(Mishnah): If Shimon told Levi 'give to me the deposit, loan, theft (what you stole from me), and an Aveidah (that I lost) that you have of mine'; and Levi swore 'I have nothing of yours', he is liable only once;

If he said 'Shevu'ah I do not have of yours a deposit, loan, theft or Aveidah', he is liable for each one.

If Shimon said 'give to me my wheat, barley and spelt', and Levi said 'Shevu'ah I do not have of yours', he is liable only once;

If he said 'I swear that I do not have of yours wheat and barley and spelt' [in the plural forms of these words], he is liable for each one.

R. Meir says, even if he said 'wheat and barley and spelt' [in the singular forms of these words], he is liable for each one.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): According to R. Shimon [who said that if he did not mention "Shevu'ah" for each species, it is all one Shevu'ah], if it turns out that he does not have wheat, he is exempt for the rest.

(R. Ba): Even R. Yehudah (the first Tana) agrees about this.

Question: If it turns out that he does not have wheat, does the Shevu'ah take effect on the other species? (The Gemara asks about what R. Yochanan and R. Ba taught.)

Answer #1 (Talmidim): It takes effect.

Answer #2 (R. Zeira): It does not take effect.

Support (for Answer #1 - R. Yakov bar Acha - Mishnah): If Leah said "I am a Nazir", and Rachel heard and said "and I", and Leah's husband heard and annulled her [vow], Leah is permitted and Rachel is forbidden;

If Rachel said "I intended to be only like her", both of them are permitted

Inference: This is because she said "I intended to be only like her." If she did not say "I intended to be only like her", Leah is permitted and Rachel is forbidden.

Culmination of Support: There, there is no primary Shevu'ah (it was annulled), and you say that [what was appended to the first Shevu'ah] takes effect - here there is a primary Shevu'ah, all the more so [what was appended to it] should take effect!

Question: Why did R. Yochanan say that according to R. Shimon, if it turns out that he does not have wheat, he is exempt for the rest? (We just proved that the Shevu'ah takes effect on the rest! All the more so this is difficult for R. Ba!)

Answer: [This is when] he was Matfis. He said that barley should be like wheat, and spelt should be like wheat (if he is exempt for wheat, he will be exempt for them. We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

Question: Obviously, if Leah's husband did not annul her, and she transgressed her vow, she is lashed [even if he annulled it later]. What is Rachel's law [if she transgressed before Hafarah? Perhaps she intended to be a Nazir only if Leah will complete her Nezirus without Hafarah!]

Answer (R. Yosi): Since Leah is lashed, Rachel is lashed.

Question (R. Yudan): Is this a stipulation of Beis Din?! Rachel should be like one who said "I am a Nazir [after] 30 days" (if Leah will complete her Nezirus)!

Answer: R. Shimon taught like he taught elsewhere, that it depends on the initial utterance (she is a Nazir as long as Leah is a Nazir).

(R. Yochanan): This is R. Yudan's opinion. When the Shevu'ah is a Klal (encompassing, he brings) one Korban. When it is Peratim (broken into units, he brings one for each, e.g. for wheat, barley and spelt) three Korbanos. (He does not bring also for "I do not have of yours." It is not a fourth Shevu'ah; the Peratim explain it.)

How is this? [If he swore to deny] a Perutah of wheat, a Perutah of barley and a Perutah of spelt, [if the Shevu'ah is] a Klal, [he can be liable only] one Korban. If it is Peratim, [he can be liable] three Korbanos.

Question: [If he swore to deny] a third of a Perutah of wheat, a third of a Perutah of barley and a third of a Perutah of spelt, do they join together?

Answer: Even if there are many species, [they join] to a Perutah!

Limitation: Even though [they join, they do not always join]; there are Kelalim (which join) and Peratim (that do not join).

For which matter [do they need to join]? It is to obligate a Korban;

If he had four species, two species for a Perutah (together) and two species for two Perutos, even so they are Kelalim and Peratim (based on his words);

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [If a witness signed a document and wrote] "and I give Shalom to Ploni", the Chazakah is that he signed on everything (i.e. also the document. The prefix Vov connects, and makes it a Klal.). If he wrote "I give Shalom to Ploni", [without a Vov, this is Prat. Perhaps] he signed only on giving Shalom.

(Reish Lakish): [Even if he wrote] "I give Shalom to Ploni", [perhaps] he signed only on giving Shalom.

(A Mishnah discusses multiple Gitin on one parchment.) What is a Klal [for which we say that the witnesses signed on all of them] according to R. Yochanan? Ploni divorces Ploni, and Almoni Almonis. What is a Klal according to Reish Lakish? We, Ploni and Almoni, divorce our wives from the place Ploni.

(R. Zeira): R. Yochanan agrees that if it mentioned divorce for each one, [it is Prat, and] it requires a Tofes (standard text) and witnesses for each one.

Support #1 (for R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [If one said] "I will not benefit from this [person; what I benefit from him is forbidden like a] Korban, from this person Korban" [and he wants to permit them], he needs a Pesach (a reason to consider the vow a mistake) for each one [for they are considered separate vows. Had he not said Korban for each one, it would be one vow, and one Pesach would suffice.]

Support #2 (for R. Yochanan - R. Yosi - Mishnah): [If multiple Gitin were on one parchment, and] a Tofes was written for each one, and witnesses [signed] underneath, the one that is read with the witnesses is Kosher. (If there was one Tofes for each one, all would be Kosher.)

(Shmuel): What R. Meir considers a Klal (when there are "Vov"s between the matters listed), R. Yehudah considers it Prat. What R. Yehudah considers a Klal (when there are not "Vov"s in between), R. Meir considers it Prat.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Zeira): What Rabanan said [above] shows that R. Meir's Prat is not the Klal of R. Yehudah!

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [If a witness wrote] "and I give Shalom to Ploni", the Chazakah is that he signed on everything (it is a Klal.). If he wrote "I give Shalom to Ploni", he signed only on giving Shalom (it is a Prat);

If you will say that R. Meir's Prat is the Klal of R. Yehudah, when he wrote "I give Shalom to Ploni", the Chazakah is that he signed on everything (for this is a Klal according to R. Yehudah, whom we rule like against R. Meir)!

(R. Yosi): Our Mishnah shows that R. Yehudah's Prat is not the Klal of R. Meir!

(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.

A person says "even" only when he agrees with the first matter [and adds to it. The previous clause said that for 'wheat and barley and spelt' in the plural forms of these words, he is liable for each one.]

(R. Chinena): According to R. Meir, whether he said the plural forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', or the singular forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it can be a Klal (if he did not put Vov's in between) or Prat (if he put Vov's in between);

According to R. Yehudah, if he said the plural forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it can be a Klal or Prat (based on whether or not he put Vov's in between). If he said the singular forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it is only a Klal (I do not owe you anything, even one wheat kernel...), and not a Prat (whether or not he put Vov's in between).

(Mishnah): If Shimon claimed 'you raped or enticed my daughter', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him, and Levi answered Amen, Levi is liable;

R. Shimon exempts, for he does not pay a fine through his admission.

Chachamim: Even though for he does not pay a fine through his admission, he pays for Boshes and Pegam (embarrassment and blemish) due to his own admission!

(Gemara - R. Zeira citing R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): R. Shimon holds that the primary claim is the fine. According to Chachamim it is not.

Opinion #1 (R. Ila): R. Shimon holds that it is as if he claims fine, Boshes and Pegam. (His primary claim is the fine. Since he does not pay it through his admission, the Shevu'ah do not take effect on it, so he is exempt for the entire Shevu'ah.) Chachamim hold that it is as if he claims Boshes and Pegam and a fine.

Opinion #2 (Rabanan of the Beis Midrash): R. Shimon holds that it is as if he claims one matter (the fine), and Chachamim hold that it is as if he claims three matters. (We explained this like ZAHAV HA'ARETZ.)

Question (R. Zeira, to R. Yosi): Did you hear explicitly from R. Yochanan (whether he holds like R. Ila or Rabanan of the Beis Midrash), or [can you infer it] from his words?

Answer (R. Yosi): [I infer] that he holds like Rabanan.

Rebuttal (R. Mana): He can hold even like R. Ila! [If he holds like Rabanan,] R. Shimon holds that he is like one who claims one matter (and R. Yochanan teaches that it is the fine). However, here [if he holds like R. Ila, R. Shimon holds that] he is like one who claims three matters (and R. Yochanan teaches that the fine is primary)!

