Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter in law, Sigal. "She is a superwoman and inspirational wife, mother and Torah Jew!" 

Today's daf is sponsored by Romi and Josh Sussman in honor of their oldest son finishing 3 years and 8 months of service in the IDF this week. "We have been in awe of how you carried yourself with grace, confidence, determination and leadership since the day your service started. Through countless nights in the shetach and months in Gaza, you have stayed true to yourself. We love you and couldn't possibly be more proud of your service!"

One more question is raised against Rav Sheshet who holds that one who partially admits a claim but says 'heilach' is exempt from taking an oath and one attempt is brought to prove Rabbi Chiya who held that an oath is required, but the question is answered and the proof rejected. The sugya goes back to the original statement of Rabbi Chiya that if there are witnesses to part of the claim, the claimant must take an oath on the second part. A contradiction is raised from a drasha on a verse in the Torah, but an alternative explanation is offered. There was a case with a shepherd who denied a claim and there were witnesses for part of the claim. Rabbi Zeira asked why did they not require the shepherd to take an oath according to Rabbi Chiya? Abaye questioned Rabbi Zeira as the shepherd should not be allowed to take an oath since two witnesses testified against the shepherd that he took items that were not his own, making him a thief who is not trusted to take an oath in court. Why did Abaye need to call the shepherd a thief, any shepherd is not believed in court as shepherds generally bring their animals to graze in other people's fields? Both Abaye's question and the Gemara's question on Abaye are resolved. An issue is raised with the language of the oath in the Mishna regarding the case of two people holding onto a tallit, "I do not have ownership of less than half" as the language is ambiguous and could lead to one taking the oath even though one does not have any rights at all to the tallit. Rav Huna therefore changes the language of the oath required to prevent abuse of the system. The Gemara suggests some other suggestions for the wording of the oath and explains why the Mishna did not choose them. Rabbi Yochanan explains the purpose of the oath is to prevent one of the people holding the tallit from grabbing a tallit that someone else found and claiming it as their own. If so, the purpose of the oath is to clarify that one of the parties is not lying. If we suspect the person may be lying, how can we trust them to take an oath? The answer is that people who are suspected of taking other people's items are not presumed to lie under oath as the latter is taken more seriously. The Gemara attempts to prove this assumption, first from one who admits to part of a claim (modeh b'miktzat), then from Rami bar Hama's position about the oath of the shomrim, but both are rejected as the concern in both those cases is not that the claimant is truly lying, but just trying to push off the creditor temporarily. They further try to prove this assumption from a statement of Rav Huna about a shomer who claims something happened to the item which would exempt the shomer, but he/she is choosing to pay for the item. They take an oath, even though there is a concern that perhaps they want to keep the item for themselves. Again, this is rejected.