(Mishnah): Shevu'as ha'Pikadon is when Shimon told Levi 'give to me the deposit you are holding for me...'

(Beraisa - R. Meir): One who takes a collective (all-inclusive) oath is liable once. If he takes individual oaths, he is liable for each one.

R. Yehudah says, if he said 'I swear that you do not have a deposit by me, and not you, and not you... ' he is liable for each one.

R. Eliezer says, if he said (Ramban - swore) 'not you, and not you, and not you - Shevu'ah' he is liable for each one.

R. Shimon says, he is liable for each only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

(Shmuel): When he says 'and not you' to each one (after the first), R. Meir calls this a collective oath, and R. Yehudah calls it individual oaths. When he says 'not you' to each one, R. Meir calls this individual oaths, R. Yehudah calls it a collective oath.

(R. Yochanan): All agree that when he says 'and not you', these are individual oaths;

They argue in a case that he says 'not you' to each. R. Meir calls this individual oaths, and R. Yehudah calls it a collective oath.

Question: According to R. Meir, what is a collective oath?

Answer: He says 'I swear that you (plural) do not have a deposit by me.'

Question: Why do Shmuel and R. Yochanan argue?

Answer: Shmuel learns from the Beraisa, and R. Yochanan learns from the Mishnah.

Shmuel learns from the Beraisa. Since R. Yehudah says that 'and not you, and not you...' are individual oaths, he must know that R. Meir considers this a collective oath.

R. Yochanan explains that R. Meir considers them individual oaths with or without 'and', and R. Yehudah says 'I agree with you only when he says 'and'.

Shmuel holds that if so, R. Yehudah would rather teach the case in which he argues with R. Meir!

R. Yochanan learns from the Mishnah. (Since the first Tana is anonymous, we assume that it is R. Meir.) Since it says that 'I swear that you (plural) do not have a deposit by me' is a collective oath, we infer that 'and not you' would be individual oaths;

If it were a collective oath, the Tana should have taught this, and all the more so we would know that 'you (plural) do not have by me'! (We prefer to infer from the Reisha, even though the Seifa teaches this explicitly, for opinions differ about the text of the Seifa, like we bring below.)

Shmuel disagrees. R. Meir considers 'and not you, and not you' to be just like 'you (plural) do not have by me' (both are collective oaths). It is not a bigger Chidush.

Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): If he swore 'you do not (have a deposit by me), and not you, and not you... ', the Shomer is liable for each one. (Tosfos - in these questions, all 'and's, except for the last, should be deleted from the text.)

Answer #1: The text should read '... not you.'

Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): If he claimed a deposit and loan... (and the Shomer swore 'I do not have of yours a deposit, and (not) a loan, and (not) theft and (not) an Aveidah', he is liable for each one).

Answer #1: The text should read '... (not) a loan, (not) theft, (not) an Aveidah.'

Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): If he claimed wheat and barley... (and the Shomer swore 'I do not have of yours wheat, and (not) barley, and (not) spelt', he is liable for each one).

Answer #1: The text should read '... (not) barley, (not) spelt.'

Objection: We cannot say that there are so many mistakes in the text!

Answer #2 (to all three questions): The Tana is Rebbi.

(Rebbi): (While a Kohen was offering a Korban, he expressed intent to eat part when it is Nosar (i.e. after the allotted time), and part outside the permitted place. If the intent for Nosar preceded the intent to eat outside, the Korban is Pigul (an abomination; one who eats it, even in the permitted time and place, gets Kares). If not, the Korban is Pasul (there is no Kares for eating it. This is like R. Yehudah's opinion about Pigul.) Whether he said '(I will eat) a k'Zayis (Nosar), a k'Zayis (outside)' or 'a k'Zayis (Nosar) and a k'Zayis (outside)', these are individual intents, and the Korban is Pigul. (If they were considered one collective intent, since the intents come at the same time, it would be only Pasul.)

Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah - R. Meir): Even if he said 'wheat and barley and spelt' in the singular forms of these words, he is liable for each one.

Answer: The text should read (the standard plural forms of the words) 'wheat, barley, spelt.'

