Rava’s explanation of Rav’s opinion (regarding one who takes an oath regarding a pikadon and then witnesses come, he is no longer obligated to pay the owner), is questioned from Ravi Mamnuna’s understanding of Rav. But Rav Hamnuna’s understanding is reinterpreted in a way that fits in with Rava’s expalnation. 3 halachot are brought by Rabbi Yochanan regarding the responsibilities of one who falsely claims that the pikadon was stolen. Questions on his opinions and opposing opinions are brought. Issues related to – is there an obligation of 4 or 5 times the payment if he slaughtered and sold the object, does double payment also apply if he claimed the item was lost, and is he obligated in a double payment only in a case where the admitted to owing part of the claim and denied part of the claim or also when he denied the entire claim?