Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he claimed coins that had a picture on them (i.e. legal tender), and not weight (of a certain metal). The defendant admitted he owed coins. Even though one is silver and one is copper, this is considered to be the type of claim he is making, as the claim involves coins.

Question: This is difficult. Earlier (39b), regarding the case where a person claimed two Kesef from another person and he replied that he only owed a Perutah, we conclude that Shmuel says he is exempt because he did not admit to his claim. (He claimed specifically silver coins, and he admitted a copper coin.)

Question(cont.): If you will say that the case is when they are not stamped as coins, there is not even the amount necessary for a claim of two Ma'os. This is because the silver is less the amount of money needed to mint it into a coin!

Question(cont.): It is difficult to say that there is not a Perutah's worth of value lacking because it is not minted.

Question(cont.): Additionally, the implication of the Mishnah is that it is discussing a case where the person is claiming minted coins, as until now we were not discussing coins. When the Mishnah mentions two kesef, the general understanding is that this should mean minted coins.

Question#2: Additionally, Rebbi Elazar says that the novelty is that a Perutah is considered a coin. This implies that the entire novel aspect is because of the mention of a Perutah. Isn't there a novel teaching regarding other coins as well, that they are considered part of the claim (even though they are not the same type of coin that was claimed)?

Question#3: Additionally, even a claim of a large slave and an admission of a small slave is considered that he did not admit to the claim in Bava Metzia (40a). Similarly, even a claim of a large Menorah and an admission of a small Menorah is considered that he did not admit to the claim in the Gemara later (43a), even though they have a similar shape.

Question#4: Additionally, the term "b'Dinar Matebei'os" does not imply an imprinted coin.

Question#5: Additionally, later in the Beraisa regarding a "Dinar Zahav Zahuv" our text in all of the Sefarim is that he is exempt. Rashi, according to his explanation, forces in a correction that it should read he is liable.

Explanation#2: It therefore appears that the explanation of him claiming from him "b'Dinar Matebei'os" is that he gave him a Dinar to change into small coins for him. He is now claiming these coins, and the other person claims that he returned all of them besides for a Dinar of silver or a Trisis or a Pundyon or Perutah.

Explanation: Rashi explains that even regarding the smallest of them there is an amount required for admission.

Question: This is difficult. We already know this from the first part of the Mishnah that says that admission is a Perutah. It is difficult to say that we thought that regarding a claim of a golden Dinar, a Perutah is not considered an amount of significant admission (though it would be if the claim was less).

Question: In Kesuvos (87b), we say that one does not swear regarding the denial of a lien on land, even if one witness testifies against him. This implies that we equate one witness with partial admittance (unlike our Gemara)!

Answer: It is possible to say that Shmuel's statement here is based on his reasoning earlier that a person is liable if he denies one Perutah. Once he says one would swear on a Perutah, it is understandable that he says the teaching, "But he can establish for a Shevuah" is referring to a Perutah. However, regarding land we never find that one would swear.

Observation: Based on the above, we must say that the law does not follow Shmuel in this law.

Proof#1: This is evident from the fact that his law here is based on his earlier law, and we do not rule like him in that case. Being that Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa supported Rav, we clearly do not rule like Shmuel.

Proof#2: Additionally, Rav Papa is a later Amora (whose opinion we consider to have weight in determining the Halachah as he saw the earlier opinions), and he later clearly holds like Rav.

Explanation: This rule is not absloute, as there is denial of a lien on land (which will not make one take an oath).

Observation: In Bava Kama (35b), Rabah bar Nasan concludes that he is even exempt from paying the value of the barley he admits he owes.

Question: This is difficult. How does he know this? According to Rabban Gamliel, he is liable to pay for the barley. If not, there would not be considered to be an admittance. If so, how does Rabah know that the Rabbanan say he is exempt, and that they argue on Rabban Gamliel even regarding the value of the barley? Perhaps they only argue regarding whether or not he is liable to swear regarding the wheat. Why not say that Rabban Gamliel holds he must swear because he does not require an admittance that is similar to the claim, while the Rabbanan say he is exempt from swearing because they do require an admittance similar to the claim?

Answer#1: Perhaps Rabah bar Nasan understands that the term "exempt" implies totally exempt.

Answer#2: Alternatively, even though he is exempt from paying for the barley even according to Rabban Gamliel, it is still considered admittance.

Question: This is difficult, as in Kesuvos (108b) regarding the argument between Admon and the Rabbanan, Rabban Gamliel states that he sees (the merit in) Admon's position. Admon holds that if a person claims from his friend barrels of wine and oil, and the defendant denies owing oil or wine but admits owing five out of ten empty barrels, he is liable to swear. Admon holds he is liable because part of the claim implied is that he owes the barrels.

Question(cont.): Now, according to Rabban Gamliel, even if the claim does not imply barrels he should still be liable! Rabban Gamliel even holds that if he claims wheat and admits to barley that he is liable! (Why does he only say that he sees (merit in) Admon's position?)

