דְּאָמַר רָבָא: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים, וְהַשְּׁאָר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

as Rava says: One who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty dinars that I am sure about, and as for the rest, I do not know. As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. Since he cannot take an oath to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, he must pay.

מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ רֵישָׁא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְסֵיפָא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ.

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted as referring to a case in which the defendant makes a partial admission, thereby requiring him to take an oath: You find it in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of two cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of three cows.

רֵישָׁא בִּשְׁתַּיִם – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁתֵּי פָרוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא בִּשְׁאֵילָה, וּפַלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא בִּשְׂכִירוּת. אִי נָמֵי: חַד יוֹמָא בִּשְׁאֵילָה, וְחַד יוֹמָא בִּשְׂכִירוּת, וּמֵתוּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה.

The Gemara explains: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where one took hold of two cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I delivered two cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that both died during a period of borrowing, so you are liable to pay for both of them.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ שׁוֹאֵל: חֲדָא – אִין, בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה, וְאִידַּךְ – לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה וְאִי בְּעִידָּן שְׂכִירוּת מֵתָה, דְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because he admits to part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

וְסֵיפָא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרוֹת נָתַתִּי לָךְ, שְׁתַּיִם בִּשְׁאֵילָה וְאַחַת בִּשְׂכִירוּת, וָמֵתוּ הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי דִּשְׁאֵילָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ שׁוֹאֵל: אִין, חֲדָא דִּשְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה, אִידַּךְ – לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי דִּשְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה וּדְקָיְימָא דִּשְׂכִירוּת הִיא, אִי דִּשְׂכִירוּת מֵתָה וְהָא דְּקָיְימָא דִּשְׁאֵילָה הִיא, וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

And one can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you; two through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those two that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And the borrower said to him: Yes, I admit that one of the cows that was borrowed died. But with regard to the other one that died, I do not know if it was the other cow that was being borrowed that died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being rented, or if the one that was being rented died, and this one that is still alive is the one that was being borrowed. Because he admits to part of the claim, in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim he is required to take an oath. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. And the halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

וּלְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, דְּאָמַר: אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִים צְרִיכִין כְּפִירָה בְּמִקְצָת וְהוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ רֵישָׁא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ וְסֵיפָא בְּאַרְבַּע.

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted even according to the unique opinion of Rami bar Ḥama: And the mishna can be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ḥama, who says: In order for any of the four types of bailees to be required to take an oath, they need to make both a denial of part of the owner’s claim and an admission of another part of his claim. According to his opinion, you find the bailee is liable to take an oath in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of three cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of four cows.

רֵישָׁא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרוֹת נָתַתִּי לְךָ, פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא בִּשְׁאֵלָה וּפַלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא בִּשְׂכִירוּת, אִי נָמֵי חַד יוֹמָא בִּשְׁאֵלָה וְחַד יוֹמָא בִּשְׂכִירוּת, וּמֵתוּ תְּלָת כּוּלְּהוּ בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה,

The Gemara elaborates: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that all three of them died during a period of borrowing, and so you are liable to pay for all of them.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ שׁוֹאֵל: חֲדָא – לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וַחֲדָא – אִין, בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה, וְאִידַּךְ – לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי בְּעִידָּן שְׁאֵילָה מֵתָה וְאִי בְּעִידָּן שְׂכִירוּת מֵתָה, דְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, this matter never occurred, as I took only two cows from you. And, as for the two cows I did take, with regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because the bailee admits to part of the claim and denies another part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for all three cows.

סֵיפָא בְּאַרְבַּע – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַרְבַּע פָּרוֹת נָתַתִּי לְךָ, שָׁלֹשׁ בִּשְׁאֵלָה, חֲדָא בִּשְׂכִירוּת, וּמֵתוּ הָנָךְ שָׁלֹשׁ דִּשְׁאֵלָה. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ

One can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of four cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave four cows to you, three through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those three that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And he said to him,