And according to the one

<<who says

<<“here it is”

<<is exempt,

<<why

<<was needed

<<a verse

<<to exclude

<<land

<<from an oath?

<<But

<<all

<<land

<<“here it is”

<<it is!

He could say to you:

<<it was needed,

<<the verse,

<<where

<<he dug

<<in it

<<pits,

<<ditches

<<and caves.

Alternatively,

<<where

<<he claimed from him

<<vessels

<<and land,

<<and he admitted

<<the vessels

<<and denied

<<the land.

Come and hear,

<<for taught

<<Rami bar Chama:

<<four

<<watchmen

<<require

<<a denial

<<in part

<<and an admission

<<in part:

<<a watchman

<<unpaid,

<<and the borrower,

<<one who receives

<<payment,

<<and the renter.

What are the circumstances?

<<Is it not

<<where he said

<<to him:

<<“here it is”?

No;

<<where he said

<<to him:

<<three

<<cows

<<I handed over

<<to you

<<and they died

<<all of them

<<through negligence;

<<and said

<<to him

<<he:

<<one —

<<not

<<were

<<these things

<<ever,

<<and one

<<died

<<by accident,

<<and one

<<died

<<through negligence,

<<which I must

<<pay

<<you.

<<That is not

<<“here it is”

<<it is.

Come and hear,

<<for taught

<<the father

<<of Rabbi Aptoriki

<<Rabbi Chiya's

<<first [teaching]:

<<“a maneh

<<I have

<<in your hand,”

<<and the other

<<says:

<<“you have

<<nothing

<<in my hand

<<at all,”

<<and the witnesses

<<testify

<<about him

<<that there is

<<in his hand

<<fifty

<<zuz —

<<one might think

<<he should swear

<<about

<<the rest;

the verse states:

<<“for

<<any

<<lost item

<<of which

<<he says

<<that

<<it is

<<this”:

<<for

<<the admission of

<<his own mouth

<<you

<<obligate him,

<<and not

<<you

<<obligate him

<<for

<<the testimony of

<<witnesses!

A Baraisa

<<are you

<<raising

<<against

<<Rabbi Chiya?!

<<Rabbi Chiya

<<a tanna

<<is

<<and disagrees.

But

<<a verse

<<it states!

<<That one is

<<for one who admits

<<part of

<<the claim.

And the father

<<of Rabbi Aptoriki

<<could say to you:

<<it is written

<<“it is”

<<and it is written

<<“this”:

<<one

<<for one who admits

<<part of

<<the claim,

<<and one

<<for the testimony of

<<witnesses,

<<that he is exempt.

And the other:

<<one

<<for one who admits

<<part of

<<the claim,

<<and one

<<for one who admits

<<of the kind of

<<the claim.

And the other —

<<one who admits

<<of the kind of

<<the claim

<<he does not hold of,

<<and he holds

<<like Rabban Gamliel,

<<as we learned:

<<if he claimed from him

<<wheat,

<<and he admitted

<<to him

<<barley —

<<he is exempt;

<<and Rabban Gamliel

<<obligates.

A certain

<<shepherd

<<to whom they would

<<hand over

<<to him

<<every

<<day

<<the animals

<<before witnesses.

<<One day

<<they handed over

<<to him

<<without

<<witnesses.

<<In the end

<<he said

<<to them:

<<not

<<were

<<these things

<<ever.

<<Came

<<witnesses

<<and testified

<<about him

<<that he ate

<<two

<<of them.

<<Rabbi Zeira said:

<<if

<<it is so,

<<Rabbi Chiya's

<<first [teaching],

<<he swears

<<about the rest.

Abaye said to him:

<<if

<<it is so,

<<does he swear?!

<<But

<<a robber

<<he is!

<<He said to him:

<<about the one opposite him

<<I was speaking.

Now

<<too,

<<that there is no

<<teaching of Rabbi Chiya,

<<let us obligate him

<<from Rav Nachman's [ruling].

As we learned:

<<“a maneh

<<I have

<<in your hand,”

<<“nothing

<<do you have

<<in my hand” —

<<he is exempt.

<<And Rav Nachman said:

<<they impose on

<<him

<<an oath of

<<heses.

That of Rav Nachman

<<an enactment

<<it is,