“Selaim,”

<<“dinarin” —

<<the lender

<<says

<<five,

<<and the borrower

<<says

<<three.

<<Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

<<says:

<<since

<<he admitted

<<part of

<<the claim,

<<he shall swear.

<<Rabbi Akiva

<<says:

<<he is not

<<but

<<like one returning

<<a lost object,

<<and exempt.

It teaches

<<at any rate:

<<Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

<<says:

<<since

<<he admitted

<<part of

<<the claim,

<<he shall swear.

<<The reason is

<<that he said

<<three;

<<but

<<two —

<<he is exempt,

<<and this

<<document

<<that he admits

<<in it

<<“here it is”

<<it is;

<<so learn

<<from it:

<<“here it is”

<<is exempt!

No;

<<actually

<<I could say

<<to you:

<<two

<<is obligated,

<<and this

<<that it teaches

<<three

<<is to exclude

<<the view of Rabbi Akiva,

<<who said:

<<one returning

<<a lost object

<<he is,

<<and exempt;

<<it teaches us

<<that one who admits

<<part of

<<the claim

<<he is,

<<and obligated.

If so,

<<Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

<<says:

<<since

<<he admitted

<<part of

<<the claim,

<<he shall swear.

<<“even

<<this one

<<shall swear”

<<it should have said!

Rather:

<<actually

<<two

<<is exempt,

<<and “here it is”

<<is obligated;

<<and different is

<<here,

<<for

<<supports

<<him

<<the document.

Alternatively:

<<because

<<it is

<<a document of

<<lien on

<<land,

<<and one does not

<<swear

<<about

<<the denial of

<<a lien on

<<land.

There are

<<who object

<<from the latter clause:

<<Rabbi Akiva

<<says:

<<he is not

<<but

<<like one returning

<<a lost object,

<<and exempt.

<<The reason is

<<that he said

<<three;

<<but

<<two —

<<he is obligated.

<<And this

<<document,

<<since

<<that he

<<admits

<<in it,

<<like “here it is”

<<it is —

<<learn

<<from it:

<<“here it is”

<<is obligated!

No;

<<actually

<<I could say

<<to you:

<<two

<<also

<<is exempt,

<<and this

<<that it teaches

<<three

<<is to exclude

<<the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

<<who said:

<<one who admits

<<part of

<<the claim

<<he is,

<<and obligated;

<<it teaches us

<<that one returning

<<a lost object

<<he is,

<<and exempt.

So too

<<it stands to reason,

<<for if

<<it enters your mind

<<two

<<is obligated —

<<with three

<<how

<<exempts

<<him

<<Rabbi Akiva?

<<This one

<<a ruse

<<he is using!

<<He thinks:

<<if

<<I say

<<two,

<<I will have

<<to swear;

<<let me say

<<three,

<<so that I be

<<like one returning

<<a lost object,

<<and be exempt.

<<Rather,

<<learn from it:

<<two

<<also

<<is exempt.

But

<<it is difficult

<<for Rabbi Chiya!

<<Different is

<<there,

<<for

<<supports

<<him

<<the document.

<<Alternatively:

<<because

<<it is

<<a document of

<<lien on

<<land,

<<and one does not

<<swear

<<about

<<the denial of

<<a lien on

<<land.

Raised an objection

<<Mar Zutra, son of Rav Nachman:

<<if he claimed from him

<<vessels

<<and land,

<<he admitted

<<the vessels

<<and denied

<<the land,

<<he admitted

<<the land

<<and denied

<<the vessels —

<<he is exempt.

<<If he admitted

<<part of

<<the land —

<<he is exempt;

<<part of

<<the vessels —

<<he is obligated.

The reason is

<<of vessels

<<and land,

<<for land

<<is not

<<subject to

<<an oath

<<it is;

<<but

<<vessels

<<and vessels,

<<similar

<<to vessels

<<and land —

<<he is obligated.

<<What are the circumstances?

<<Is it not

<<where he said

<<to him

<<“here it is” —

<<so learn

<<from it:

<<“here it is”

<<is obligated!

No;

<<actually

<<I could say

<<to you:

<<vessels

<<and vessels

<<too

<<is exempt;

<<and this

<<that it teaches

<<vessels

<<and land —

<<this

<<is what it teaches us:

<<if he admitted

<<part of

<<the vessels

<<he is obligated

<<even

<<about

<<the land.

What

<<does it teach us —

<<that they bind?

<<We have learned it:

<<they bind,

<<the properties

<<that have no

<<guarantee [movables],

<<the properties

<<that have

<<guarantee [land],

<<to swear

<<about them.

Here

<<it is the main point;

<<there

<<incidentally

<<in passing

<<it took it.