Yerushalmi Shevuot 6:4 ירושלמי שבועות ו׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: “You are holding for me a kor⁶⁴Biblical and Accadic measure of volume, 30 seah. of grain;” “I am holding for you only a letek⁶⁵A biblical measure of volume, half a kor. of legumes;” he is not liable. “You are holding for me a kor of produce;” “I am holding for you only a letek of legumes;” he is liable since legumes are subsumed under produce. If one sued for wheat and the other acknowledged barley, he is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon⁶⁶In all other sources, including the following Halakhah: Rabban Gamliel. He considers all grain to be of related kind. declares him liable. Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and the other admitted to pitchers, Admon says since he admitted of the kind of the claim he has to swear. But the Sages say, the admission is not of the kind of the claim⁶⁷Admon (an authority of pre-rabbinic times) holds that the content of the vessels is determining; the Sages give preference to the determination of the vessels of storage.. Rabban Gamliel said, I see⁶⁸To see = to accept as obvious. the words of Admon.
If somebody sued for both vessels and real estate; if [the other] admitted the vessels but denied the real estate, or the real estate and denied the vessels, he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. If he admitted part of the real estate he is not liable⁶⁹One does not swear on claims of real estate (Mishnah 1). Therefore if the defendant acknowledged his debt of vessels, there is nothing left to take the oath. If he disputes all claims to vessels, there is no acknowledgment since admission of the duty to hand over real estate does not count.. Part of the vessels he is liable since non-guaranteed property obligates guaranteed property to be sworn about⁷⁰Mishnah Qiddušin1:5, Note 474. If the defendant is liable to take an oath, the claimant can add to the oath all of his outstanding claims even if they in themselves would not force an oath. This is known as “rolling over of oaths.”
A property is guaranteed if the seller as a matter of routine must guarantee the title to the property; this is the case with real estate..

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. ⁷¹A copy of this Halakhah is Ketubot13:4, fully explained there in Notes 79–89. A parallel is in the Babli 40a, Ketubot108b. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds⁷²Unrelated matters. and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not)⁷³This has to be deleted. admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown)⁷⁴For the inappropriate נידה read ניחא “it is understandable”. vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels⁷⁵Oil not in vessels is lost.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed⁷⁶The difference between Admon and the Sages is one of semantics; any judge could immediately resolve the question by asking the parties what they meant. The only occasion for the disagreement is if one of the parties cannot be interrogated since he became paralyzed..

So is the Mishnah: If he denied part of the real estate he is liable, part of the vessels he is not liable⁷⁷It is obvious that the mentions of “real estate” and “vessels” have to be switched since one does not swear about claims to real estate. It is pointed out that the entire suit is not about what the defendant admitted but what he denied. There is an oath if the denial is partial, not if it is complete..