1. Ruling on monetary or capital cases based on circumstantial evidence

Rebbe Yose HaGlili proved that שבועת העדות only applies to monetary claims, because the passuk implies it can be established בידיעה בלא ראיה – with knowledge without sight, e.g., where עדים saw the defendant admitting to a debt (without having seen the loan itself). Rav Pappa asked Abaye if Rebbe Yose HaGlili disagrees with Rebbe Acha, who rules monetary cases based on circumstantial evidence (which is also “knowledge without sight”). Rebbe Acha says that if a camel was seen mating, and another camel was found killed near it, we assume this camel killed it (because mating camels become violent). If Rebbe Yose agrees, then "ידיעה בלא ראיה" would have an application for דיני נשפות as well, such as the incident of Shimon ben Shetach, who saw a person chase someone into a ruin, and found a bloody sword in the pursuer’s hand, and the victim dying. He told the pursuer: רשע מי הרגו לזה – Wicked one, who killed this person? או אני או אתה – Either I or you! But what can I do, when your blood is not in my hand to administer justice? אלא המקום יפרע ממך – Rather, may Hashem punish you!” A snake immediately bit the murderer, and he died. The Gemara explains how Rebbe Yose can agree with Rebbe Acha.

1. A defendant caught lying about an incident which does not prove a debt

Rav Yehudah asked, if someone says, מנה מניתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני – “I counted out a maneh to you as a loan before Ploni and Ploni,” what is the halachah? Rav Hamnuna replied: what did the defendant say? If he denied receiving the money, הוחזק כפרן – he is established as a liar, since witnesses testified that he did (and he can no longer claim the money was his). If he responds that the money was given to him, but it was his, then the testimony is inconsequential!? A תובע once said, “I counted out a maneh to you by this pillar,” and the נתבע denied ever having been by the pillar. Witnesses testified that he had once relieved himself there, and Reish Lakish ruled: הוחזק כפרן – he is established as a liar, and must pay. Rav Nachman objected that he was only denying being at this pillar for this transaction, not that he was never there. In another version, Rava argued: כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש – any matter which is not incumbent on a person to recall, עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה – he does without noticing, and is not considered a liar for denying it.

1. Difference between שבועת העדות and שבועת הפדון re: korban for a מזיד

Earlier, Rebbe Shimon attempted to prove that שבועת העדות only applies to monetary testimonies by comparing it with שבועת הפקדון. However, he said they cannot be compared, because שבועת הפקדון has two leniencies relative to שבועת העדות: he must express the shevuah himself, and a מזיד is not obligated in a korban like a שוגג. Therefore, he concluded that it must be derived through a gezeirah shavah (תחטא תחטא). In Eretz Yisroel, they ridiculed the text of this Baraisa. The Gemara discusses at length what they found laughable, and suggests that after the gezeirah shavah, the laws of the two categories should match. It explains that שבועת הפקדון is not derived to be liable for מזיד, because we derive the opposite from מעילה (to which it is more similar). But why did he not derive from פקדון to שבועת העדות that it, too, is exempt for מזיד? The Gemara answers that שבועת העדות was written near other passages which both mention "ונעלם" – and it was concealed (i.e., שוגג) and did not do so for שבועת העדות, teaching that it is even liable for מזיד.

Siman - Ladder. The Rabbi standing on a ladder who spotted a man who chased someone into a ruin come out with a bloody sword and the victim dying, which was the same ladder that a debtor denied being at, even though we once tied his shoelace on it, was nervous when he saw a distracted bochur walking towards the ladder trying to figure out which is more similar to a שבועת הפקדון; is it שבועת העדות or מעילה regarding bringing a קרבן?