Rabba continues: Granted, if you say that his father, in a case like this, would be liable to take an oath, due to his partial admission, then the verse was necessary to exempt the heirs from taking the oath. But if you say that in a case like this, his father is also exempt from taking an oath, why do I need a verse about exempting the heirs? Evidently, an oath reverts to one who is liable to take it, and when he cannot take that oath he must pay the claim against him.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rav and Shmuel, who hold that one who cannot take an oath does not have to pay, and therefore there is no difference between the heirs and the father, what do they derive from this verse: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both” (Exodus 22:10)?

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon ben Tarfon says: The verse: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,” teaches that when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, the oath applies to them both, i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God’s name.

Since this Sage was mentioned, the Gemara cites some of his other statements. Shimon ben Tarfon says: With regard to the prohibition of following after an adulterer, i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, from where is it derived? The verse states: “You shall not commit adultery [lo tinaf ]” (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: You shall not cause adultery [lo tanif ].

Commenting on the verse describing the response of the Jewish people to the spies’ slander of Eretz Yisrael: “And you murmured [vatteragenu] in your tents and said: Because the Lord hated us, He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us” (Deuteronomy 1:27), Shimon ben Tarfon says: “Teragenu” is interpreted as though it is composed of two Hebrew expressions: You explored [tartem] the land, and: You disparaged [ginnitem] it, in the tent of the Omnipresent.

With regard to the verse: “As far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Deuteronomy 1:7), Shimon ben Tarfon says: Although it is not the largest river, the Euphrates is called great in accordance with the adage: Draw close to the one anointed with oil and become anointed as well. Because the Euphrates is close to Eretz Yisrael, it is called great. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a similar idea: The servant of a king is like a king.

§ The mishna teaches that the storekeeper relying on his ledger takes an oath and receives payment. If an employer tells a storekeeper to pay his laborers, and the storekeeper claims he paid them, while the laborers claim that they did not receive payment, both the storekeeper and the laborers take oaths and receive payment from the employer. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Why is there the bother with this oath, that it is imposed upon both of them? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: We learn in the mishna (see 45a) that both of them take an oath and receive payment of their claims from the employer.

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accept from him that this is the halakha, or did he not accept it from him? Come and hear as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The laborers take an oath to the storekeeper that he had not paid them. And if it is so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted Rabbi Ḥiyya’s ruling, then Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should have instead said that the laborers take an oath to the employer.

Rava said: Do not conclude that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not accept Rabbi Ḥiyya’s ruling. Rather, interpret his statement as follows: The laborers take an oath to the employer in the presence of the storekeeper, so that they will feel ashamed to lie with him present, since he knows whether or not he paid them.

§ It was stated about a similar topic that if there were two sets of witnesses who contradict one another, and it is clear that one set must be testifying falsely, Rav Huna says: This set can come by itself and testify about other cases, and that set can come by itself and testify. Neither set of witnesses is disqualified for future testimony, since there is no way of knowing which was lying. Rav Ḥisda said: Why do I need to become involved with lying witnesses? Since each set of witnesses is possibly untrustworthy, both sets are disqualified.

The Gemara cites the circumstances relevant to this dispute. If, after contradicting each other, the two sets of witnesses testified about circumstances involving two distinct lenders, and two distinct borrowers, and therefore two separate promissory notes, each one signed by a different set of witnesses, this sort of scenario is the subject of their dispute. According to Rav Huna both promissory notes are valid, and according to Rav Ḥisda neither is valid. In the case of a single lender, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, with each signed by a different one of the sets of witnesses, the holder of the promissory note is at a disadvantage and can collect only the lower sum. One of the promissory notes is necessarily not valid, as it is signed by witnesses who testified falsely.

In the case of two lenders, and a single borrower, and two promissory notes, this is the same as the mishna, where two claimants who contradict each other come to collect payment from a single person who must pay them both, as the evidence for both claims has a presumption of validity. In the case of two borrowers, and a single lender, and two promissory notes, what is the halakha? Can each of the borrowers claim that the promissory note supporting the claim against him is not valid, as it could have been signed by the untrustworthy set of witnesses; or does each of them have to pay unless he can prove that the promissory note against him was signed by the unfit set of witnesses? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection from a baraita: