Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 5

שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וּבַנָּשִׁים וּבָרְחוֹקִים וּבַקְּרוֹבִים בַּכְּשֵׁירִים וּבַפְּסוּלִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמִפִּי אֲחֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפּוֹר בּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ חַיָיב. וְחַיָיב עַל זְדוֹן שְׁבוּעָה וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הַפִּיקָּדוֹן וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. וּמֶה חַיָיב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים: שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת מָהוּ לִהִיוֹת כְּאָלָה. מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בִשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן מָהוּ לִהִיוֹת כְּאָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יּוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב נֶפֶשׁ נֶפֶשׁ כְּמַה שֶׁכּוּלְּהוֹן כָּאן וְכוּלְּהוֹן כָּאן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָלָה בְבֵית דִּין מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים. וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ. לִכְשֶׁיָּצָא וִוידּוּיוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. פְּרָט לִמְכַחֵשׁ בְּאֶחָד הַשּׁוּתָפִין. פְּרָט לִמְכַחֵשׁ בְּעֵדִים וּבִשְׁטָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יּוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּווּ מֵאֶחָד אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כָתְבִין. אַחֲרָאִין וְעָרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה. אַחֲרָאִין וְעָרְבָאִין זֶה לָזֶה. וְלָא עָבְדִין כֵּן. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ כְּאֶחָד וּבִיקֵּשׁ הָאֶחָד לִיטּוֹל שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לֹו. וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְכוֹפֵר בְּחֶלְקוֹ וִיהֵא חַיָיב. אֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד לִשְׁנַיִם. כָּפַר בּוֹ זֶה חַיָיב. כָּפַר בּוֹ זֶה חַיָיב. הִפְקִיד לָהֶם שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. לֹא נִמְצָא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל חֲצִי פְרוּטָה. וּמָה כָא. אִילּוּ נִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע וְנִשְׁבָּע שֶׁמָּא אֵין מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל חֲצִי פְרוּטָה. תַּמָּן כָּל שְׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הָכָא אֵין שְׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. רִבִּי לָא וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. לֵית כָּאן עֵדִים. כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָא וִידּוּיוֹ בִשְׁבוּעָה. לָמָּה. מִשׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לָמוּת. וּשְׁטָר אֵינוֹ מָצוּי לְאַבֵּד. הֲוֵי לֵית טַעֲמָא אֶלָּא מִשׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לְשַׁכֵּחַ עֵדוּתָן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אֲנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. וְעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁאֵין יוֹדֵעַ בָעֵדִים. אֲתַא מֵימַר לָךְ וַאֲפִילוּ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעֵידָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמַתְנִיתָה אָמְרָה כֵן. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. כָּפְרָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה שְׁנִיָיה. שְׁתֵּיהֶן חַיָיבוֹת. נִיחָא רִאשׁוֹנָה מִתְחַיֶיבֶת. שְׁנִיָיה לָמָּה. לָאו מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמְצוּיִין לְשַׁכֵּחַ עֵדוּתָן. וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ. וְלֹא בוֹ. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שָׁלֹשׁ אֲבֵידוֹת הֵן. בְּיוֹדֵעַ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. לֹא בָהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. רִבִּי חוֹנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כּוּלְּהוֹן לִפְטוֹר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֵית כֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. וִיהֵא כֵן הַפְּטוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֵית כֵּן מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אֲבֵידוֹת. בְּיוּדֵעַ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. לֹא בָהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ נָן קַיָימִין. אֶלָּא שֶׁמְכַחֵשׁ בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ. בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ וְלֹא בָהּ. בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּמוֹצְאֶיהָ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתַה. בָּהּ וּבְמוֹצְאֶיהָ.

