Shevuos 7:6 - 7:7

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].