Question: What is the special Chidush (to warrant saying even? Presumably, the only difference in R. Meir's text of the vow is the singular forms of wheat, barley and spelt, but not regarding 'and.')

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Even though the claimant used the singular forms, we do not say that he claimed only a single kernel of each (which is not worth a Perutah). The singular forms also refer to larger amounts.

Version #2 (Ri mi'Gash, brought in Ramban) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): One might have thought that the defendant used the singular forms to make clear that he does not owe even a single kernel of any of these (but he did not intend to take individual oaths). R. Meir teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If he claimed a deposit, loan...

(R. Yochanan): If Shimon claimed from Levi 'give to me (my) wheat and barley', all of them combine to a Perutah (to be liable for a false Shevu'as ha'Pikadon).

(Rav Acha or Ravina): The clause of the Mishnah that teaches individual oaths ('you do not have wheat and barley and spelt') does not include a collective oath. (R. Yochanan teaches about a collective oath.)

(The other of Rav Acha or Ravina): The clause of individual oaths also includes a collective oath (one is liable for each Min, and also for all combined. R. Yochanan's teaching applies also to the clause of individual oaths.)

Question (Beraisa #1 - R. Chiya): (If one swore to deny 'wheat, barley and spelt, not to you and not you and not you and not you and not you',) he is liable 15 Korbanos Chatas (for three individual oaths to each of five people). According to the latter opinion, he should (be liable also for a collective oath (for all the Minim) to each person, and) bring 20 Chata'os! (Rashi - R. Chiya was not so precise. He brings Korbanos Asham. Tosfos - he discusses liability of witnesses for Shevu'as ha'Edus. They bring Chata'os.) (Perhaps this explains why we discuss 20, i.e. we do not include collective oaths for all the people together - PF.)

Answer: R. Chiya teaches liability only for the individual oaths.

Support (and question against the first opinion - Beraisa #2 - R. Chiya): He is liable 20 Chatas offerings. (We must say that Beraisa #1 teaches liability only for the individual oaths, and Beraisa #2 teaches liability also for the collective oaths!)

Rejection (and answer): In Beraisa #2, he took four individual oaths to each person (denying a deposit, loan, theft and Aveidah).

Question (Rava): If five people claimed from Levi a deposit, loan, stolen object and lost object, and he said to one 'I swear that I do not have of yours a deposit, loan, theft and Aveidah', and to the others 'and not to you, and not to you...', what is the law?

Is he is liable only once for each of the last four people (because 'and not to you' does not refer to the individual oaths, only to a collective oath)?

Or, is he liable for all the individual oaths to everyone?

Answer (Beraisa #2 - R. Chiya): He is liable 20 Chatas offerings.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: He explicitly said the individual oaths to each person.

Rejection: R. Chiya need not teach us mere multiplication!

Answer: Rather, he specified the individual oaths only to the first person (and he is liable for them for everyone).

(Mishnah): If he said 'you raped or enticed my daughter...' (and he denied... R. Shimon exempts, for even if he admitted, he would not pay the fine.)

Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): What is R. Shimon's reason?

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): He holds that the primary claim is the fine (not the embarrassment and Pegam).

(Rava): A parable explains R. Shimon's reasoning. Reuven claimed from Levi wheat, barley and spelt. Levi swore 'I do not have wheat of yours.' This was true, but he did have Reuven's barley and spelt. He is exempt, for he swore truthfully about the wheat.

Rejection (Abaye): In your parable, Levi denied only wheat. In the Mishnah, he denied liability for anything!

(Abaye): Rather, the Mishnah is like when Reuven claimed from Levi wheat, barley and spelt, and Levi swore 'you do not have anything by me.' Levi did not have Reuven's wheat, but he did have his barley and spelt. He is liable! (R. Shimon's opinion is difficult.)

Answer #2 (Ravin): R. Shimon exempts because he holds that the claimant claims only the fine;

Chachamim says, he claims also the embarrassment and Pegam.

Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?

Answer (Rav Papa): R. Shimon holds that one claims something that is a fixed amount (a fine), and not something variable;

Chachamim hold that one would not omit claiming something that the defendant is liable for through his own admission, and claim only something for which the defendant can exempt himself through admitting.