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. 5:25 (in addition to restitution of 125% of the amount embezzled) is due if the false oath was intentional, or if the oath was in error but the embezzling was intentional; it is not due if the oath was factually false because the maker of the oath did not realize that he had the deposit, or forgot about it. The Babli (but not Maimonides) reads the last word as שִׁגְגָתָהּ referring to the oath; he is not liable if he was ignorant of the fact that false oaths are forbidden and that they trigger liability for a sacrifice. . What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim. 5:25 prescribes a reparation offering “in its value”; the value defined in 5:15 as “ Šeqalim ”. An indeterminate plural always means 2 ( Chapter 4, Note 8 ). The biblical Šeqel is the traditional “King’s weight” of about 12g silver, about equal to the tetradrachma of the early Principate, and double the rabbinic Šeqel of two zuz (cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122 .) Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 13(14). . HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. , New York 1909, pp. 285–286 (G). It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person. 5:1 ; cf. Chapter 4:3 Note 31 . ”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. Chapter 5) and is the subject of extensive commentaries by Nachmanides, R. Nissim Gerondi, and Rosh. Cf. Babli 36a . He lied to his fellow man . 5:21 . , if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this 8(18) Jerusalem 1975 p. 179 Note 10 ). . If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa , does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa (a Hasmonean coin of about 2g bronze) is the smallest amount for which one may go to court. (Half- peruṭa coins have been found.) Since a half- peruṭa cannot be the subject of a law suit, it cannot be the cause of liability for any kind of oath. Should not the sacrifice for an oath about a half- peruṭa be forbidden as false dedication? ? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa , each one is for a third of a peruṭa . ? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa ’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa ’s worth need separate atoning. A deposit given to two people jointly must be at least two peruṭas worth to trigger liabilities for sacrifices. . Rebbi La: Both Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, there is no ”witnesses “here quoted at the start of the preceding paragraph the mention of “witnesses” should be deleted. . Why? Because they might die. But might not a document be lost? Therefore, the reason can only be that they might forget their testimony. There, we have stated: “Where is my ox? He told him, it is lost. I want you to swear, he said, Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed himself, he has to pay the value, and the fifth, and the reparation sacrifice. .” The Mishnah [applies] if he does not know that there are witnesses. He comes to tell you, even if he knows that there are witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group reneged and after this the second, both are liable.” One understands that the first group becomes liable it was accepted in court. . Why the second? Not because they might forget their testimony? [Here also, because they (are commanded) to forget their testimony.] He denied it . 5:22 . , not him 22(6) more in detail: “About it but not about its finder.” This Tanna and both Talmudim reject the understanding of the verse as given in the Targumim, that the person swearing had found the lost property and now denies it. This would be covered by “robbery” listed in v. 21. Rather it is that the person searching for his lost property, such as his donkey mares, asks a person whether he knows either of the property or of the person who might have taken it. If he under oath falsely denies any knowledge, according to this Tanna be becomes liable for a sacrifice only if he wrongly denies knowledge about the property, not about the person who might have appropriated it. The big question then becomes, why should the person asked for testimony be liable for anything since by necessity he is a single person and the testimony of a single person cannot force a judgment. As Ravad explains in his Commentary to Sifra , this argument would be unconditionally valid only for oaths about testimony, not for oaths about causing monetary loss. His scenario is, e. g., that the lost animal was standing on another person’s property. The original owner took it but now the person from whom it was taken claims ownership and wants it back. The second person agrees that he found the animal but he disputes the fact that it is the animal which had belonged to the first. In this situation, testimony of one witness about ownership of the animal is sufficient for a judgment in favor of the first person since it is not a judgment to transfer property but to confirm an existing status. On the other hand, testimony that the second person took possession of some lost property but which failed to identify the property is worthless and its denial cannot trigger any liability by the potential witness. . 22(6), Babli Bava qamma 105b . In the Babli: “Three kinds of oaths [about lost property.]” “Ben Azzai says, there are three kinds of lost properties. One who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: All of them to relieve from liability. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: This is not so. Rebbi Yose asked, why should it be to relieve from liability? Rebbi Mana said, the three kinds of lost property cannot be “one who knows about it and its finder; about it but not about its finder; neither about it nor about its finder.” About it and its finder, that is where we hold. But it must be about one who denies [knowledge] about it and its finder; about its finder but not about it; about it but not about its finder. So is the baraita : “About it and its finder.”

שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַפִּיקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְּיָדֶךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְכָפַר חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַה טַּעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ נֶפֶשׁ. מַה כָּאן מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ אַף לְהַלָּן מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. מַה לְהַלָּן מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אַף כָּאן מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דָּרֵישׁ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָה. מַה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אַף מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין. וְרַבְּנִן דָּרְשֵׁי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה כָּאָמוּר בָּהּ. מַה מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּבֵית דִּין אַף מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּבֵית דִּין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. קָרוֹב מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים בִשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָדוֹן מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא פָטוּר. נִישְׁמְעְינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא לָמְדוּ מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָדוֹן אֶלָּא מִשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת. מַה לְהַלָּן קְרוֹבִין פְּטוּרִין אַף כָּאן קְרוֹבִין פְּטוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קְרוֹבִין שֶׁכָּאן לְמֵידִין מֵרְחוֹקִין שֶׁלְּהַלָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדַקָּיָיא בָעֵי. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין כְּלוֹם הוּא חַיָיב עַל כּוּלָּן אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַה טַעַם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת. וְכָאן הוֹאִיל וְאֵין יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים מֵאַחַר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבִיד מִפִּי עַָצְמוֹ בְבֵית דִּין מָהוּ שֶׁיִּקְבְּעֶנּוּ לְקָרְבָּן וּלְחַיְיבוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּלֹא תְבִיעָה. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. מָה אַתְּ בָּא אַחֲרֵינוּ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת. מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וּמֵבִיא אָשָׁם בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים. מַה שֵׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׂבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת. מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא פָטוּר. מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

MISHNAH: What is an oath about a deposit? He said to him, “give me the deposit which you hold for me.” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours;” or that he said to him, “I am holding nothing of yours;” “I am putting an oath upon you” and he said “Amen”; this one is liable. If he made him swear five times whether in court or out of court and he denied, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because he may return and admit. HALAKHAH: “What is an oath about a deposit,” etc. is taken from Yebamot 11:1 (Notes 30,34) as indicated in the Notes to 4:3. The text of G ends at the start of this Halakhah. A person , a person . Since here it is from his own words, also there from his own words. Since there it is from others’ words, also here it is from others’ words. Rebbi Meїr explains the equal cut at the place it comes from: Since here it is said about his own words, so also here about his own words. Also the rabbis explain the equal cut which was said about it. Since others’ words said there are in court, also others’ words said here are in court. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there. Rebbi Yudan the Cappadocian asked: He made him swear five times by the formulation of others out of the court: would he not be liable only once? Rebbi Yose said, is this not the Mishnah: “Rebbi Simeon said, what is the reason? Because they can come back and admit?” But here, since they cannot come back and admit, they are liable only once. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he made him swear five times, since Rebbi Meїr considered “by his own words” as in court, would this determine the sacrifice on the first occasion, even without request. 5:20 ff. is all about. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which others would formulate an oath if they have no claim. ? It should come like the following: “Why do you go after us? An oath that we do not know any testimony relevant for you. He pays the value plus a fifth and brings a reparation sacrifice for two tetradrachmas, in distinction from an oath about testimony.” Would he be “not liable” from others’ mouth for real estate? From others’ mouth would he be liable for a reparation sacrifice worth two šeqalim ?

הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ אָמְרוּ לוֹ תֶּן לָנוּ פִיקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָנוּ בְיָדֶךָ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי וְלֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לָךָ חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָאַחֲרֹנָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ כול׳. יָכוֹל אַף בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן לֹא עָשָׂה הַמּוּשְׁבָּע כְּנִשְׁבָּע. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. לֵית כָּאן. אֶלָּא אַף בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן נַעֲשֶׂה הַמּוּשְׁבָּע כְּנִשְׁבָּע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְסוֹף. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר בַּסּוֹף. אוֹ הִזְכִּיר בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר תְּחִילָּה עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד. הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְסוֹף עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן מְבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה בַּתְּחִילָּה וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר בַּסּוֹף מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל שְׁבוּעָה עַל הָאֶמְצָעִיִים. אִיתָא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ הִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְסוֹף שֶׁמָּא הִזְכִּיר בָּאֶמְצָעִיִים. וַתָּ מַר חָלָה וְהָכֵן חָלָה. רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדָקַיָיא בָעֵי. שְׁבוּעָה חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי מָהוּ. כְּמִי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְסוֹף. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה שְׁבוּעָה מִתְקַיֶימֶת אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין שְׁבוּעָה. כְּמִי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר שְׁבוּעָה תְחִילָּה וְסוֹף. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה שְׁבוּעָה מִתְקַיֶימֶת אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אִין בִּשְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי כֵן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל שְׁבוּעָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מֵבִיא אֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. אוּף רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כִמְזָרֵז עַצְמוֹ מִן הָאִיסּוּרִין. לֹא אַתְיָא דְלָא אָמַר הוּא לְשֶׁעָבַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי שְׁבוּעָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מֵבִיא אֶחָד בְּכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. אָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה חִיטִּין וְחִיטִּין אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי. מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. לֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְלֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֶּה עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כְּמִינִין הַרְבֶּה. אִילּוּ מַר. לֹא מאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם וְלֹא מאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם. יֵאוּת. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בָעֵי. עֶשֶׂר שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵין לָךְ בְיָדִי. מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. שְׁבוּעָה שְׁבוּעָה אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי. מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוּכְלֶינָּה. וַאֲכָלָהּ. חַיָיב אַחַת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזְכִּיר זוֹ. הָא לֹא הִזְכִּיר זוֹ חַיָיב בְּכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אַף בִּשְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי כֵן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל נְבֵילָה וּפַת חִיטִּין וּפַת שְׂעוֹרִין וּפַת כּוּסְמִין. מֵאַחַר שֶׁפָּטוֹר עַל הַנְּבֵילָה פָּטוּר עַל הַשְׂאָר.

MISHNAH: If five people were claiming from him and said to him, give us the deposit which you are holding for us. “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours’ ”; he is liable only once. “An oath that I am not holding anything of you, and of you, and of you;” he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Eliezer says, on condition that he repeat “an oath” at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, not unless he repeat “an oath” for each single one, p. 78, Note ז. The majority [following R. Meїr in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1)] holds that an oath addressed to a group of people is a single oath, but one addressed to separate individuals counts as multiple oaths according to the number of persons mentioned in the oath. R. Eleazer holds that this is true only if the person swearing indicates that he intends the one sentence to be considered a separate oath for each individual addressed, by repeating at the end that “this is an oath.” Without such a final statement the mention of “oath” refers only to the first subject addressed in the oath. R. Simeon holds that a statement formulated as one oath is one oath; there is liability for multiple sacrifices only if it was clearly said that separate oaths were made for each claimant. . HALAKHAH: “If five people were claiming from him,” etc. I could think that also for an oath about a deposit He did not make one assenting to an oath like making an oath? Rebbi Eleazar said, this is not so. But also for an oath about a deposit we are treating one assenting to an oath like one formulating an oath11(3) state that in this case an oath imposed by another person does not trigger the liability for a sacrifice. The Yerushalmi considers this possibility and rejects it. . Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Eleazar, only if he mentioned “oath” at the start and at the end. The words of the Sages, if he mentioned “oath” at the start but not at the end. Or if he mentioned it at the end but not at the start in the opinion of the rabbis he brings a sacrifice for each single one, in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one sacrifice for everything. If he mentions “oath” at the start but did not mention it at the end, does the oath fall on the middle ones? Come and see: If he had mentioned it at the start and the end, did he mention it for the middle ones? But you are saying that it is valid; so here it is valid. Rebbi Yudan from Cappadocia asked: What about “an oath that neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt I am holding for you”? Is it as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. “I am not holding for you wheat, or barley, or spelt, an oath,” is this as if he had mentioned “oath” at beginning and end? Since the oath would be confirmed by any one of them, he is liable only once. Is it so if this were a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall not eat; I shall not eat, an oath”? In the rabbis’ opinion he brings a sacrifice for each one. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion does he bring one for the entirety? Even Rebbi Eleazar will agree that he is only emphasizing the prohibitions. It only would be problematic if it were about the past. “An oath that I did not eat; I did not eat, an oath.” In the rabbis’ opinion he brings two sacrifices (for each one). In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one (for each). Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If one said, “an oath wheat and wheat I am not holding;” what? Let us hear from the following: “Not from place X, not from place Y,” he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, they considered a multiplicity of places like a multiplicity of kinds. If he had said, not from this place, not from this place; it would have been useful that a false oath “I am not holding grain from place X nor from place Y” is considered only one oath. To be applicable to the question the same place name would have to be repeated. . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: “10 oaths that I am not holding;” what? Rebbi Yose asked: “An oath, an oath that I am not holding for you,” what? Rebbi Yose said, let us hear from the following: “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it’. Then he ate it. He is liable only once.” Because he mentioned “this”. Therefore, had he not mentioned “this” we would be liable for each one. Is it the same for a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat, and wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread.” Since he is not liable for carcass meat he is not liable for the remainder.

תֶּן לִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. תֶּן לִי חִיטִּים וּשְׁעוֹרִים וְכוּסְמִין שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת: תֶּן לִי פִיקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׂאֵין בְיָדוֹ חִטִּים פָּטוּר בִּשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. אַף רִבִּי יָסָא מוֹדֶה בָהּ. נִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ חִיטִּין מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל שְׁבוּעָה בִּשְׁאָר הַמִּינִין. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. לָא חָלָה. רִבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר. חָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַתְנִיתָה מְסָיְיעָה לְמָה דְּאָמְרֵי חֲבֵרַיָיא. אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה. וְשָׁמְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהֵיפֵר לָהּ. הָרִאשׁוּנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אֲסוּרָה. אִם אָמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּוַונְתִּי לִהְיוֹת אֶלָּא כְמוֹתָהּ. שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּוַונְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֶא בָהּ. הָא אִם לֹא אָמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֶא בָהּ. הָרִאשׁוּנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אֲסוּרָה. מָה אִם תַּמָּן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה אַתָּ מַר חָלָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתָּחוּל. וּמַאי דָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׂאֵין בְיָדוֹ חִטִּין פָּטוּר בִּשְׁאָר. בְּמַתְפִּיס בָּאוֹמֵר. שְׂעוֹרִין יְהוּ כְחִיטִּין. כּוּסְמִין יְהוּ כְחִיטִּין. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. לֹא הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְעָמְדָה בְנִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. שְׁנִיָיה מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹ לוֹקָה זוֹ לוֹקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וּתְנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא. וְתֵיעָשֶׂה שְׁנִיָיה כְּאוֹמֶרֶת. