(Mishnah): When one must swear mid'Oraisa, it is to avoid paying. The following people take a [Rabbinic] oath and collect: a worker, a Nigzal (victim of theft), a Nechbal (one who was wounded), one who claims from a defendant who is disqualified from swearing, and a grocer swearing about his ledger.

The case of a worker is that Reuven claims (on the day he worked) that he was not paid, and Shimon (the employer) says 'I paid you.' Reuven swears that he was not paid, and collects.

R. Yehudah says, he swears and collects only if Shimon partially admits, e.g. Reuven claims wages of 50 [silver] Dinarim and Shimon says "you received a gold Dinar (it is worth 25 of silver)."

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Since it says "Shevu'as Hash-m Tihyeh Bein Shneihem", we know already that if he does not swear, he must pay! Why does it say "v'Lakach Ba'alav v'Lo Yeshalem"?

Answer: This teaches that once the owner accepted the Shevu'ah, [the defendant] is exempt from paying (i.e. in every Torah Shevu'ah, one swears to be exempt).

Question (R. Chagai to R. Yosi): Why [did Rav Asi say that the one who infers the positive from the negative] is R. Meir? It is even like Rabanan!

Didn't Rav Asi say in the name of R. Yochanan "R. Meir holds that from the negative you infer the positive? [Chachamim agree that] "v'Lakach Ba'alav v'Lo Yeshalem" - if he does not swear, he must pay!

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): A Shomer Chinam or Shomer Sachar may stipulate to be [liable for Ones] like a borrower. (Likewise, a Shomer can obligate himself to pay through refusing to swear - RIDVAZ.)

Answer (R. Chaninah): All agree that in the wording of the Torah, from the negative you infer the positive. What do they argue about? They argue about whether or not we say so about the way people speak.

(R. Avin): Since the employer has many dealings, [he is pronbe to forget, so Chachamim] enacted that a worker swear and collect.

Similarly, they enacted for the Ba'al ha'Bayis that if the time [to claim his wages] passed, [the worker] does not swear and collect.

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): If there are witnesses that he claimed from him in the time, even after a year he swears and collects.

(R. Yosi): He has only that day [to swear and collect].

(R. Yonah): R. Yosi bei R. Chaninah and Reish Lakish argued about this. One of them said "if he claimed from him during the day, he has only the day. [If he claimed from him] at night, he has only the night";

The other said, [even in that day or night in which he swears and collects, this is only] when [the first time] he claimed from him and he told him "I gave to you", but if he told him "I will give to you", the Chazakah is that he gave [later].

We do not know who said this, and who said this.

Inference: Since R. Chama bar Ukva said in the name of Reish Lakish "if he claimed from him during the day, he has only the day; at night, he has only the night", this shows that R. Yosi bar Chaninah said when he claimed from him and he told him "I gave to you", but if he told him "I will give to you", the Chazakah is that he gave.

(R. Mana): Sometimes he claims from him after the time, and it becomes like in the time (the worker is believed).

How is this? If he claimed from him and he told him "I did not give to you yesterday. I gave to you today", that day becomes as if it was yesterday (HAGAHOS R. DINAR). He gives to [the worker] one Shi'ur (one day or night in which the worker is believed, depending on when he first claimed from him).

If [the employer says that] he gave the wage in advance, [the worker] swears and collects. If [the worker] had a security in his hand [for his wage], he collects without a Shevu'ah.

If [the worker] was a slave - does Beis Din give a Shevu'ah to a slave?! If [the worker] was suspected [to swear falsely] - does Beis Din give a Shevu'ah to a Chashud?! (Rather, in both cases the employer swears that he paid him - RAN on the Rif, 27a.)

If both of them were suspected, R. Meir and R. Yosi argue about this;

If both of them were suspected, the Shevu'ah returns to its place. (Bavli 47a brings two explanations of this. Our teachers in Bavel say that it returns to Sinai, i.e. Hash-m will punish one who denies what he owes, but Beis Din withdraws. Our teachers in Eretz Yisrael say that it returns to the one who needed to swear, and since he cannot, he pays.) R. Yosi says so. R. Meir says, they divide.

