Talmud - Shevu'ot 38a שבועות ל״ח א׳

Rather, no inference is to be learned from the mishna.

§ The mishna teaches: What is the case of an oath on a deposit? It is where the claimant said to the defendant: Give me my deposit, which is in your possession, and the defendant replied: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, or the defendant said to him: Nothing of yours is in my possession; the claimant responded: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen. In either case this defendant is liable to bring a guilt-offering if he lied. The mishna then discusses a case where five people sued him and he took an oath denying all of their claims. With regard to this case, the Sages taught in a baraita: If he included all the denials in one oath, he is liable for only one false oath; if he specified them, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that if he said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says that only if he said: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, on my oath, i.e., he said the word oath at the end, is he liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable for his oath concerning each individual claim unless he says: On my oath, to each and every claimant.

Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The phrasing where one uses the conjunction: And, between denials is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a specific denial; and the phrasing where one refrains from using the conjunction: And, is considered by Rabbi Yehuda to be a general denial and is considered by Rabbi Meir to be a specific denial.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede in a case where the defendant says: And nothing of yours, that it is considered specific and that he is liable for his oath concerning each claim, even Rabbi Meir. They disagree only with regard to a case where the defendant said: Nothing of yours, without the conjunctive: And. As Rabbi Meir says: It is considered specific, and Rabbi Yehuda says: It is considered general. And what is the case of a general denial according to Rabbi Meir, where one is liable for only one oath? It is the case where the defendant says, in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree that they explain the opinion of Rabbi Meir differently? The Gemara responds: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita, and Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred his explanation from the mishna. The Gemara explains: Shmuel inferred his explanation from the baraita as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda says that the phrase: And nothing of yours, is considered a specific denial, for which one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, one may conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda understood that Rabbi Meir said that it is considered a general denial, and therefore, Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said to him: No, it is considered a specific denial.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says in response to this inference that the baraita can be explained differently: Both phrases: Nothing of yours, and: And nothing of yours, are deemed specific denials by Rabbi Meir; and Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to: And nothing of yours, I concede to you that it is considered specific. But with regard to: Nothing of yours, I disagree with you and consider it a general denial. And Shmuel would respond: If that is so, then why does Rabbi Yehuda state in the baraita the instance in which he concedes to Rabbi Meir? Instead of conceding, let him disagree and state the instance in which they differ.

The Gemara proceeds to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: And Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred his explanation from the mishna as follows: From the fact that Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna associated with unattributed statements in the Mishna, says: If he addressed all of the claimants and said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed a general denial, one may conclude by inference that a denial phrased: And nothing of yours, is deemed specific. As if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Meir also deems: And nothing of yours, to be a general denial, then instead of teaching us that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is deemed general, let him teach us that when one states: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, it is general, and all the more so it would be clear that when one states in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, it is considered general.

And Shmuel says that one may interpret the statement of Rabbi Meir as follows: Anyone who says: And nothing of yours, is considered as though he says in the plural: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession.

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna that if the defendant said: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, and nothing of yours, and nothing of yours, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim that he falsely denied. Evidently, Rabbi Meir deems: And nothing of yours, to be specific. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: Nothing of yours, nothing of yours, nothing of yours.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from that which is taught in the mishna: In a case where the claimant says: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your deposit, or pledge, or stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Evidently, by using the conjunction: Or, Rabbi Meir deems the denials specific, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath you do not have a deposit, a pledge, a stolen item, a lost item, in my possession.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: In a case where the claimant said: Give me back my wheat, and barley, and spelt that are in your possession, if the defendant responds: On my oath nothing of yours is in my possession, he is liable for only one false oath. But if he responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. The mishna is therefore counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Again, emend the language of the mishna and teach: Wheat, barley, spelt, without the conjunction: Or.

The Gemara asks: But could it be that this tanna errs so much as he teaches the mishna? The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: According to Shmuel, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: There is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk an olive-bulk, and there is no difference if one says: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk; both are considered specific formulations.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Meir’s own statement in the mishna: Rabbi Meir says: Even if the defendant says: On my oath I do not have in my possession your grain of wheat, or grain of barley, or grain of spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Clearly, the conjunction: Or, renders the denial specific according to Rabbi Meir, counter to the explanation of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects the proof: Emend the language of the mishna and teach: On my oath I do not have in my possession a grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt of yours.

The Gemara explains: What novelty is there in a case where one takes an oath in this manner, that Rabbi Meir says: Even? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: Even the singular form for wheat includes much wheat, and the singular form for barley includes much barley, and the singular form for spelt includes much spelt, i.e., although the defendant refers to the grains in the singular, his denial is referring to all wheat, all barley, and all spelt.

§ The mishna teaches: Give me back my deposit, and pledge, stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, etc. If the claimant said: Give me back my wheat and barley, and spelt, and the defendant responds: On my oath I do not have in my possession your wheat, or barley, or spelt, he is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If all of the wheat, barley, and spelt were collectively worth at least one peruta, then even if each type of grain was worth less than one peruta, their total value combines to render him liable.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling of the mishna. One says that when the mishna teaches that one is liable for his oath concerning each and every claim, it means that he is liable for the three specific denials of wheat, barley, and spelt, and he must bring three separate offerings; but he is not liable for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, i.e., when he said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. Accordingly, the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan was said with regard to the previous case in the mishna, where the defendant said: On my oath I do not have in my possession. And one says that he is liable also for the general oath taken at the beginning of his denial, so that the defendant is liable to bring a total of four offerings. Accordingly, even if the grains were worth only one peruta collectively and the defendant is not liable for any of the specific oaths, the defendant remains liable to bring an offering for the general oath according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

The Gemara questions the second opinion: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach in a baraita: If five people claimed from one defendant wheat, barley, and spelt, and the defendant took an oath denying each claim of each claimant, there are then fifteen sin-offerings here that the defendant is liable to bring? And if it is so that the defendant is liable for the general oath as well, there would be a total of twenty sin-offerings that he is liable to bring. The Gemara responds: That tanna calculated the defendant’s liability for the specific oaths; he did not calculate the defendant’s liability for the general oaths.

The Gemara now questions the first opinion: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach in a different baraita: There are twenty sin-offerings here? Evidently, Rabbi Ḥiyya does calculate the general oaths. The Gemara responds: That baraita does not count the general oaths either; rather, it is referring to a different case entirely, where each of the five claimants claimed from the defendant a deposit and a pledge and a stolen item and a lost item.

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where five people were suing another and they said to him: Give us back our deposit, pledge, and stolen item, and lost item that are in your possession, and the defendant said to one of them: On my oath your deposit, pledge, stolen item, and lost item are not in my possession, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, and neither are yours, what is the halakha? Is he liable for only one oath for each of the four claimants to whom he said: And neither are yours, since these are considered general oaths?

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Shevuot 38a examines liability for false oaths denying deposit claims, weighing rabbinic views on combined versus separate denials across multiple claimants.