Question: According to him, we can establish our Mishnah when she already was an Apotropos, therefore she insists that her husband exempt her!

Answer: (This would be difficult.) What forced him to establish our Mishnah to discuss the Shevu'ah of an Apotropos, and say that it does not discuss in every case, even if she did not yet become an Apotropos?

The Stam case is that he wrote to her when he made Nisu'in with her.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to the orphans' head-tax.

Question: This implies that for other needs of the orphans, we announce [before selling]!

This is not so! We ask in Erchin (22a) according to the opinion that we collect from orphans' property only for a document with Ribis, from the Mishnah "the auction to sell orphans' property is 30 days, and we announce..."

(What was difficult?) Perhaps that announcing is not to pay a creditor. Rather, it is for other needs of the orphans!

Explanation #2: Rather, we discuss her head-tax, just like her husband used to pay it. It is included in food.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [She need not swear] that she did not sell property too cheaply.

Rebuttal: (Why does this opinion exempt?) In any case she should swear that she did not keep anything of theirs!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is like the Yerushalmi explains, lest [due to fear of the oath] she leave the Mes lying [unburied] and go to her father's house.

Support: We bring that for head-tax, food and burial, we sell without announcing, due to honor of the Mes (to enable prompt burial, and similarly she is exempt from swearing due to honor of the Mes.)

Explanation: We need not say that [they need not announce] lest their father be left [unburied] in disgrace until they auction and announce;

Rather, if they borrowed for the sake of burial, we sell (their property) for the need of this debt without announcing, lest this cause them to stumble in the future (no one will lend for the needs of burial, and the Mes will be left in disgrace).

Question: Why didn't he ask from this Mishnah, against the opinion that holds in Erchin (22a) that we collect from orphans' property only if Ribis is accumulating against it?

We could not establish this to be when Ribis is accumulating against it, like we answered the clause "'we collect from orphans' property only from Ziburis", and others that we brought there!

Suggestion: We can establish the Mishnah here to discuss adult orphans.

Rejection: If so, the case of "'we collect only from Ziburis", why don't we establish it to discuss adult orphans?!

Rather, surely the Gemara holds that it discusses in every case.

Answer (Ri): Surely, this clause (one collects only through a Shevu'ah) applies only to adults;

However, we did not want to establish "'we collect only from Ziburis", lest we resolve the question in Gitin (50a) whether "'we collect from orphans only from Ziburis" applies only to minors, or even to adults.

Question: A Mishnah in Gitin (34b) says that a widow collects from orphans' property only through a Shevu'ah;

The Gemara asks, why did it say a widow? (The same applies to anyone!) It answered that a widow is a Chidush, due to Chen.

Why did it need to teach this? The Mishnah here teaches it, and also a Mishnah above (84a) regarding "if he had a Kesuvah and creditor to pay [and he died], all of them need a Shevu'ah to collect"!

Answer: It needed to teach there, lest we establish our Mishnah here to discuss a divorcee, but a widow would not need a Shevu'ah, due to Chen.

Implied question: Also a divorcee needs Chen, like we say below (97b)!

Answer: In any case, she does not need Chen as much as a widow does.

Question: Why did we need to teach our Mishnah here?

Answer: Here it was taught along with those who collect only with a Shevu'ah.

Question (Rashba): There is a third reason!

Why did the Torah say that Modeh b'Miktzas swears? It is because the borrower stalls, and the Torah said to impose a Shevu'ah on him so he will admit;

This reason does not apply here at all.

Explanation: Only Pogem (one who admits that he was partially paid), we can say that since [the borrower] partially paid, perhaps he paid fully;

However, without Pogem, we do not say that he was not precise.

Implied question: Why isn't he believed through a Migo? (He could have said that he was not paid at all!)

Answer: [He must swear] because he was not precise, and he thinks that he will be precise, but he is not precise, like we find in Yevamos (114b);

If one says "my husband died in war", she is not believed, even though there is a Migo. If she wanted, she could have said that he died on his bed;

This is because she says through estimation. Sometimes they struck him with an arrow or spear, and she thinks that he died.

Question (Ri): In Shevuos (45b), we say that a worker [when he demands payment] in his time, he swears and collects...

We say that this is only when he hired him with witnesses. If he hired him without witnesses, since he could say "I never hired you", he can say "I hired you, and paid you your wages"!

Why is he is believed through a Migo? The reason that a worker swears and collects when he was hired with witnesses is because the employer is distracted with his workers, a thinks that he paid him!

It says there that the worker should not even need to swear. It is merely to placate the employer [lest he suspect that the worker lies].

Question: Why didn't it teach all of the cases in our Mishnah?

Granted, according to the Tana of our Mishnah in Shevuos (44b), we can say that he taught only those in which one might have thought that they do not receive even through a Shevu'ah;

This is why it says "swear and receive", and it does not say "they are paid only through a Shevu'ah", like our Mishnah says;

However, the Tana of the Beraisa, since he lists one who is Pogem his document, why didn't he teach all of the cases in our Mishnah?

Answer: This Tana holds that one who is Pogem his document does not come due to the document, like the other cases in our Mishnah, since he himself agree that he is not owed everything written in it. Rather, he agrees that he was paid part;

It properly needs to teach that they receive.

Implied question: The reason (he must swear) is because one who is paid is not precise! If so, even if there are no witnesses (we do not believe him due to a Migo to exempt him from the Shevu'ah).

Answer: One might have thought that when there are no witnesses, he remembers the payment a little. If so, surely he was precise. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Explanation: We can say that she (Pogemes) is not precise, and since she was paid partially, she was paid fully.

However, this (Pocheses, who says that her Kesuvah was not for the full amount written) does not admit to any payment. This (above) reason does not apply.

Question: If so (Pocheses need not swear, one who was partially paid) will always come to scheme, and be Pocheses (claim that she was not paid at all, but say that really, her Kesuvah is only for the amount she is still owed! Pnei Yehoshua - her husband caused himself his loss, through not taking a receipt. Also, not all women are so knowledgeable about monetary laws. Also, she fears to say that her Kesuvah was smaller, for in any case he can make her swear [Heses] that she was not paid, and she cannot swear, for she was paid part! - Meginei Shlomo.)

Explanation: The woman cannot make her husband pay a Kesuvah, since [her document is tainted, and] he is Muchzak, like we say in Bava Basra (32b) "where the money is, it stands."

There, Reuven challenged Shimon 'what are you doing on my field?' Shimon said 'I bought it. Here is the document.' Reuven said that it is a forgery;

Shimon whispered to Rabah (who was judging the case) 'indeed, it is a forgery, [but I had a proper document and I lost it.' Shimon could have validated the forgery.]

Rabah: Shimon is believed. Had he wanted to lie, he could have insisted that it is a proper document!

We conclude that we leave the land [in the Chazakah of Shimon], and [in a similar case of a loan document] we leave the money where it is (with the borrower).

Question: They ask, in Bava Metzi'a (57b), that we learn that one does not swear about denial of [a debt with] a lien on land, from these verses, which discuss Shevu'ah through one's admission;

However, we do not find [an exemption] regarding a Shevu'ah through one witness!

Suggestion: Presumably, they (both oaths) are the same.

Rejection: We find a distinction regarding other matters, in Shevuos (40a)!

Citation (40a - Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): We require a claim of two [Ma'ah] of Kesef only regarding the lender's claim and the borrower's admission;