(Beraisa) Question: I know [that Shevu'as ha'Pikadon] applies only to matters for which one pays [only] principal. What is the source for Kefel, payment of four or five, one who rapes or entices, and Motzi Shem Ra?

Answer: It says "mi'Chol Asher Yishava Alav la'Sheker."

Question: Is not Motzi Shem Ra a pure fine? (He did not deny anything for which his admission would obligate him. How can he be liable?!)

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): [Your question] is like R. Shimon, who says that it depends on collection. (The Beraisa is like Rebbi, who holds that once Beis Din ruled, it is like Mamon and he pays through his admission.)

(Mishnah): If Shimon said 'you stole my ox', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, he is liable;

If Levi admitted 'I stole your ox, but I did not slaughter or sell it', and Shimon imposed an oath on him and Levi answered Amen, Levi is exempt. (He would not pay the fine even if he admitted).

If Shimon said 'your ox killed my ox', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, he is liable;

1. If Shimon said 'your ox killed my (Kena'ani) slave', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, Levi is exempt.

If Shimon said 'you wounded me and made me bleed', and Levi denied it, and Shimon imposed this oath on him and Levi answered Amen, is liable;

If Levi's [Kena'ani] slave said 'you knocked out my tooth or blinded my eye', and Levi denied it, and the slave imposed this oath on him and he answered Amen, he is exempt;

The general rule is, if the defendant would have had to pay due to his own admission he is liable. If not, he is exempt.

(Gemara - R. Yitzchak) Question: Does one pay the monetary value of a [Kena'ani] slave through his admission (that his ox killed him)?

Question: What is his question? (It is a fine to pay 30 Sela'im. He is exempt through his admission!)

Answer: He asks whether all 30 is a fine, or only the excess [of 30] above his true value [is a fine, but the value is Mamon];

If you will say that all 30 is a fine, he does not pay through his admission. If you will say that only the excess above his value is a fine, he pays [the value].

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If he said 'your ox killed my slave', and he denied it, and he imposed this oath on him and he answered Amen, he is exempt.

Rebuttal (R. Chagai, in front of R. Yosi): We can say that it killed a slave Mukah Shechin (he had leprosy, so he was not worth anything; the Mishnah does not answer the question.)

Rejection (R. Yosi - Beraisa): If Ploni said 'your ox killed my son', and he denied it, and he imposed an oath on him and he answered Amen, he is liable;

[According to your suggestion,] we should establish [also the Beraisa] to discuss a Mukah Shechin, and he is exempt!

Note: Why should the Beraisa discuss the same case as the Mishnah? Perhaps it was know that the Beraisa was taught regarding the Mishnah, or the Reisha of the Beraisa taught just like the Mishnah.

This cannot be (that it discusses a Mukah Shechin, for it says that he is liable, and a Mishnah teaches that if it killed a free person, [the owner] pays his value!

Question (R. Ezra, to R. Mana): We can explain [that Mishnah to be] like the opinion that "v'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho" refers to the soul of the [owner of the] damager. (He pays his own value, even if the victim is worthless!)

Answer (R. Yosi): (You cannot.) According to the opinion that "v'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho" is the damager's value, it is totally a fine (it does not depend on the amount of the damage. Why is he liable for a false Shevu'ah?!)

Question: [When one admits to a fine,] do we tell him "[you should] fulfill your obligation bi'Ydei Shamayim"?

Answer (Beraisa): A case occurred in which R. Gamliel knocked out a tooth of his slave Tavi. He came to R. Yehoshua, and said "Tavi my slave, I found a justification to free him!"

R. Yehoshua: You have no reason. Fines are only through witnesses and in Beis Din.

Inference: This shows that we do not tell him "fulfill your obligation bi'Ydei Shamayim."

Question (R. Gamliel bei R. Ila'i, to R. Mana): Does R. Gamliel hold like the opinion that one may free [an Eved Kena'ani? I.e. if he forbade, a Chiyuv bi'Ydei Shamayim would not override the Isur. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI Kesuvos 3:10.]

Answer (R. Mana): This teaches that he forbids. If not, he should have freed him earlier!