir (35a);

The one who expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim does not exclude land. He excludes only documents, like is proven in Bava Kama (117b). How can he say here that we do not swear about [a debt with] a lien on land?

Answer #1: He has some exclusion to exclude land.

Support: We must say so below (100b) according to R. Meir, who holds that we swear about slaves, but not about land, even though slaves are equated to land according to everyone!

This (the Hekesh) is why a slave is acquired through money, in Kidushin (22b)!

Rather, R. Meir expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utim to exclude documents. He has some exclusion to exclude land, and that exclusion does not exclude slaves, even though they are equated to land;

It is proven in Bava Kama (63a) that the one who expounds Ribah u'Mi'et needs two exclusions for land and slaves.

Implied question #2: R. Shimon ben Elazar was the Talmid of R. Akiva. Why does he argue with him, and he is mentioned before him?

Note: Throughout Shas, Talmidim argue with their Rebbeyim! It seems that the text of Tosfos should say "the Talmid of the Talmid of R. Akiva", similar to Tosfos ha'Rosh.

Answer #1: We find like this below (7a) regarding two holding a document. Rebbi argues with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, his father.

Answer #2 (to both questions): In some Seforim, the text here says R. Yakov.

Observation: We could have answered that he dug pits, long pits, or square covered pits, like below.

Question: He should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have denied the Kelim and admitted to the land!

Answer: Perhaps he wanted the land more. (Therefore, this is not a Migo.)