Obviously, if the employer died, the worker swears to his heirs.

Implied question: And even if the worker died, do his heirs swear to the employer's heirs?

Answer: Chachamim enacted for the worker. Did they enact for his heirs?! (Surely they did not! We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

(R. Lazar): [Our Mishnah] is only if he hired him in front of witnesses. If not, the employer is believed to say "I gave to you your wage."

(R. Yochanan): We do not say in cases of Mamon Migo, e.g. since he could tell him "I did not hire you', he can tell him "I hired you and gave to you your wage." (Migo helps when we suspect that someone lies. Here we do not suspect the employer to lie, rather, he errs amidst distraction due to his many dealings. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Question: A Beraisa argues with R. Lazar! "What is the case? It is when [the employer] says "I gave" and [the worker] says "I did not receive", but if he said "you hired me", and he says "I did not hire you", ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to collect, one must bring a proof).

This is difficult for R. Lazar! If he hired him in front of witnesses, how could he say "I did not hire you"?! (Rather, he hired him not in front of witnesses, and in the Reisha, he swears and collects. This is like R. Yochanan, and unlike R. Lazar!)

Question (R. Ba Kartinga): If [the employer] says "you worked for me for one day, and I paid you", and [the worker] says "I worked for you for two days, and you did not pay me anything" - obviously, for the second day he does not receive through a Shevu'ah. The first day, R. Yochanan and R. Lazar argue [about whether or not he swears and collects. R. Ba asks whether there can be two laws for one claim, and similarly in the coming case.]

If [the employer] says "I stipulated to pay you one Sela, and I paid you", and [the worker] says "you stipulated to pay me two Sela'im, and you did not pay me anything" - obviously, he does not receive the second Sela through a Shevu'ah. The first Sela, R. Yochanan and R. Lazar argue [about whether or not he swears and collects. We explained this like RIDVAZ.]

(Rav Huna): If after he swore [to deny having a deposit], witnesses saw it in the trough [of the Shomer], the Shevu'ah already stole it (the owner received a Shevu'ah in place of his animal).

Note: Chasam Sofer (Chulin 40a) says that this is like Rav holds, that a thief tunneling into a house acquires through his blood. Marcheshes (2:29:16) - once he swears, the owner despairs. Agra d'Kalah - also one who imposes an oath is punished, for he should have pardoned his money to avoid the need for a Shevu'ah. Therefore, he never collects later.

Question: A Beraisa argues with Rav Huna! "Where is my ox?" "It was lost." I impose a Shevu'ah on you", and he answered Amen, and witnesses testify that he ate it, he pays principal. If he admitted by himself, he pays principal, Chomesh and brings an Asham!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses when he ate it and afterwards swore to him. (He was already liable from when he ate it). Rav Huna discusses when he swore, and afterwards ate it.

Question: R. Yehudah contradicts himself! There (a buyer arguing with a grocer about whether or not he gave money or received Peros), he does not require [partial] admission [to say that there is a Shevu'ah], and here he requires admission!

Answer: There, since it is not like a Torah Shevu'ah (e.g. to hold a Kodesh object while swearing), it is even without admission. Here, since it is like a Torah Shevu'ah, it is only if he admits. (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Question: Can one be Megalgel a Torah Shevu'ah on a Shevu'ah that is an enactment [mid'Rabanan]?

Answer: We learn from the following. We are Megalgel a Torah Shevu'ah on a Torah Shevu'ah, an enacted Shevu'ah on an enacted Shevu'ah, a Torah Shevu'ah on an enacted Shevu'ah, and an enacted Shevu'ah on a Torah Shevu'ah.

Rejection: There, [in both Shevu'os] he swears and does not pay. However, here, this Shevu'ah is to swear and collect, and this is to swear and not pay. (Perhaps Gilgul does not apply in such a case.)