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה ל׳ יוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר. בְּמִגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. תֶּן לִי חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן נִכְלָלִין בְּקָרְבָּן אֶחָד וְנִפְרָטִין בְּג׳ קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. פְּרוֹטָה חִיטִּין וּפְרוֹטָה שְׂעוֹרִין וּפְרוֹטָה כוּסְמִין נִכְלָלִין בְּקָרְבָּן אֶחָד נִפְרְטִין לְג׳ קָרְבָּנוֹת. פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ חִיטִּין פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ שְׂעוֹרִין פְּרוֹטָה שְׁלִישׁ כּוּסְמִין מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ כוּלָּן. אִיתָא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ כַמָּה מִינִין בִּפְרוֹטָה אֲפִילוּ כֵן נִכְלָלִין וְנִפְרָטִין. לֵיי דָא מִילָּה. לְחַיְיבוֹ בְּקָרְבָּן. הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ ד׳ מִינִין. ב׳ מִינִין בִּפְרוֹטָה ב׳ מִינִין בְּב׳ פְרוֹטוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן נִכְלָלִין וְנִפְרָטִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְשׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. לֹא חָתַם אֶלָּא בִשׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. אֵי זֶהוּ כְלָל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְלֹנִית. אֵי זֶהוּ כְלָל. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אָנוּ פְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְגָרְשִׁין נָשֵׁינוּ מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם הִזְכִּיר גֵּירוּשִׁין לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיתֵּן טֻפּוֹס וְעֵדִים לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֵיְילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָדָא. שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָזֶה לָזֶה קָרְבָּן לָזֶה קָרְבָּן. צְרִיכִין פֶּתַח לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָה מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיָה כּוֹתֵב טֻפּוֹס לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְעֵדִים לְמַטָּה. אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִיקְרִין עִמּוֹ כָּשֵׁר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פְּרָט רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָל לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. פְּרָט רִבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּלָל לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זֵירָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן אָמְרִין שֶׁאֵין פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְשׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. לֹא חָתַם אֶלָּא בִשׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. פְּרָט רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּלָל לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. שׁוֹאֵל אֲנִי בְשָׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. חֲזָקָה לַכֹּל חָתַם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָה אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין פְּרָטוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר. חִיטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכוּסֶּמֶת. חַיָיב בְּכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְלֵית אִינָּשׁ אֲמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶלָּא מִכְּלַל דְמוֹדֶה בְקַדְמִיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר. חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין. בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר. חִיטִּין שְׂעוֹרִין כּוּסְמִין. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אִם אָמַר. חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּסְמִין. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. אִם אָמַר. חִטִּין שְׂעוֹרִין כּוּסְמִין. כְּלָל שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרָט.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,. 9:31–32 ) which in form is identical with the singular. In the Halakhah, the collective for R. Meїr is read as singular for the anonymous Tanna. ” he is liable for each single one. HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. 4:3 , explained there in Notes 48–60 . Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa): R. Jehudah. Since there is no Tanna R. Yasa, the reading “R. Jehudah” has to be accepted. In the next Halakhah, R. Jehudah is identified as the anonymous Tanna of Mishnaiot 3–5. will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. , “R. Simeon said, if …” Since the next paragraph refers to R. Simeon, this must also be the text here. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat. The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve [the vow] for the first woman and she (remained): “she violated her vow.” in her vow, she is whipped. Can the second he whipped? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi Yudan said, is this a stipulation of the court? Should not the second be treated as one who said, “a shall be a nezirah [after] thirty days” is suspended while she undergoes the purification rite. Should the second woman’s vow be suspended while the nezirut of the first is suspended? ? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, for he said, it depends on the collection: R. Simeon declares him not liable since his offering was not in the custom of offerers ( Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3 ). A vow is either valid or not, it cannot be intermittent. . “Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. 