This is the last case in which the person making the claim could actually swear and collect based on his oath. We are talking about the chanvani, the shopkeeper. The Mishnah told us that a storekeeper could swear and collect based on what is written in his accounting book. The Mishnah asks, “What is the situation?” The Mishnah says that when we say this, we do not mean that the shopkeeper is simply telling a customer, “I have it written in my book that you owe me 200 zuz (coins),” and then he could swear and collect. That would not be a claim with any basis or surrounding circumstances to support it. Everything we have been discussing so far about a person making a claim and then collecting based on an oath involves a situation where the circumstances support the idea that he was owed money. Therefore, the oath works. Here, then, there must be some circumstance pushing us in that direction; it cannot be simply that he is showing that he has something written in his accounting book.
Rather, it is a situation where someone tells the shopkeeper, “Do me a favor: give my son two se'ah (a dry measure) of wheat, and I’ll pay you later. Or give my workers a sela (a coin) worth of ma'ot. Ma'ot is a smaller coin, and I’ll pay you a full sela later.” There were 24 ma'ot in a sela. The workers usually wanted smaller change so they could purchase things. So he told the shopkeeper, “Do me a favor: give 24 ma'ot to my workers, and I’ll pay you a full sela later on.” Hu omer natati vehen omrim lo natalnu? The storekeeper says that he has it written in his accounting book that he gave them these coins. They, either the child or the worker, say, “No, we didn’t collect anything from the storekeeper, from the shopkeeper.”
So what happens? Hu nishba ve-notel? In this case, you have reason to believe that the shopkeeper did give them money because that was the request of the father or the company owner. Likewise, it is written in the book that he gave them the money. Therefore, the storekeeper swears that he gave them the money and that it is written in his book that he is owed the money. Then he can collect from the father or their employer the amount written in the book. Vehen nishba'in ve-notelin. At the same time, the workers would swear that they never received their payment, and they would collect it from the employer.
So we have two things going on here. Number one, we have the employer admitting that he asked the shopkeeper to give ma'ot to his workers. Therefore, when the storekeeper alone swears, he can collect those ma'ot. At the same time, the workers are swearing, and they can collect to make sure they get their salary, because we know that they were definitely owed money by their employer. We do not know if the storekeeper gave them the money. Therefore, we go with the vada'i, the definite case, and the employer here would have to pay twice. He is paying once for the money that he potentially borrowed from the shopkeeper, and he is also paying once to his employers.
Amar Ben Nanas (Ben Nanas said). Ben Nanas disagrees. Keitzad elu ba'in lidei shevu'at shav, ve'elu ba'in lidei shevu'at shav? Ben Nanas says that one of these two groups is definitely not telling the truth. Either the storekeeper is swearing to collect the 24 ma'ot he claims he lent to the workers and recorded in his ledger, or the workers are swearing that they never received the ma'ot and are therefore able to collect from their employer. One of these two is definitely wrong. So how can we make both the shopkeeper and the employees swear? We would definitely be putting one of them in a situation where they would swear falsely. If both of them swear, one of them is going to be lying in this case.
Therefore, Ben Nanas proposes: Ela (rather). Ben Nanas takes away the requirement to swear. The storekeeper would collect what he is claiming without swearing, and the workers would also collect without swearing. According to Ben Nanas, since neither one of them could swear, they could both collect without swearing in order to avoid the contradiction between them, with one of them losing their credibility.