The Beraisa rules in the case 'Dinar Zahav Zahuv Yesh li be'Yadcha; Ein lach be'Yadi Ela Dinar Kesef' - Chayav' ...

... because, since Reuven claimed a minted coin and Shimon admitted to a minted coin, it is considered 'mi'Miyn ha'Ta'anah' (as we just explained).

We try to extrapolate from the Lashon 'Dinar Zahav Zahuv' that - if not for the extra word 'Zahuv', he would not be claiming a minted coin but a regular golden Dinar (which woulo\d be 'Eino mi'Miyn ha'Ta'anah'), in which case, our Mishnah, which does not mention 'Zahuv', must be speaking by Shaveh, like Rav (as we explained a short while back).

And when the Tana rules 'Sh'tei Kesef Yesh l'cha be'Yadi; Ein l'cha be'Yadi Ela P'rutah, Patur' it must be - because the Kefirah is less than Sh'tei Kesef (a Kashya on Shmuel).

Rav Ashi rejects this proof however - by explaining the Beraisa to mean that - 'Dinar Zahav' is equivalent to 'Zahav Zahuv' (which will then incorporate our Mishnah too [like Rebbi Elazar explained according to Shmuel]).

The Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya 'Sela li be'Yadcha; Ein L'cha be'Yadi Ela Sela Chaser ...

... Sh'tei Kesef' - rules 'Chayav'.

... Chaser Ma'ah' - rules 'Patur'.

The reason for this distinction is - because the defendant is only Chayav a Shevu'ah for a Kefirah of two Kesef.

Rebbi Chiya cited this Beraisa - in support of Rav.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Amar Shmuel qualifies the Din of Ta'anas Sh'tei Kesef regarding Shevu'ah - by restricting it to a case of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'; it will not extend to the Shevu'ah that one witness obligates (where even the Kefirah of one P'rutah will suffice).

This is based on a Beraisa which comments on the D'rashah from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish le'Chol Avon u'le'Chol Chatas", from which we learn that - one witness is invalid as regards Isurim (to cause a sinner to receive Malkos or Misah), but that his testimony is valid to make someone swear in money-matters ...

... on which the Beraisa comments that - wherever two witnesses obligate a litigant to pay money (incorporating where he denies even one P'rutah), one witness will obligate him to swear.

When Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel taught 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh lo be'Achas Meihen Chayav', Rebbi Yitzchak responded - with 'Yeyasher' (thanking him for his Chidush).

And he added that - Rebbi Yochanan issued the same ruling, causing Rav Nachman to ask whether, to his knowledge, Resh Lakish disagreed with Rebbi Yochanan or not.

When we say that Resh Lakish used to wait, we mean that - Resh Lakish used to wait until Rebbi Yochanan had finished all that he had to say before responding, and it so happened that Rebbi Yitzchak left the Beis-Hamidrash before that. Consequently, he could not say whether Resh Lakish disagreed with Rebbi Yochanan or not.

Alternatively - Resh Lakish was drinking water on that occasion, and by the time he had finished drinking, Rebbi Yitzchak had left the Beis-Hamidrash.

We try to prove Shmuel ('Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achas Meihen Chayav') right from our Mishnah, where the Tana Kama and Rabban Gamliel argue over whether 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin' is Patur (Tana Kama) or Chayav (Rabban Gamliel)- because if they also argue by 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh lo be'Echad Meihen', then why did Rebbi not present that case, to teach us that even there, the Tana Kama rules 'Patur'?

We refute this proof however - by placing the shoe on the other foot, and explaining that, even though they argue over 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ... ') he refers to present the case of 'Ta'ano Chitin ... ', to teach us that - even there, Rabban Gamliel rules 'Chayav'.

The Seifa of our Mishnah refers to a case of 'Ta'ano Keilim ve'Karka'os; Hodeh be'Keilim ve'Karka'os ... Patur', from which we try to extrapolate that - in a case of Keilim ve'Keilim, he would be Chayav (a proof for Shmuel).

We refute that proof too however, concluding that even if 'Keilim ve'Keilim' would be Patur, the Tana would present the case of Keilim ve'Karka'os - to teach us the Chidush of 'Hodeh be'Miktzas Keilim' (that he is Chayav to swear on the Karka, too).

This Chidush is known as 'Zokekin' - which is really another term for 'Gilgul Shevu'ah', though it refers specifically to Metaltelin over which someone has to swear, which forces him to swear over Karka as well.

Although the Mishnah in Kidushin already taught us the Din of Zok'kin - the main Din of Zok'kin is the one in our Mishnah (since this Masechta is designed to teach us the Dinim of Shevu'os [as its name suggests]), and it is the Mishnah in Kidushin which duplicates the Din, in order to balance the Din that one can acquire Metaltelin together with Karka.

