Question: Also according to the opinion that Heilach is Chayav, why do we need a verse to exclude? Evading does not apply to land! (It is always there for the owner to take back!)

So the Ri explained below. When he denies some land, he is exempt. He is believed because one is not brazen, since evading does not apply here!

Answer: Perhaps evading applies also to land a little! Perhaps he mortgaged it, and thinks [I will deny] until I get money, and pay [my creditor].

Question: There is no extra verse to exclude land! We exclude it from a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, and we need the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal to exclude documents!

Answer: It is difficult for him why the Tana needs to learn land from a Klal u'Frat [u'Chlal]. He should know this already,] because Heilach is exempt!

Question: Perhaps he needs it to exclude the Shevu'ah of [contradicting] one witness!

Answer: The Mishnah of "we do not swear about land" discusses Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas.

Inference: This connotes that if one claimed wheat and barley, and [the defendant] admitted to one of them, he is obligated [to swear]!

Only [when he claimed] Kelim and land he is exempt. [Had he claimed] wheat and barley, he would be Chayav!

Support: R. Yochanan holds like this in Shevuos (40a).

Explanation: He is exempt for everything except for negligence. A borrower is liable for everything, except for what died while working;

A paid Shomer and a renter are liable for some matters (theft or loss), and exempt for some (Onsim). Therefore, the Tana taught in this order, and not in the order they are written [in the Torah].

Question: Why didn't he ask from several Mishnayos "this one says [I deposited with you grain] up to the ledge, and this says until the window", and 10 [laden] vines, and the Mishnah below (97b) "this (the animals' owner) says, the borrowed one [died], and this says, the rented one [died]", which discusses a deposit? This is Heilach (and he must swear)!

Answer: He prefers to ask from all four Shomerim.

Note: We can answer for all of these Mishnayos just like we answered for the Mishnah of the four Shomerim.

Observation: If the text says above (3a) R. Chiya said, this is fine.

Even if the text says "Tani R. Chiya" (he taught a Beraisa), we can explain that it means that even if it were not a Beraisa, we could say that he is a Tana, and he argues.

Explanation: He is exempt even from paying for barley, like is proven in Bava Kama (35b).

Explanation: The case is, he said "return it only with witnesses." If not, we hold that one who lends to his friend with witnesses, he need not pay in front of witnesses.

Pesak: The Halachah follows R. Chiya, for above we establish [his teaching] like Rabanan of R. Gamliel, whom the Halachah follows, like it asks in Bava Kama (35b) "what is the Chidush? A Mishnah teaches this!"

Support: Also in Bava Metzia (100a), it asks "what is the reason? He claimed from him wheat, and he admitted to owing barley!" Also Rav and Shmuel hold like this in Shevuos (40a).

Implied question: It says here "if it is true..."! (This implies that the Halachah does not follow him.)

Answer: We find like this in Kesuvos (59a) "if Rav Huna's law is true, that a woman can tell her husband "do not feed me, [and I will not work for you]", and in Kesuvos (107b) we rule like Rav Huna.

Question: Even if R. Chiya's law is true, here he does not swear, for they testified about him that he ate two of them;

In [the sources of] the Tzad ha'Shavah, he was not Muchzak to be a liar. Will you say here, where he was Muchzak to be a liar?! We asked like this above (4a). Here , we cannot say that he evades!

Answer: Perhaps after he learned that there is a Shevu'ah through testimony of witnesses about a loan, we do not distinguish between a loan and a deposit.

Question: What is the different about one who is suspected to swear falsely? His opponent swears and collects;

Why don't we say that since he cannot swear, he pays, like it says regarding "50 I know about, 50 I do not know about" (below, 98a) and the ingot of R. Aba (Shevu'os 32b)?

Answer #1: Here, if we would say that [since he cannot swear,] he pays, he cannot survive. Everyone can bring him to need to swear, and take all his property!

Answer #2: There, he said to him "I have a Torah Shevu'ah against you. Either swear, or pay";

However, here [the defendant] wants to swear, if we would let him. Therefore, he does not pay.

Inference: This connotes that the Halachah follows the first version in Shevuos (41a) that does not require Drara d'Memona. Rather, even Kofer b'Chol must swear Heses.

Source: [We infer this,] since it does not bring here the Seifa '[if he says] "I gave it to you", he is exempt.'

Support: Sha'arim of Rav Hai Gaon explained like this. If he claimed "I do not know about any [of the claim]", he swears that he does not know.

Explanation: "Since he cannot swear, he must pay" does not apply here, like I explained (5a DH shek'Negdo ka'Amina).

Implied question: We make him swear according to the intent of Beis Din!

Answer: In any case, they should have enacted a Shevu'ah with an expression that does not connote that half is his.

Explanation: He asks according to Rabanan of Ben Nanas, who are not concerned for a false oath.

Explanation: Even though he says that all of it is his, [this is fine, for] he does not swear that half is his, which [connotes that only half is his, and] contradicts his claim.

Explanation #1: It seems that the reason is because Shevu'ah is severe, like it says in Yoma (86a) and Shevu'os (39a) that the world shook [when Hash-m said] "Lo Sisa [Es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav]."

Question: If so, why is a Gazlan Pasul for Shevu'ah? We said that his opponent swears and collects!

Answer: A Gazlan is Pasul for Shevu'ah only mid'Rabanan. He is Pasul for Shevu'ah only mid'Rabanan. He is Pasul for testimony mid'Oraisa, due to "Al Tashet [Yadcha Im] Rasha [Lihyos] Ed Chamas."

Explanation #2 (in the name of R. Yehudah ha'Chasid): This that one who is suspected about [stealing] is Kosher for Shevu'ah, is because due to fear of the Shevu'ah, he will refrain from theft;

However, a Vadai Gazlan, just like he does not refrain from [stealing] money, likewise he does not refrain from swearing falsely.

Implied question: The shepherd about whom they testified that he ate two of the animals - why was he disqualified?

The two that he ate, he must pay for them. The rest he will refrain from, through the Shevu'ah!

Answer: What he pays through witnesses is not a proper returning, since he pays against his will. This is the reason why who denies a deposit is Pasul for testimony.

Assertion: The text does not say "he swore", for if there are witnesses that he swore falsely, also regarding a loan he is Pasul!

Support: It connotes like this in Bava Kama (107b), that we discuss without a Shevu'ah.

Question: This is forbidden already due to Lo Sigzol!

Answer: [They think that Lo Sachmod] comes to put a second Lav on it.

Question: Even if he gives money, he is a Chamsan, like is proven in Bava Kama (62a). A Chamsan is Pasul for testimony, like it says "Al Tashet Yadcha Im Rasha Lihyos Ed Chamas";

One who is Pasul for testimony is Pasul for Shevu'ah, for all those disqualified for testimony in Sanhedrin (25b) are Pasul for Shevu'ah in Shevuos (45a)!

Answer: A Chamsan is Pasul for testimony only mid'Rabanan, since the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (25b) says "they added to them (those Pasul for testimony) Chamsanim";

We do not ask "Chamsan is mid'Oraisa!", like it asks about a Gazlan. The Chamsan of the verse does not give money.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (119a) it brings the verse "me'Chamas Bnei Yehudah", even if he gives money!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta.

Implied question: They added to them (those Pasul for testimony) Chamsanim to be Pasul for testimony, and likewise they are Pasul for Shevu'ah!

Answer: That refers to a Chamsan who is brazen to grab from hand to hand, with the owner's knowledge;

Here he is not brazen. Rather, he hides his oppression and says that it was lost. He is not Pasul.