כל הנשבעין. נשבעין ולא משלמין – The Torah did not institute for the person making a claim to take an oath and to take/regain their due, but rather for the one investigated that he takes an oath and does not pay, as it is written (Exodus 22:10): “[an oath before the LORD shall decide between the two of them that one has not laid hands on the property of the other;] the owner must acquiesce, and no restitution shall be made.” Whomever that it is upon him to pay is the one who must take an oath.

ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין – that the Sages established for them to take an oath and to regain their due. And all of this is explained further on in our Mishnah.

השכיר – The Sages established for him to take an oath and to take his due because the owner of the house/employer is preoccupied with all of his workers and does not remember. And these words are when he makes a claim at the present time. The hired day laborer (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 9, Mishnah 12) his present time is all day long that is after him , but if they made a claim against him after his time, the owner of the house takes an equitable oath (which is applied if one is sued for a debt, denies the later entirely (כופר הכל), in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the time ( מודה במקצת) . It being presumed that nobody will go to the law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant (see Talmud Shevuot 40b) – that he paid him and departed, but if he had been hired without witnesses being present, also, the hired person cannot take an oath and take his due because he (i.e., the owner of the house/employer) can say to him: “I never hired you.” He also can say to him: “I hired you and gave you your wages.”

והוא אומר נתתי – but he said to him: “I stipulated/agreed upon two [Zuz] and he (i.e., the employer) says, “I stipulated for you only one (see Talmud Shevuot 45b). The owner takes the oath of the Torah that it is according to his words, and he only gives him one.

למשכנו שלא ברשות – as in the case where witnesses saw that he entered into the house of his fellow, and there was nothing in his hand and he left from there with utensils inserted under his arms.

הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – for the words are proven that the witnesses testify that he had a pledge taken without permission,. And what he was carrying was something where one is believed to be wealthy. But if he was carrying a silver cup, or something like it, it is a matter that they would not have believed him to be wealthy. Is it not within his powers to take an oath and take his rightful due? But rather, the person whom the claim is made against should take an oath and be exempt.

הרי זה נשבע ונוטל – and specifically when the wound is in a place where it is possible that he wounded himself, and because of this, it requires an oath. But if it is in a place where he cannot wound himself, and it is recognized that others did it to him, as for example, when a bite occurred to him on his back, and there is no one else there, for he is able to say, perhaps another [person] did it, he takes [his compensation] without an oath [being administered].

שבועת שוא – needless to say/not only t an oath of testimony and an oath of deposit which have in them the denial of money which is bad/evil for Heaven (k.e., God) and for humanity, but even an oath taken in vain, which is only bad regarding Heaven, for corresponding to it, he takes an oath and takes [his payment]. But the oath on a statement (i.e., taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story) is not taught, for the oath on a statement is regarding the future, as for example, “I will eat or I won’t eat,” one could say that when he took the oath, he took that oath truthfully, for it was his intention to fulfill it, and even though his inclination compelled him and he transgressed upon it, he is not suspected upon this through the oath. But [an oath] of statement of the past [action], “I ate, I ate,” it is similar to an oath taken in vain, for he pronounced a false oath form his lips.

היה אחד מהן משחק בקוביא – {The Mishnah] taught those who are ineligible from the Torah and also taught those who are ineligible according to the Rabbis (see Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 8 and Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3, for similar listings to that found in our Mishnah).

ומפריחי יונים – there are those who interpret, if your dove will come before my dove, I will give you such-and-such, which is equivalent to gambling, and there are those who explain that he raises a knowledgeable pigeon who to bring pigeons to the house of its owner, and there with these theft because of the ways of peace.

וסוחרי שביעית – they do business with Seventh-year produce, and the Torah stated (Leviticus 25:6): “[But you may] eat [whatever the land during its sabbath will produce,” but not for business.

חזרה שבועה למקומה – There are those who interpret in the Gemara (Tractate Shevuot 47a) that it returned to Sinai, to the oath at Mount Sinai that the Holy One, Blessed be He caused the Isralites to swear that they would not steal , and he He will collect from the indemnity the money for his fellow, but the Jewish court has no need neither for the an oath nor for collection. But there are those who interpret that the oath returned to the one liable for it, on that he admitted to part, and since he cannot take an oath, he is suspect and he must pay.

שניהם נשבעים ונוטלין מבעל הבית (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) – the storekeeper said to hi, the workers are not believable to me with an oath; you declare them as trustworthy for you did not say to me with witnesses, “give to them.” And similarly, the workers say to him: “The storekeeper is not believable to us with an oath.” But when both (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take an oath frand take from the owner of the house, they take an oath, one in the presence of the other, that just as that the storekeeper is frightened from the workers or the workers [are frightened] from the storekeeper.

אלו ואלו באין לידי שבועת שוא – for perforce, one of them takes a false oath and it is found that the name of Heaven is profaned. But rather, both of these (i.e., the storekeeper and the workers) take their money without an oath. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Nanos.

ולא נתן לו – and the produce are piled up and placed in the public domain and are not held in possession either by he storekeeper nor by the house owner.

ונתתו באנפליא (in the merchant’s money chest into which receipts are dropped through a slit) – a casing/sheath that is made for money.

ישבע בעל הבית – an oath like that of the Torah, and he will take [the money], for since the storekeeper admits that he sold , and the produce are outside of his store, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes it.

רמק לו נתתים לך. והלכתן לתוך ביתך – and this piled up produce that is left [in the public domain] are mine, that I gave here to sell them, and the other claims, they are the produce that you sold me for a Denar. Since the purchaser admits to the transaction/sale and the storekeeper denies that he sold those [particular produce], the storekeeper takes an oath aan other like that of the Torah and takes [the money].

רבי יהודה אומר וכו' – Rabbi Yehuda is disputing the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], and stated, whether this or whether that, the owner of the house takes an oath and takes [his produce]. For since the produce are outside of the store, they are as if the produce are in the hands of the owner of the house, and whomever has the produce in hand – his hand is on top/has the advantage and he takes an oath and takes [them].

אמר לשולחני וכו' – The Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] comes to tell us that the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, whether with regard to the money of the money changer, or with regard to produce of the storekeeper, for if [the Mishnah] had taught [only] the dispute regarding the storekeeper, , I would state that the Rabbis spoke of the produce, and when he (i.e., the storekeeper) said to him (i.e., the purchaser, the house owner), “I gave them to you, and you took them into your house,” the storekeeper should take an oath and take [his money], because the storekeeper customarily gives the produce prior to taking the Denar, but the money changer does not customarily give the Issarim prior to taking the Denar, I would say that he agrees with Rabbi Yehudah, that the house owner always takes an oath and takes [his produce]. And if it was said with this, it was with this that Rabbi Yehuda stated it, for always the house owner takes an oath and takes [his produce], because the money changer does not customarily hand over Issarim until he takes the Denar. But the storekeeper, who customarily gives the produce prior to his taking the Money, I would say that he agrees with the Rabbis. Both [opinions] are necessary. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

הפוגמת כתובתה – she produces the document of her Ketubah/marriage contract and it admits that it has been partially received.

לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – if the husband claims that she received all of it.

עד אחד אומר וכו'. ומנסכים משועבדים ומנכסי היתומים כו'. ונפרעת שלא בפניו – all of this is as it is exists., just as not one of these is collected other than through an oath, thus orphans do not collect other than through an oath. Orphans who collect from the orphans do not collect other than through an oath. But our Mishnah is speaking of a case where the orphans that come to collect from them state: “Se don’t know if our father paid off this lien or not,” but if they claimed: “Our father told us that he did not borrow these money and did not ever obligate himself in this lien, the orphans who produce a lien document on these orphans collect from them without an oath, for anyone who says, “I did not borrow” is like someone who says I did not pay the debt, and they are not able to contradict the witnesses who testify that their father borrowed these funds. And they did not teach that through an oath, at least, the orphans took from orphans, but rather that the lender/creditor died during the life of the borrower/debtor, but if the debtor/borrower died during the life of the borrower, the lender was already liable to take an oath to the children of the borrower that nothing had been received, that he had collected from the orphans even with a document that requires an oath, for a person does not bequeath money that he is liable for an oath to his children, for the children are not able to take an oath that their father had obligated himself to. And even though this is the law, if a judge decides that the orphans should take an oath that father did not give us instructions nor pay back from the monies that the other orphans through this oath. What is done is done.

שלא פקדנו אבא – at the time of [his] death.

ושלא אמר לנו [that he did not tell us anything] prior to this, that this document was paid off.

הרי זה נשבע – that he did not find among his father’s documents that this document was paid off. And such is the Halakha.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר – And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel [that at the time of death, the document had not been paid off, the son may collect the debt without taking an oath].

שלא בטענה – without an evident/sure claim, but rather a possible [alternative] claim, for he claims that perhaps you withheld from me. But because of of these teach a permitted action for themselves because they were busy with property, because of this, the Rabbis placed an oath upon them.

והאפוטרופסים – that were in engaged in the money of a person to earn and to spend and to engage in business. But the guardian/administrator of orphans, if the Jewish court appointed him, he does not take an oath.

והאשה הנושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית – her husband placed her as a storekeeper or administrator/guardian over his possessions.

ובן בית – one of the brothers who was engaged with property when their father died.

חלקו – but they did not have him take an oath at the time of the division [of property].

נתגלגלה לו שבועה – with them afterwards. They impose nupon him als this [oath] upon him, in the same manner that impose upon the oath of the Torah and with an oath that is similar to that of the Torah; so they impose upon him the oath of inducement.

והשביעית משמטת את השבועה – this not referring to the oath of partners, for the Seventh Year does not release partners nor its oath, but rather, from a borrower/debtor and its oath [the Seventh Year] releases.