According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh lo be'Achas meihen, Patur'. We reconcile this with Rebbi Yitzchak, who commented 'Yeyasher, ve'Chein Amar Rebbi Yochanan when Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel ruled Chayav - by presenting it as a Machlokes Amora'im as to what Rebbi Yochanan really holds.

After citing the same two sources from our Mishnah as Kashyos on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba as we just attempted to bring as proofs for Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and arriving at the same conclusions, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal queries Rebbi Chiya bar Aba from a Beraisa. The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Ta'ano Shor ve'Seh, ve'Hodeh lo be'Achas meihen - Chayav'.

Rebbi Chiya bar Mamal rejects the answer that the author of the Beraisa is Rabban Gamliel, who holds 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, Chayav' - because if that were so, then the Reisha ('Ta'ano Shor ve'Hodeh lo be'Seh ... , Patur') ought to have ruled Chayav, too.

So Rebbi Chiya bar Aba establishes the author of the Beraisa as Admon, who rules in our Mishnah - 'ha'To'en la'Chavero be'Kadei Shemen, ve'Hodeh lo be'Kankanim, Chayav' (because he holds 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin ... Chayav', as we learned in Kesuvos).

We know that this is a genuine answer and not a 'Dochek' (a forced answer) - because as Rebbi Chiya bar Aba himself testified, Rebbi Yochanan himself considered it authentic.

Rav Anan Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules in a case where Shimon admits that he owes Reuven ...

... barley, after the latter claimed from him wheat, and before he had a chance to add that he owed him barley too that - Beis-Din gauge the way he said it, whether he deliberately rushed to answer, in an obvious effort to beat Reuven to the draw (before he obligated him to swear by adding barley to the claim), in which case he would be Chayav a Shevu'ah; or whether it was a genuine admission, in which case he would be Patur.

... one needle, when Reuven claimed from him two (bearing in mind that needles are not worth two Kesef) that - he is nevertheless Chayav to swear (because all Keilim are considered Chashuv).

And he proves it from the fact that the Torah writes "Kesef O Keilim" - when it could have written 'Kesafim' (which would have covered both 'two' and 'Chashuv'), to teach us that one is Chayav a Shevu'ah on Keilim even if they are not worth a P'rutah.

Rav Papa rules 'Ta'ano Keilim u'Perutah, ve'Hodeh be'Keilim ve'Kafar bi'Perutah, Patur' - like Rav (against Shmuel), who requires Kefirah of two Kesef; and 'Hodeh bi'Perutah ve'Kafar be'Keilim, Chayav' - like Shmuel (against Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan) who holds 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, ve'Hodeh Lo be'Achas meihen, Chayav'.

Rav Nachman comments on our Mishnah 'Manah li be'Yadcha; Ein lach be'Yadi, Patur' 'u'Mashbi'in Oso Shevu'as Heses' - which is a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan (specifically with regard to someone who is Kofer ba'Kol).

Heses is a Lashon of Hasasash (enticement), because it is intended to entice the litigant to admit that he owes the money (Rashi in Bava Metzi'a).

Rav Nachman's ruling is based on the Chazakah - Ein Adam Tove'a Ela-im-Kein Yesh lo' (a person does not claim money from someone who doesn't owe him anything).

We do not rather apply the Chazakah 'Ein Adam Me'iz Chovo bi'Fenei Ba'al Chovo' (a debtor does not have the Chutzpah to deny the creditor's claim) - because of a third Chazakah - 'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit' ('A person will deny a claim temporarily, until he has the money to pay' [removing the aspect of Chutzpah]).

Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Chisda rules 'ha'Kofer be'Milveh, Kasher le'Eidus - ha'Kofer be'Pikadon, Pasul le'Eidus' (where witnesses testify that they saw the article by him) - because whereas in the latter case, he has no excuse to deny the claim, in the former case, he has the Chazakah of 'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit' in his defense (to concur with Rav Nachman).

Neither do we apply the principle 'Chashud a'Mamona, Chashud a'Shevu'asa' (Someone who is Chashud [suspect] on money, is also Chashud on making a false Shevu'ah) - because 'Ishtemuti ka'Mishtamit' removes the Chashad on Shevu'ah.

Rav Chaviva learned Rav Nachman's Din of Shevu'as Heses on the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Manah li be'Yadcha; Amar lo Hein. le'Machar Amar lo Teneihu li; Nesativ lach, Patur'. According to ...

... the first opinion - seeing as he is Chayav a Shevu'as Heses in the Reisha, where Shimon denies the claim completely, then 'Kal va'Chomer' in the Seifa, where he initially admitted that he owes Reuven money.

... Rav Chaviva however, he is only Chayav a Shevu'as Heses in the Seifa, because Shimon has admitted to the claim, but not in the Reisha, where he has completely denied it.