Answer: There is also a difference according to Rabban Gamliel (aside for partial admittance) in a case where a person claimed ten barrels of oil, and the defendant said that he only owes five barrels. In such a case he is also liable to supply the barrels. He cannot say that I did not admit to you regarding the barrels, as the language implies barrels. (In other words, when Rabban Gamliel said he sees (merit in) Admon's position, he meant regarding the owing of the barrels, not the partial admittance which he obviously agreed with.)

Explanation: Rabban Gamliel has a stronger position, as the Rabbanan are merely saying he is exempt. (The Meleches Shlomo (Shevuos 6:3) understands that Tosfos means Rabban Gamliel is lenient in that he allows him to swear.)

Implied Question: This case is needed. (Why?)

Answer: You should not say that the reason that the first part of the Mishnah says he is exempt is because it is like a case where he claimed wheat and he admitted to barley.

Question: This is difficult. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba himself establishes Admon's statement as being in accordance with his position in Kesuvos (108b). He concludes that according to Admon the implication of this statement is that he also owes him the barrels. Being that he must swear on the barrels, he also must swear on the oil due to a Gilgul Shevuah (once he must swear on one thing he must swear on other related issues as well). (However, this implies that the only reason he must swear is because he admits to five out of ten empty barrels, as the case is presented in Kesuvos (ibid.). If he would not admit to owing any barrels, the Gemara there implies he would not swear at all according to Admon. This is unlike Rebbi Chiya's statement here that he would swear according to Admon!)

Answer: The reason why the case there was set up with the defendant admitting owing five out of ten empty barrels was due to the position of the Rabbanan. Even so the Rabbanan say he is exempt.

Answer(cont.): This is in order that you should not ask a question from the Rabbanan's own words. One could say that they originally said he is exempt because claiming ten barrels of oil does not mean the actual barrels. This implies that if it would mean the actual barrels as well, he would be liable to swear. However, Admon always says one is liable even if he admits owing all of the barrels.

Answer(cont.): The Rabbanan and Admon in fact argue regarding two topics. They argue regarding a case where the claimant claimed wheat and barley, and the defendant admitted owing one of the two. They also argue whether or not a claim of barrels of oil includes a claim on the barrels themselves.

Answer(cont.): The deduction is from the fact that the Mishnah did not say the case that they argue in is where the claim is wheat and barley or an ox and a sheep. Instead it said a case of barrels of oil and wine. This implies that the argument centers around whether or not this implies a claim for the barrels themselves. Additionally, Rabban Gamliel says that he sees (merit in) Admon's position. If they would specifically argue in a case where he claimed both wheat and barley and he admitted owing one of them, why would he says he sees (merit in) Admon's position? He even says one is liable if he claims wheat and admits barley!

Answer(cont.): They also argue regarding a case where he claims wheat and barley, and the defendant admits one of them. If they only argue regarding whether or not the barrels are part of the claim, the Rabbanan should have explicitly said that the claim does not include the barrels themselves. It should also have said that Admon only says he is liable if the person admits owing all of the barrels. This is because the Mishnah does not say, "he admitted owing some of the barrels," and just says, "barrels." This implies he admits owing all of the barrels in question. The only reason we say Admon means some of the barrels is because of the Rabbanan, in order that we should not think they hold that this does not imply a claim on the barrels only in this case.

Answer(cont.): This is what he means to say. The admission is not from the type of item that was claimed. Certainly if he admitted owing all of the barrels, he would be exempt from swearing. Even if the claim implies the barrels themselves he would be exempt. Rather, even if he admitted owing some of the barrels he would be exempt, as the claim does not imply the barrels themselves.

Opinion: This is the Halachah.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we usually rule like Rebbi Yochanan over Shmuel. (Why do we not follow this rule in this case?)

Answer#1: First of all, one Amora holds that Rebbi Yochanan would also say one is liable to swear in this case.

Answer#2: Additionally, we rule like Rav Nachman in money matters.

Answer#3: Additionally, Rav Papa is a later Amora, and he rules according to Shmuel.

Opinion#2: This is also how Rabeinu Chananel rules in our Gemara, and this is the main opinion. This is unlike Rabeinu Chananel's opinion in Kesuvos (108b), where he rules like Rebbi Chiya bar Abba.

Question: Don't we say in this chapter, "Why did the Torah say that a person who partially admits swears? It is because there is a Chazakah that a person does not brazenly etc." (Later (42b), this is reason to establish an oath, not reason to exempt from an oath!)

Answer: Even though a person who denies owing anything may also be trying to evade the claim, there is a Chazakah that he cannot totally deny the claim as easily as he could partially admit to the claim, and there is no Migu.

Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (6a), the Gemara deduces that when Rav Nachman says that we make him take a Shevuas Heses, why do we allow him to swear? We should say that being that he is suspected to be lying about money, we should suspect that he will swear falsely! Why doesn't the Gemara there answer that he is merely avoiding paying (he is not a liar), as we answer here?

Answer#1: This is because there are a lot of questions on this answer.

Answer#2: Additionally, one cannot answer this for the question from Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa (which is also a question asked on Rav Nachman in the Gemara there).

Observation: In Bava Metzia (5b), the Gemara establishes that the case is where he takes it in his hands. Regarding a loan, even if he took the money in his hands, he is still fit to testify. This is because a loan is meant to be spent, and perhaps he needed the money.