(Mishnah): A Shomer Chinam need not swear about them (even through Gilgul)...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" is a Klal. "Kesef Oh Chelim" are Pratim. "Lishmor" is another Klal;

From the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything similar to the Pratim, i.e. something that can be moved and has intrinsic value;

We exclude land, for it cannot be moved. We exclude slaves, for the Torah equates them to land. We exclude documents, for they lack intrinsic value. Re'ehu" excludes Hekdesh.

(Mishnah): A Shomer Sachar need not pay for them...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): ""Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" is a Klal; "Chamor Oh Shor Oh Seh" are Pratim. "V'Chol Behemah" is another Klal;

From the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything similar to the specifics, like above.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Some things are like land, but have the law of Metaltelim...

Question: This implies that R. Meir holds that things connected to land are not like land;

Rather than argue about laden vines, he should argue with Chachamim about barren trees! (It is a bigger Chidush to teach that they are not like land, for no part of them is destined to be detached.)

Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about grapes ready to be harvested:

R. Meir holds that we consider that they are already harvested; Chachamim disagree.

(Mishnah): One must swear only about something with a measure, weight or number...

(Abaye): Shimon is exempt only if Reuven claimed a full house. If he claimed this full house, this quantifies his claim (and Shimon must swear).

Objection (Rava): If so, why does the Seifa give the case when Reuven claimed up to the ledge and Shimon admitted up to the window?

Rather, it should teach a more similar case, i.e. he claimed this full house, and Shimon must swear!

(Rava): Rather, one must swear only if the claim and denial were both about something with a measure, weight or number.

Support (Beraisa): If Reuven claimed 'you owe me 30 Sa'im of wheat', and Shimon denied it all, he is exempt;

If Reuven claimed a large lamp or belt, and Shimon admitted that he owes a small one, he is exempt;

However, if Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of wheat, and Shimon admitted to owing 15, he is liable. If Reuven claimed a lamp weighing ten Literin, and Shimon admitted that he owes a lamp of five Literin, he is liable.

The general rule is, one must swear only if the claim and denial were both about something with a measure, weight or number.

Question: What does the general rule come to include?

Answer: Even if he claimed 'this full house', Shimon is exempt.

Question: When Reuven claims a large lamp and Shimon admits to a small one, he is exempt. Presumably, this is because the admission is unlike the claim;

The same should apply when Reuven claims a lamp weighing ten Literin and Shimon admitted that he owes one of five Literin!

Answer #1 (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The lamp is composed of rings. A five Liter lamp is part of a ten Liter lamp.

Objection: If so, the Beraisa could have taught a case of a belt in which one is liable, i.e. a belt of loops sewn together (a short belt is part of a long belt)!

Rather, we must say that the Beraisa does not discuss belts of loops. Similarly, it does not discuss lamps of rings!

Answer #2 (R. Aba bar Mamal): A five Liter lamp is part of a ten Liter lamp, because the latter can be converted to the former by scraping off some of the metal.

(Mishnah): If Reuven lent Shimon four Dinarim and took a security, and the security was lost (Reuven is liable for it);

If Reuven claims that the security was worth two (Dinarim, therefore Shimon still owes two) and Shimon claims that it was worth four, he is exempt (Shimon denies the entire claim);

If Reuven claims that the security was worth two, and Shimon claims that it was worth three, he must swear (Shimon admits to a Dinar and denies a Dinar);

If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight (so Reuven owes him four), and Reuven claims that it was worth four, he is exempt (Reuven denies the entire claim);

If Shimon claims that the security was worth eight, and Reuven claims that it was worth five, he must swear.

The one who was watching the security (i.e. Reuven) swears;

If Shimon would swear, perhaps Reuven would show the security (Rashi - and prove that Shimon swore falsely about its value, disqualifying Shimon from swearing again; Tosfos - it would turn out that Shimon's oath was not needed, since we later saw the security and we can evaluate it ourselves).

(Gemara) Question: To which case does the Seifa (Reuven must swear, lest... ) refer?

It cannot refer to the last clause taught before this (Shimon claims that the security was worth eight, and Reuven claims that it was worth five). If so, why does it say that Reuven swears, lest Shimon swear and Reuven show the security...? Mid'Oraisa, Reuven must swear!

Answer (Shmuel, R. Chiya bar Aba, R. Yochanan): It refers to the Reisha.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer #1: It refers to the Seifa of the Reisha (the second clause. Reuven claims that it was worth two, Shimon claims that it was worth three. He must swear);

Mid'Oraisa, Shimon swears that it was worth three. Chachamim enacted that instead Reuven swears (lest Shimon swear and then Reuven will show the security).

Rav Ashi's law suggests another answer.

(Rav Ashi): The Halachah is, Reuven swears that he does not have the security, and Shimon swears how much it was worth.

Answer #2: The Mishnah means that Reuven swears first, lest Shimon swear first and then Reuven will show the security (to proves that it is not worth as much as Shimon swore that it is).

(Shmuel): Levi lent 1000 Zuz to Yehudah, and took a handle (of a shovel, which is not worth even one Zuz) for a security. If he loses the handle, he forfeits the loan;

If he took two handles for securities, he does not forfeit (even) half the loan if he loses one of them. (If he loses both, he forfeits the loan.)

(Rav Nachman): If he took two, he forfeits half the loan if he loses one of them;

If he took a handle and an ingot, he does not forfeit half the loan if he loses the ingot (since the loan can be collected from it, he only deducts its value from the loan).

(Chachamim of Neharde'a): Even if he took a handle and an ingot, he forfeits half the loan for losing either one.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven claims that the security was worth two, and Shimon claims that it was worth three, he must swear;

Since he lost the security, the loan should be forfeited! (This argues with all three opinions above. All agreed with Shmuel when only one security was taken.)

Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer: In the Mishnah, Reuven stipulated that if he loses the security, he will collect the remainder of the loan. Shmuel's law is when no stipulation was made.

Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer: Shmuel's law is when Reuven stipulated that he accepts the security as if it was worth the value of the loan. In the Mishnah there was no stipulation.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If Reuven lent Shimon and took a security, and lost it, he swears (that he lost it) and collects the debt. (He is only a Shomer Chinam (one who guards a deposit for free. He is liable only for negligence), because the security is not for collection. It is a mere reminder of the loan.)

R. Akiva says, he lent only due to the security. Now that he lost it, he lost the loan.

If there was also a loan document, all agree that it was for collection. He is a Shomer Sachar (one paid to guards a deposit for free. He is liable also for theft or loss), so he lost the loan.

Question: What is the case?

If the security was worth as much as the loan, R. Eliezer would not argue!

Answer: Rather, the security was worth less than the loan. R. Akiva holds like Shmuel, and R. Eliezer does not.