(Mishnah): We swear only about something with a measure, weight or number:

What is the case? If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with a full house or wallet (e.g. of grain or coins) and Shimon said 'I don't know how much it was. Take what is there', he is exempt [from swearing]

If Reuven claimed 'it was full up to the ledge', and Shimon said 'it was up to the window', he is obligated.

(Gemara - R. Chaninah): If Reuven says ['I entrusted you with] a big lamp', and Shimon said 'a small lamp', he is obligated.

Question (Mishnah): We swear only about something with a measure, weight or number!

Answer (R. Ba bar Mamal): He discusses a lamp composed of rings. (E.g. he claimed a lamp of 20 rings, and he admitted to a 10 ring lamp.)

If Reuven says ['I entrusted you with] a big belt, and Shimon said 'a small [belt]' - R. Chiyah taught about this, but we do not know what he taught;

If you will say that he is liable, our Mishnah argues, for it says that we swear only about something with a measure, weight or number!

If you will say that he is exempt, a Mishnah argues, for it says that if this one says '[I bought from you a] big [clothed slave]', and this one says '[I sold to you a] small [clothed slave]', the seller swears that he sold a small one!

Note: The Yerushalmi leaves this difficult. Why did it not answer that he claimed a belt of 20 loops, and admitted to a belt of 10 loops, just like R. Ba answered about a lamp? The Bavli (43a) says like this! Can we say that belts of loops were common in Bavel, but almost unheard of in Eretz Yisrael, so the Yerushalmi did not want to say that R. Chiyah discusses this?

If this one says 'I do not know', and this one says 'I do not know', they divide.

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

If Reuven claims "I lent to you [four Dinarim, i.e.] a Sela, and [the security] was worth two (Dinarim, i.e. a Shekel, so you still owe two Dinarim)" and Shimon claims "you lent to me four [Dinarim], and it was worth four", he is exempt (he denies the entire claim);

If Reuven claims "I lent to you four, and it was worth two", and Shimon says "no, rather, lent to me four, and it was worth three", he is obligated [to swear, for he admits to a Dinar and denies a Dinar];

If Shimon claims "you lent to me four, and it was worth eight" (so you owe to me four), and Reuven claims "I lent to you four, and it was worth four", he is exempt (he denies the entire claim);

If Shimon claims "you lent to me four, and it was worth eight", and Reuven claims "no, rather, I lent to you four, and it was worth five", he is obligated [to swear that he owes only one].

Who swears? The one who was watching the security (i.e. Reuven) swears. If Shimon would swear, perhaps Reuven would take out the security [and Shimon would be disqualified, for we see that he swore falsely, or it would turn out that he swore needlessly, for we can evaluate it ourselves].

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): The lender is believed to say "I lent to you up to the value of the security."

Observation: The Mishnah says that even the borrower is believed [that the security was worth as much as the loan], for it teaches that if [the lender] claims "I lent to you four, and it was worth two", and he replies "you lent to me four, and it was worth four", he is exempt!

A man approached his friend in the market, and said "you owe to me two Dinarim, and your security is worth two Dinarim", and he replied "I owe to you one, and my security is worth two";

The case came in front of judges of Neharde'a. They said, since all agree that the security is worth two, the other (the lender) must bring witnesses [that he lent two].

Question: Did they not hear that R. Yochanan taught that the lender is believed to say "I lent to you up to the value of the security"?!

A man approached his friend in the market, and lifted the other's cloak, and said "this cloak will not leave my hand until you give to me what you owe to me!"

He came in front of Shmuel. He said, give to him his cloak, and go to Din with him.

Question: Does Shmuel hold like the judges of Neharde'a?! (R. Yochanan would say that he is believed up to the value of the cloak!)

Answer: (He need not hold like them.) There (the case of judges of Neharde'a and R. Yochanan), he was established to have the security. Here, he was not established to have the security (he seized it without permission).

(Mishnah): Who swears? The one who was watching the security.

(Rav and Reish Lakish): This refers to [the Seifa of] the Reisha. Reuven claims "I lent to you four, and it was worth two, and Shimon says "you lent to me four, and it was worth three." He is obligated. (Really, he should swear and pay only one. Due to concern lest Reuven take out the security afterwards, Chachamim enacted that Reuven swears and collects two.)

(Shmuel): The Shevu'ah does not depart from them (one of them must swear.)

(Why would we think that neither swears?) If the lender swears, he swears and collects! (He should not be believed to swear and collect. Also, this is not listed in the Mishnah of those who swear and collect. If the borrower swears, perhaps Reuven will take out and show the security! (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Implied question: If Shimon claims "you lent to me four, [and it was worth eight]" (so you owe to me four), and Reuven says "I do not know [what it was worth", what is the law?]

Answer (R. Ba citing Rav Huna citing Rav): [We tell Reuven] "you do not know, but the other knows!" (Pay four, like he says.)

Question (R. Yehoshua of Yuma, to R. Yonah): There (in the Seifa of the Reisha, you took the Shevu'ah from the borrower and let the lender swear and collect, for) you say "you (the borrower) do not know [the value of the security], and he (the lender) knows", and here you say so (that the borrower knows, even though the lender does not know)?!

Answer: There, [we did not switch the Shevu'ah from the borrower to the lender because the lender knows better, rather, due to] Chilul Shevu'ah (lest the lender take out the security afterwards). Here, there is no [concern for] Chilul Shevu'ah (e.g. witnesses saw that the security was burned. Therefore, the borrower swears. We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

Note: How did R. Yehoshua err to think that we switched the Shevu'ah because the lender knows better? The Mishnah says "lest he take out the security"!