Citation (cont.): However, regarding one witness, even if he claims only a Perutah, and one witness testifies that he owes, he must swear...

Answer #1 (Rabbeinu): We can say that Shmuel teaches like he taught elsewhere;

He taught above on the Mishnah there (39b) of the claim is two [Ma'ah of] Kesef, even if denied only a Perutah, or admitted only a Perutah, he is obligated [to swear];

Therefore, regarding one witness, for which the Chiyuv depends only on denial, even if he claims only a Perutah, he is obligated;

If you would say that we require a claim of two Kesef, he would have to deny the entire claim, so he would not be liable due to Modeh b'Miktzas, rather, [only] due to one witness.

Therefore, we should say that he is liable for a claim of a Perutah. It turns out that one is liable through one witness for denial of a Perutah, just like Modeh b'Miktzas.

Citation: In the conclusion of Shmuel's opinion, we bring a Beraisa that says that whenever two obligate Mamon, one obligates a Shevu'ah;

Suggestion: This is difficult for Rav, who holds that [Modeh b'Miktzas] requires denial of two Kesef!

Rejection: We do not learn from general rules, even when they say "except for" (there can be other exceptions).

Question: Really, [I can say that] we require a claim of two Kesef with one witness, just like for Modeh b'Miktzas, and he surely denied the two Kesef, but the witness testifies only about a Perutah!

Answer #2 (Rabbeinu): Shmuel's teaching is according to everyone. Even though we obligate Shevu'ah through one witness in a case that Modeh b'Miktzas would be exempt, this is unlike here;

There, it is a matter (Metaltelim) to which Shevu'ah normally applies.

However, denial of [a debt with] a lien on land, we never find anywhere a Shevu'ah about it. Therefore, we should exempt also one witness.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The difference between a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa and a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan is that one holds a [sacred] object while taking a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa, but not while taking a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan.

Contradiction: Rashi contradicts himself! In Gitin (35a), Rav told R. Yirmeyah of Difti "make her (a widow) vow in Beis Din, or swear outside of the Beis Din;

Rashi explained that she should not swear in Beis Din, for it is stringent, for one holds an object (and the Shevu'ah is mid'Rabanan)!

Explanation #2 (Rabbeinu): There is a difference according to R. Aba, whom the Halachah follows, who says (Shevu'os 47a) that [if both are disqualified from swearing], the Shevu'ah returns to the one who was obligated, and when he cannot swear, he pays.

This applies to a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa, but for a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan, even if she is suspected about swearing [falsely], he may not refrain from paying her due to this when she swears in order to collect, like here.

This is explicit there in Shevuos (41a).

Explanation #3: According to the opinion that we do not reverse a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa (the defendant cannot tell the claimant "if you want to collect, swear!"), but we reverse a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan, there is a difference also here;

If it is a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan, she can tell her husband "[if you want,] swear and exempt yourself", just like one [who needs to take a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan to exempt himself] can say "swear and collect";

If it is a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa, she cannot tell her husband "swear and exempt yourself", just like one [who must take a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa to exempt himself] cannot say "swear and collect."

Question: What was difficult to him? This is an argument in Sanhedrin (30b), whether witnesses of a loan, one after the other, join!

There is an opinion that does not require them to see [the testimony] at the same time. (Maharsha - indeed, she cannot contradict both of them and collect a third time, but he cannot establish the first payment to be a loan, for he already used the first witness to join to the second. The Bach and Gra (CM 30) say similarly. Mishmaros Kehunah says that Tosfos questions the Gemara's words, which connote that the witnesses do not join.)

Pesak: R. Chananel rules like we do in practice constantly, that we do not sell not in front [of the borrower] for a creditor. No one is concerned for Rav Nachman, who says even for a creditor.

Implied question: We ask from [Rav Nachman's] teaching in Erchin (22a)!

Citation (22a): If you are concerned for a receipt, also there, regarding Rav Nachman's teaching, you should be concerned for a receipt!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Rav Nachman's law is an enactment, lest people borrow [and go overseas, knowing that the lender will not be able to collect].

Summation of question: This connotes that the Stam Gemara holds like this (like Rav Nachman)!

Answer: In any case, since in practice constantly [we do not rule like this], we rely on the rejection in the Yerushalmi;

It asked in astonishment "do we collect from someone in his absence?!", and R. Yirmeyah answered "the case is, Ribis was increasing the loan."

Also, the Yerushalmi says that the Amora'im of Bavel and Eretz Yisrael agree that we send to the borrower three letters. If he comes, this is fine. If not, we collect from his property (R. Chananel).

Question: Why don't we answer that he holds like Shmuel, who says below (107a) that we do not allot food for a married woman?

[Shmuel] establishes the argument of Chanan and Bnei Kohanim Gedolim to be when we heard that he died. It properly says that the heirs make her swear! This requires investigation.

Explanation: In our Mishnah, her husband appointed her [to be an overseer] after death;

We cannot say that Beis Din commanded [that she be an overseer], for we do not establish women to be overseers, like it says in Gitin (52a);

We cannot say that she appointed herself [to be an overseer], for then all agree that the orphans can make her swear;

The reason [we exempt] an overseer that the father appointed, for if he would need to swear, people would not accept to be an overseer, does not apply;

Here, we want [that she not accept], for it is proper not to establish a woman to be an overseer.

Explanation: Now, we should say that it was not precise to say "the heirs do not make her swear", for the same applies to him himself;

Since we discuss being an overseer in her husband's lifetime, what distinction is there [between them and him]?

Since the Reisha taught that when she demands her Kesuvah, the heirs make her swear, for there it is specifically the heirs', also the Seifa mentioned the heirs.

Pesak: A case came in front of R. Tam in which her husband made her a grocer or she was appointed to be an overseer, and she dealt with much money in the house;

She told her husband that the money is not his. R. Tam did not make her swear in his lifetime;

Source: We establish R. Shimon's words "whenever she demands her Kesuvah" like Aba Sha'ul ben Eima Miryam, and regarding this we rule above (87a) like Aba Sha'ul;

If so, the Halachah follows all of R. Shimon's words. He concludes "[when] she does not demand her Kesuvah, the heirs cannot make her swear."

This is even if he made her a grocer or appointed her to be an overseer. We say that the Halachah follows [R. Shimon] in one case but not in another only when the Gemara explicitly says so.

Question: Above, we rule like Aba Sha'ul. If so, we should rules like R. Shimon, to teach two matters!

Answer: We do not explicitly know that R. Shimon holds like Aba Sha'ul. We could explain like the other Amora'im above.

Pesak: R. Chananel ruled like R. Shimon. He wrote "the Halachah follows R. Shimon. Therefore, one who claims her Kesuvah, the heirs make her swear on everything that was in her hand. They make her swear even about what was in her husband's lifetime;

If she does not claim her Kesuvah, they can make her swear only if they have a Vadai claim.

Consequence: All of these [Tana'im] that we wanted to establish R. Shimon like them, e.g. Aba Sha'ul ben Eima Miryam, Aba Sha'ul and Chanan, we must say that the Halachah follows them.

Implied question - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 17a - R. Yochanan): One who claims against (i.e. says that he is exempt from) any act of Beis Din, his words have no effect.

Explanation: This applies to 100 or 200 of a Kesuvah, feeding a wife and daughters, and even where they write a Kesuvah and she is not holding a Kesuvah, he is not believed to say that he paid.

Answer: R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere, in Bava Basra (171b) that [when the creditor says that he cannot find his document, and the borrower admits that he owes, he pays and] we write a receipt;

However, according to the opinion that that we do not write a receipt, even if he holds that his words have no effect, in any case where they write a Kesuvah, he need not pay until she returns the Kesuvah to him;

This is because through leaving the Kesuvah document in her hand, he could come to lose, for she will claim her Kesuvah in another Beis Din;

If the Kesuvah document will not remain in her hand, granted, he is not believed to say that he paid everything, for [the Mishnah says that] his words have no effect...

In any case he would be believed to say that he paid 100, Migo (since) if he wanted, he could say " I married you when you were a widow, if she has no witnesses of Heinuma (the custom is that at the Chupah of a Besulah, she has a dome of myrtle or a veil, and uncovered hair)

However, now that the Kesuvah remains in her hand, he will lose!

Implied question: Below (96a), R. Yochanan asked 'if orphans say "we gave", and she says "I did not receive", who must bring a proof?' (Our Mishnah clearly says that their words have no effect!)

Answer: This refers to food [that they needed to give to her in] the past. For the future, obviously the orphans must bring a proof, for one who claims against acts of Beis Din, his words have no effect.

Suggestion: [Another] reason why she must return the Kesuvah to him is if he will come with her to a place where they do not recognize that she [was] his wife, he will be believed to say that he paid everything, Migo if he wanted he could say "you are not (were never) my wife!

Rejection: Even if the Kesuvah will remain in her hand, he will be believed to say that he paid everything, Migo if he wanted he could say "I did not divorce you", for there are not there witnesses of divorce, since they do not recognize at all that she [was] his wife.

Explanation: According to R. Yochanan, we explain our Mishnah as follows. "If she showed a Get without a Kesuvah" does not mean specifically a Get. Rather, it is witnesses of divorce;

She collects her Kesuvah, for he is not believed to say that he paid.

Implied question: Why can't he say "I will not pay until you return the Kesuvah"? He could come to a loss!

Answer: R. Yochanan holds that we write a receipt [even though he could lose, if he loses the receipt, and later the creditor shows his document].

Explanation: "[She shows a] Kesuvah, and there is no Get with it. I.e. she has no witnesses of a Get. She says that she lost her Get, i.e. the witnesses went away, and he says that he already paid her, and he had a receipt lest she collect again, and it was lost...

He is believed through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could say "I did not divorce you." This is a good Migo, like I will explain in the Gemara.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, when a creditor claims "I had a Pruzbul and lost it", and [the borrower] admits that this is true, but he paid him, he is believed through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could say "you did not have a Pruzbul, and Shemitah cancelled the loan."

Explanation (cont.): R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, from the time of danger and onwards, a woman collects "without a Get." This means without witnesses of a Get, since it is impossible for her to bring witnesses of divorce.

Question: This is difficult for R. Yochanan. How does she collect, since there are no witnesses of divorce? He should be believed through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could say "I did not divorce you"!

The Gemara asks like this against Rav. If there are no witnesses of divorce, with what does she collect?

Answer: According to R. Yochanan, who says that Rabanan strengthened the woman's rights, and even before [the time of] danger he is not believed to say that he paid, it is not astounding that they strengthened her [power] after danger, since he agrees [that he divorced her];

He is not believed to say that he paid, even though he has a Migo.

However, according to Rav, that they did not strengthen her, the Gemara asks properly.

Explanation (cont.): According to Shmuel, who holds that we do not write a receipt, and he establishes our Mishnah to be in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah, or in a place where they write, and she brought a proof that he did not write for her...

Our Mishnah means as follows. "If she showed a Get" refers to a real Get. However, with mere witnesses of a Get, she does not collect.