Question (Rav Kahana): If Levi was warned not to swear falsely Shevu'as ha'Pikadon (but did so b'Mezid), what is the law?

Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is a Chidush (exception). One brings a Korban for Mezid, unlike the general rule. Therefore, the law is the same even if he was warned;

Or, perhaps that is only if he was not warned, but if he was warned, he is lashed and he does not bring a Korban;

Or, perhaps he is lashed and brings a Korban'

Answer #1 (Rav Acha, Rav Shmuel and R. Yitzchak - Beraisa): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is more stringent (than Shevu'as ha'Edus). He is lashed if he was Mezid, and he brings an Asham if he was Shogeg.

Since he is lashed, surely he was warned. It says only that he is lashed (for Mezid), implying that he does not bring a Korban;

This is more stringent than Shevu'as ha'Edus (for which one brings a Chatas if Mezid) since one prefers to bring a Korban than to be lashed.

Rejection #1 (Rava bar Isi): This Beraisa is like R. Shimon, who says that there is no atonement (Korban) for Mezid Shevu'as ha'Pikadon. Chachamim would say that he also brings a Korban.

Rejection #2 (Rav Kahana): I myself recited that Beraisa. The correct text says 'whether he was Mezid or Shogeg, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim';

This is more stringent than Shevu'as ha'Edus, for which one may bring a Chatas costing as little as a Ma'ah (a sixth of a Dinar).

Question: Rav Kahana should have settled his question from the Beraisa!

Answer: Perhaps the Beraisa discusses when he was not warned.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): He is exempt if he believed that he was swearing truthfully. When liable, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim.

Suggestion: The case is, he was warned.

Rejection: No, he was not warned.

Answer #3 (Beraisa): We cannot learn from a Tamei Nazir, for he is lashed, to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for which one is not lashed! (It is not clear which law the Beraisa thought to learn from a Tamei Nazir);

Since the Tamei Nazir is lashed, we must say that he was warned, and it says that (in a similar case) he is not lashed for Shevu'as ha'Pikadon!

Rejection: The Beraisa means, regarding Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, one does not get full atonement through lashes (he needs also a Korban).

Question: This implies that a Nazir Tamei gets full atonement through lashes. The Torah explicitly says that he brings a Korban!

Answer: That Korban is not for atonement, rather in order to enable him to begin Nezirus in Taharah.

Rabah heard Rav Kahana's question.

Rabah: If he was warned, this implies that witnesses know that he is liable. If so, his denial is useless (since the witnesses will force him to pay)!

Inference: Rabah holds that one who denies money that witnesses know about is exempt.

Support (R. Chinena - Beraisa): "V'Chichesh Bah" excludes one who admits to one of the brothers or partners who claimed from him.

"V'Nishba Al Shaker" excludes one who borrowed with a document or witnesses (he is exempt because he will have to pay).

Rejection (Rabah): No. The case is, he admits that he borrowed, but he denies that there was a document or witnesses who saw the loan.

Question: Why should we assume that that is the case?

Answer: Presumably, it is similar to the Reisha, admitting to one of the partners.

Question: What is that case?

Suggestion: He admitted that he owed half to one partner.

Rejection: If so, he should be liable for denying the other half!

Answer: Rather, they say that they lent to him together, and he admits to borrowing the entire amount from one partner.

Just like he does not save himself money through this denial, also in the Seifa.

Question (Mishnah): He is exempt if he believed that he was swearing truthfully.

When Mezid, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim.

Suggestion: This means, we know through witnesses that he was Mezid (i.e. they warned him).

Answer: No, it means only that he swore falsely b'Mezid.

Question (Mishnah): If there were two pairs of witnesses, and one pair denied after the other (both pairs are liable).

We understand why the second pair is liable. The first pair already denied, so the denial of the second pair stops the claimant from collecting;

However, when the first pair denied, this did not stop the claimant from collecting. The second pair could have testified!

Conclusion: One is liable for denying, even though there are (other) witnesses who (if they testify) will enable the claimant to get what he deserves!