(Mishnah): In Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (the oath for partial admission), the claim must be at least two (Ma'os) of Kesef (a third of a Dinar), and the admission must be at least a Perutah;

If the admission is not the same Min that was claimed, the defendant is exempt (from paying and from swearing).

If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef (a Ma'ah is 32 Perutos, a sixth of a Dinar), and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, Shimon is exempt;

If Reuven claimed two Ma'os of Kesef and a Perutah, and Shimon admitted that he owes a Perutah, he must (pay the Perutah and) swear.

If Reuven claimed a Maneh (100 Dinarim), and Shimon denied owing anything, he is exempt;

If Reuven claimed 'you owed my father a Maneh (and I inherited it)', and Shimon admitted that he owed 50 Dinarim, he (pays 50 and) need not swear, for he is like one who returns an Aveidah.

If Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon in front of witnesses, and Shimon admitted that he owes it; and the next day, Reuven claimed it again;

If Shimon answers 'I paid you', he is exempt;

If he answers 'I do not have (i.e. never had) your money', he must pay.

Reuven claimed a Maneh from Shimon in front of witnesses. Shimon admitted that he owes it. Reuven told him 'you must repay it in front of witnesses.' The next day, Reuven claimed it again.

Shimon is not believed to say 'I paid you', for he was told to pay in front of witnesses.

If Reuven claimed a liter of gold, and Shimon admitted that he owes a liter of silver, Shimon is exempt;

If Reuven claimed a gold Dinar, Trisis, Pundyon or Perutah (a smaller coin), and Shimon admitted that he owes a silver Dinar, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for all coins are considered to be one Min.

If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of grain, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'im of legumes, Shimon is exempt;

If Reuven claimed 30 Sa'im of Peros, and Shimon admitted that he owes 15 Sa'im of legumes, Shimon must (pay it and) swear, for legumes are a type of Peros.

If Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt;

Raban Gamliel obligates (to pay the barley and swear, even though they are different Minim).

Admon says, If Reuven claimed barrels of oil, and Shimon admitted that he owes (empty) barrels, Shimon must (pay them and) swear, for he admitted to part of what was claimed;

Chachamim say, his admission is unlike the claim (so he is exempt).

Raban Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

If Reuven claimed Kelim and land, and Shimon admitted to (all) the land but denied the Kelim, or admitted to (all) the Kelim but denied the land, he is exempt (an admission to land cannot obligate an oath, and we do not make a primary oath about land);

If Shimon admitted to part of the land but denied (all) the Kelim, he is exempt (we do not make a (primary) oath about land);

If he admitted to part of the Kelim but denied (all) the land, he must swear (about the remaining Kelim, and also about the land);

When one must swear about Metaltelim, the claimant can also force him to swear about land (through Gilgul).

One need not swear to deny the claim of a child, lunatic or deaf-mute;

We do not make a child swear;

We do swear to a child and to Hekdesh (this will be explained).

(Gemara) Question: How do we make him swear?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): We make him swear like we find in the Torah. Avraham imposed an oath on Eliezer "ba'Shem Elokei ha'Shamayim."

Question (Ravina): Is this like R. Chanina bar Idi, who says that he must swear with the name 'Hashem'?

Answer (Rav Ashi): No, it is even like Chachamim, who allow swearing with other names of Hash-m;

He must hold an article of a great Mitzvah, like we find in the Torah (Eliezer put his hand near Avraham's circumcision).

(Rava): If a judge administered a (Torah) oath "ba'Shem Elokei ha'Shamayim" (without making the defendant hold a Kodesh article), this is a clear-cut mistake. The oath was invalid. It must be repeated (holding an article).

(Rav Papa): If a judge administered a (mid'Oraisa) oath when the defendant held only Tefilin (not a Sefer Torah), this is a clear-cut mistake, and the oath must be repeated.

The Halachah follows Rava. Since he did not hold anything, the oath is invalid;

The Halachah does not follow Rav Papa. Since he held an article, the oath is valid.

The defendant must stand when he swears. A Chacham may sit;

The defendant must hold a Sefer Torah. L'Chatchilah, a Chacham may hold Tefilin.