The Gemara answers: The reason that the tanna cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is that the standard situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: I borrowed one hundred dinars from you and repaid the loan to you, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The tanna chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed money from another, and he says: I repaid the loan, he is not deemed credible. However, the tanna would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, as don’t we hold that in the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the borrower need not repay the loan in the presence of witnesses? Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession in the form of a loan, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, that his claim is deemed credible.

The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. In accordance with whose opinion would the mishna be taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn’t they say that in that case he is the equivalent of one returning a lost article? Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, didn’t he say that in that case the borrower is required to take an oath, and only then is his claim accepted?

This dispute is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: There are times when although no one claimed that another owes him money, a person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is required to take an oath that he repaid half, and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt from taking an oath.

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. Rav says: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor makes a claim against him. The lender’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Master say: One does not take an oath on the basis of the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.

The Gemara answers: In Rav’s statement, what is the meaning of minor? It means one who reached majority, and is therefore halakhically competent. And why does Rav call him a minor? It is due to the fact that with regard to his father’s matters, he is the equivalent of a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. If so, i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language for the following reason: It is the claim of others, but he is taking an oath on the basis of his own partial admission.

The Gemara asks: All claims where an oath is required are cases of a claim of others and his own admission. However, in the baraita, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath.

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. Here, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that one who makes a partial admission in response to the claim is required to take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor as to deny his debt. Presumably, this borrower who made a partial admission would have liked to deny the entire loan, and the fact that he did not deny the entire loan is due to the fact that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor.