Would you say - regarding the oath [imposed as a result] of the [two] witnesses, where he does not swear regarding that which they testified to, but rather regarding what they did not testify to. Would he swear regarding that which he denied, and not regarding that which they testified to? How can you justify being so stringent?

From the extension of an oath due to the testimony of one witness - if he had been obligated to take an oath due to the testimony of one witness, as we have stated, and there was another claim against him for which no oath had been imposed, we may extend this oath onto him and make him swear to both of them. The extension of an oath is from Torah law, as is derived in Kiddushin [Kiddushin 27b:5] from "and the woman shall say: Amen, amen" [Numbers 5:22] -- one can be made to swear even regarding that about which the witness did not testify.

That an oath leads to an oath - the witness only obligates him to take an oath regarding that about which he testified; it is the oath that leads to [the second] oath. Would you then say the same regarding these witnesses? They would obligate him to pay the fifty about which they testified, but there is no oath here that could be used to lead to another oath regarding the rest of the sum.

One's mouth can prove - [that is,] one who admits to part of the claim -- he swears regarding that portion which he denied -- about which his mouth did not admit.

A claim and a denial - [one litigant] claims and the other denies -- those which are coming to court.

Does not assume the presumptive status of one who [falsely] denies - he does not assume the presumptive status of a false denier because of what he denied -- maybe he has not [truly] contradicted him, since the [single] witness is not believed to render him [legally] contradicted and to cause him to assume the presumptive status of a [false] denier.

Would you say with regard to witnesses - due to the fact that he denied the entire [claim], and they testified about the fifty, he is presumed to be a [false] denier, and we shall not say that we will believe him if he takes an oath.

One who denies a loan - whether the entire amount or a portion of it, and witnesses come and testify before he had a chance to swear.

Fit to bear witness - and we do not say he is a thief. The Torah states: "you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a witness." [Exodus 23:1] Since loaned [money] is meant to be spent, maybe he needed to spend it, and thought "if I admit to him now, before I have the money, he will demand it from me immediately." But one who denies receiving a deposit, or even a portion thereof, and witnesses come and testify against him, he is rendered unfit to give testimony -- what right did he have to evade [the owner]? Perhaps you might say that he lost [the entrusted item] and is evading [the owner] until he can find it -- later on in our chapter we will establish that [we are dealing with a situation] where witnesses came and testified that [the bailee] has it in his possession right now.