Answer (Ravina): The case is, when the first pair denied, the second pair were invalid witnesses, because they were related (Rashi - to each other; R. Chananel - to a party of the case) through their wives, who were Gosesos (close to death);

One might have thought that since most Gosesim die, the second pair is destined to become valid and the first pair is exempt. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, since now they are alive.

Question (Beraisa): If a Shomer (watchman) claimed that the deposit was stolen; swore falsely, admitted that he lied, and witnesses testified that the Shomer himself took it:

If he admitted before witnesses came, he pays principal, a Chomesh, and brings an Asham.

If he admitted after witnesses came, he pays double and brings an Asham.

Answer: Here also, we can answer like Ravina answered (when he denied, the witnesses were invalid because they were related through their wives).

Question (Ravina - Beraisa): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is more stringent (than Shevu'as ha'Edus). He is lashed if he was Mezid, and he brings an Asham if he was Shogeg.

Since he is lashed, surely there were witnesses, and if he was Shogeg; he brings a Korban!

Answer (Rav Mordechai): Rav Kahana recited the correct text of that Beraisa: 'whether he was Mezid or Shogeg, he brings an Asham that costs at least two Shekalim.';

Question (Beraisa): We cannot learn from a Tamei Nazir, for he is lashed, to Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, for which one is not lashed!

Since the Tamei Nazir is lashed, surely there were witnesses.

Inference: In the corresponding case of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, he is not lashed, but he brings a Korban!

This refutes Rabah.

(R. Yochanan): If one denies money that witnesses know about, he is liable. If there is a document, he is exempt.

Question (Rav Papa): What is R. Yochanan's reason?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): He obligates regarding witnesses, for they might die (and he will avoid paying through his denial);

He exempts regarding a document, for the claimant will surely collect (the defendant gains nothing by denying).

Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): A document can be lost (the claimant is not guaranteed to collect)!

Answer #2 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): A document creates a lien on land. We do not swear about (land, or) money that can be collected from (even sold) land.

(R. Yochanan or R. Elazar): If witnesses about land falsely swore (Shevu'as ha'Edus), they are liable;

(The other of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): They are exempt.

Inference: R. Yochanan must hold that they are exempt, for he taught that one who denies money that witnesses know about is liable, but if there is a document, he is exempt, like Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua explained.

Suggestion (R. Yirmeyah): R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argue like R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): (If Reuven stole Shimon's field and) the river flooded it, he must give to him another field;

Chachamim say, he can say 'your field is in front of you.'

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Elazar expounds through the method of Ribuy and Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions);

"He will deny his neighbor" is a Ribuy; "about a deposit" is a Mi'ut; "anything he will swear about" is another Ribuy;

From the Ribuy, Mi'ut, Ribuy we include everything (that one must swear about them, and return them if stolen). We exclude only documents (for they have no intrinsic value).

Chachamim expound the the method of Klal u'Frat (general and specific terms);

"He will deny his neighbor" is a Klal; "about a deposit" is a Prat; "anything he will swear about" is another Klal;

From the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we include everything similar to the Prat, i.e. Metaltelim (things that can be moved) and have intrinsic value;

We exclude land, for it cannot be moved, and also slaves, for these are equated to land;

We exclude documents, which have no intrinsic value.

R. Elazar obligates the witnesses. This is like R. Eliezer. R. Yochanan exempts, like Chachamim.

Rejection (R. Avahu): Indeed, Chachamim must hold like R. Yochanan, but R. Eliezer could also agree to R. Yochanan;

It says "mi'Kol (that he will swear about)", not everything, to exclude land from oaths (even though it can be stolen).

(Rav Papa): Our Mishnah is like the opinion that one is exempt for land.

It teaches that one who denied stealing an ox is liable, but one who denied stealing a slave would be exempt!

Suggestion: This is because slaves are equated to land, and our Tana holds that we do not swear about land!

Rejection (Rav Papi - Seifa): The general rule is, if the defendant would have had to pay by his own admission he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

Suggestion: 'The general rule' comes to include stealing slaves!

Conclusion: The inferences contradict each other. We do not know which is correct.