9:7, Notes 85–101 . The following paragraph describes efforts by two men to divorce their wives with one document to save on costs for scribe and parchment. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text text everywhere has טוֹפֶס “boilerplate document” which possibly is Accadic (from the Sumerian) ṭuppum “document”, the spelling here indicates Greek τύπος “figure, form” used as “prescribed form” (of the document.) and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening. 9:7. ” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid. 9:7 . ” 9:7, Notes 93–101 . The omissions in the Giṭtin text show that the text here is original. (This has been recognized in the text there.) Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

אָנַסְתָּה וּפִיתִּיתָה אֶת בִּתִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָנַסְתִּי וְלֹא פִיתִּיתִי. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁאַינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ: אָנַסְתָּה וּפִיתִּיתָה אֶת בִּתִּי כול׳. רִבִּי זֵירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עִיקָּר תְּבִיעָה קְנָס. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים לָאו. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּתוֹבְעוֹ קְנָס בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּתוֹבְעוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם וּקְנָס. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּתָבְעוֹ ג׳ דְּבָרִים. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּתוֹבְעוֹ דָּבָר אָחָד. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. בְּפֵירוּשׁ שָׁמַעְתָּ מֵרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ מִמִּילְּתֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסַי. דְּסָבַר כְּרַבָּנִן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וַאֲפִילוּ דּוּ סָבַר כְּרִבִּי אִילָא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּתָבְעוֹ דָּבָר אָחָד. בְּרַם הָכָא בְתוֹבְעוֹ ג׳ דְּבָרִים. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. מְנַיִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבְּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר. לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע לָאו קְנָס הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְאָמַר. בְּמִגְבָּה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי.

MISHNAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” and he says “I did not rape, I did not seduce.” “I am asking you to swear,” and he says “Amen,” he is liable. Rebbi Simeon frees him from liability since he would not pay the fine by his own admission. 22:16 ) and the rapist of a virgin ( Deut . 22:29 ). Since these fines are imposed in criminal law, they cannot be imposed based on a confession since all confessions are inadmissible in criminal court. It was established earlier (4:4, Note 40 ) that an oath can create liability for a reparation sacrifice only if the action of the defendant led to a claimant’s monetary loss. . They told him, even though he does not pay the fine by his own admission, he pays for shame and diminution by his own admission. HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely. 22(9). This source quotes Lev . 5:21 instead of 5:24 quoted here. The cases enumerated in Lev . 5:21–22 are all about money or money’s worth which the defendant withholds from the claimant, a condition for liability for a sacrifice after a false oath. Double restitution is due from the thief, quadruple or quintuple from the cattle and sheep rustler who sells or eats the animal. The calumniator is the man who accuses his wife of adultery between preliminary and definitive marriages; if proven guilty in criminal court he pays a fine of 100 tetradrachmas ( Deut . 22:19 ). ” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת שׁוֹרִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת שׁוֹרִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת עַבְדִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי וְעָשִׂיתָ בִּי חַבּוּרָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי וְלֹא עָשִׂיתִי בְךָ חַבּוּרָה מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן חַיָיב. אָמַר לֹו עַבְדּוֹ הִפַּלְתָּ אֶת שִׁנִּי וְסִימִּיתָ אֶת עֵינִי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפַּלְתִּי וְלֹא סִימִּיתִי מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי וְאָמַר אָמֵן פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ חַיָיב. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר: גָּנַבְתָּה אֶת שׁוֹרִי כול׳ עַד סוֹף פִּירְקָא. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי הָעֶבֶד מִפִּיו. וּמַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. כָּל שְׁלשִׁים קְנָס אוֹ יוֹתֵר בְּדָמָיו קְנָס. אִין תֵּימַר. כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים קְנָס. אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם. אִין תֵּימַר. יוֹתֵר בְּדָמָיו קְנָס. מְשַׁלֵּם. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ עַבְדִּי. וְהוּא אָמַר. לֹא הֵמִית . מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יֹוסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהֵמִית עֶבֶד מוּכֶּה שְּׁחִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וָמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ בְּנִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא הֵמִית. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי. וְאָמַר אָמֵן. חַיָיב. וּפְתָרָהּ בְּמוּכֶּה שְּׁחִין וְיהֵא פָטוּר. לֵית יְכִיל. דְּתַנִּינָן. הֵמִית בֶּן חוֹרִין נוֹתֵן שָׁוְייוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קַמֵּי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דָּמַר. וְנָתַן פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלְּנִיזָּק. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין כְּמָאן דָּמַר. וְנָתַן פִּדְיוֹן נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלְּנִיזָּק. כּוּלּוֹ קְנָס. מָהוּ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. צֵא יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהִפִּיל שֶׁן טַבִּי עַבְדּוֹ. אָתָא גַבֵּי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. טַבִּי עַבְדִּי מָצָאתִי עִילָּה לְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. אָמַר. לֵית בְּיָדָךְ. וְאֵין קְנָסוֹת אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים וּבְבֵית דִּין. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹמֵר לֹו. צֵא יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם. רִבִּי גַּמְלִיאֵל בֵּירִבִּי אִלָעִאי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מוּתָּר לְשַׁחְרֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. גַּרְמָהּ אָמְרָה שֶׁאָסוּר לְשַׁחְרֵר. דִּלֹא כֵן הָיָה לוֹ לְשַׁחְרְרוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

MISHNAH: “You stole my ox,” but he says “I did not steal;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is liable. “I stole but I did not slaughter or sell it;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. “Your ox killed my ox,” but he says “he did not kill;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen,” he is liable. “Your ox killed my slave,” but he says “he did not kill;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. 21:32 ), it has the status of a fine. . He said to him, “you hurt me and injured me,” but he says “I did not hurt you and I did not injure you;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is liable. His slave said to him, “you knocked out my tooth and blinded my eye,” but he says “I did not knock out your tooth or blind your eye;” “I am asking you to swear” and he says “Amen”, he is not liable. This is the principle, anybody who has to pay on his own admission is liable; but anybody who does not have to pay on his own admission is not liable. HALAKHAH: “ “You stole my ox,” etc. to the end of the Chapter. 3:10, Notes 143–156 . Rebbi Isaac asked, should one have to pay the value of the slave by his admission? But what is his problem? Are the entire thirty a fine. 21:32 ), it has the status of a fine. or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, all the thirty are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “ ‘Your ox killed my slave’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is not liable.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he killed a slave covered with boils. He said to him, but it says afterwards, “ ‘Your ox killed my son’, but he says ‘he did not kill;’ ‘I am asking you to swear’ and he says ‘Amen’, he is liable. is not found in any other source. ” You could explain it if he was covered with boils, then he would not be liable! You cannot do this, as we have stated3:3, about a person killed by an ox known as goring. The entire sentence is not found in Ketubot ; this seems to point to Ševuot as the primary source. : “If he killed a human, he has to pay his worth.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: R. Ḥaggai before R. Yose; probably dittography. Explain it following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person ; of the injured. 21:30 . It is not clear whether “his” refers to the slain person or the owner of the dangerous ox ( Bava qamma 4:8 Note 108 ). In Ketubot one reads the verse as referring to the owner of the ox; then it is obvious that the money is a fine even though its amount is not biblically fixed. On the face of it, this reading might be preferred; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai ad Ex . 21:30 . Rashi in ` Arakhin points to Ex . 21:30 as the source of the Mishnah there; the addition of the sentence ( Note 91 ) supports the reading here as correct and that in Ketubot as corrected lectio facilior . Even according to the reading here, the identification of the redemption money as weregilt defines it as a fine. . He said to him, if following him who said, he shall pay redemption of his person ; of the injured, all is a fine Does one tell him, be in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following74b . : “It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out a tooth of his slave Tabi. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to manumit my slave Tabi. He told him, you have nothing in your hand; fines only are imposed through witnesses and in court.” This implies that one does not tell him, be in the clear with Heaven. Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi Illai: ben Avina, at other places ben Ininia. R. Mana here is R. Mana I; in the preceding paragraph he was R. Mana II. asked before Rebbi Mana, does Rabban Gamliel hold with him who says, one is permitted to manumit? He told him, in itself it says that it is forbidden to manumit, for otherwise he should have manumitted him immediately.