Shevuot 38a — the Talmud in English

And the conclusion is:

rather, from this

the Mishna

there is no

way to infer it!

We learned in the Mishna:

“The oath of the deposit: how is it? ‘Give me the deposit that I have in your possession,’ etc.”

The Sages taught: A general statement

how many denials to how many claimants in one oath, [and as will be explained below what is included in it, in his oath]

he is liable only for one

he is considered to have sworn only one oath.

A specification

in his oath, the denials one by one for each claimant separately, [and as will be explained below what he specified],

he is liable for each and every one; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

If the defendant says to all those claimants

“An oath”

that I am not liable

“not to you, and not to you, and not to you,” he is liable

a sacrifice

for each and every one

of his denials.

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Not to you, and not to you, and not to you”—an oath

that I am not liable,

he is liable

a sacrifice

for each and every one.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is not liable for each one

until he says, “An oath” for each and every one

of his denials separately!

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: Rabbi Meir’s general statement

this is

Rabbi Judah’s specification!

What Rabbi Judah considers a specification—when he says, “and not to you, and not to you”—Rabbi Meir considers a general statement and one oath, because Rabbi Meir considers the conjunctive vav of “and not to you, and not to you” to make them as though they were included in one oath.

And

Rabbi Judah’s general statement

when he says, “an oath—not to you, not to you,” without the conjunctive vav, which Rabbi Judah considers as though he included them all, is

Rabbi Meir’s specification,

since he did not say them with the conjunctive vav, Rabbi Meir considers it as though he specified them for each one separately.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees concerning one who says

an oath, “not to you and not to you

and not to you,” that it is a specification. They disagree only concerning one who

says

“not to you,

not to you, not to you.”

For Rabbi Meir says,

this oath is

a specification

for each and every one.

And Rabbi Judah says,

this oath in this manner is

a general statement—

one oath for all of them.

What is

the manner in which it is considered

Rabbi Meir’s general statement?—

“An oath that I have nothing of yours in my possession!”

for he did not specify at all, but addressed all of them with one oath.

And the Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Samuel?

Samuel analyzed the beraita, and Rabbi Yohanan analyzed the Mishna.

Samuel analyzed the beraita: Since Rabbi Judah says

that if the defendant says

“and not to you,” it is a specification. By inference, he heard [A0071]this matter when Rabbi Judah heard the words of

Rabbi Meir, who said

that this manner

is a general statement.

And Rabbi Judah said to him

concerning Rabbi Meir’s words, concerning that which for you is a general statement, for me—

it is a specification!

And Rabbi Yohanan says: Both

both “not to you” and “and not to you,”

according to Rabbi Meir—

it is a specification.

And Rabbi Judah said to him: Concerning “and not to you,” I concede to you

that it is a specification.

But concerning “not to you,” I disagree with you,

for in my view it is a general statement.

And Samuel

held that it is impossible to establish the beraita as saying that Rabbi Judah concedes to Rabbi Meir concerning “and not to you” that it is a specification, because

before he conceded to him, let him dispute with him!

For if Rabbi Judah heard from Rabbi Meir that both “not to you” and “and not to you” are specifications, and he disagrees with him concerning “not to you,” holding that it is a general statement, why did the beraita state Rabbi Judah’s words in that which he concedes to Rabbi Meir, rather than state the essence of his words, in that which he disagrees with him? And why did the beraita not teach that concerning “not to you” Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that it is a general statement?

And Rabbi Yohanan

analyzed his words

from the Mishna: Since Rabbi Meir says

in the Mishna,

“An oath that I have nothing of yours in my possession” \-

is a general statement. By inference, if he said

“and not to you”—

“and not to you”—

it is a specification.

And how is this law inferred from the Mishna?

For if it enters your mind that “and not to you” was a general statement,

the difficulty would be:

rather than teach us

that where he says

“An oath that I have nothing of yours in my possession”

is called a general statement,

let it teach us

a greater innovation, that even if he said

“An oath—not to you, and not to you, and not to you”—

where he specifies his oath for each and every one, nevertheless he is liable only for one, since he says “and not to you,” which, through the conjunctive vav, is a general statement; and from this we would learn

all the more so, “an oath that I have nothing of yours in my possession,”

where he does not specify in it, that it is a general statement!?

And Samuel

said: This is no proof, for anyone who says

“and not to you”—

is considered as though he said: “An oath that I have nothing of yours in my possession”!

And if so, there is no distinction between “and not to you” and “of yours”!

The Gemara raises an objection to Samuel’s words:

We learned: “Not to you, and not to you, and not to you,”

he is liable for each and every one, even though he says “and not to you.” And it is proven that according to Rabbi Meir it is a specification!

And the answer is:

Teach

in the Mishna

“not to you”!

And do not teach “and not to you,” as we initially thought.

Come and hear

from the continuation of the Mishna:

“Give me a deposit, a loan, stolen property, and a lost object”—

he is liable only for one! And it is proven according to Samuel, that even when he says “and stolen property,” etc., it is considered one oath.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Teach: “A loan, stolen property, a lost object”!

Without a vav.

Come and hear: “Give me wheat, barley, and spelt”—

he is liable only for one! And it is proven according to Samuel, as above.

And we reject this:

Teach: “Barley, spelt”! [A0136]Without a vav.

But the Gemara is astonished at the many emendations in the words of the Mishna:

And

for

does this tanna have so much corruption that he keeps teaching and proceeding?

Is it possible that the words of the tanna as they appear in the Mishna are so corrupted!?

Therefore the Gemara answers:

Rather, this is according to whom—

it is Rabbi. For he said,

one who, at the time of slaughtering the sacrifice, entertains two thoughts, one a thought of pigul [to eat from the flesh of the sacrifice after its time, through which thought the sacrifice becomes pigul, and one is liable to karet for eating it], and the other a thought of invalidation [to eat from the flesh of the sacrifice outside its place, through which thought the sacrifice is indeed invalidated, but it does not become pigul; rather, it is forbidden to eat it only by a prohibition, but there is no karet], whether he thought, “to eat an olive-sized portion tomorrow or an olive-sized portion outside,” or whether he thought, “to eat an olive-sized portion tomorrow and an olive-sized portion outside,” they are two separate thoughts, and not one general thought of invalidation. Therefore the first thought of pigul takes effect, and the sacrifice is forbidden with the karet prohibition of eating pigul, and the second thought concerning outside its place—that is, to eat an olive-sized portion outside—does not remove it from the first thought concerning outside its time—that is, to eat an olive-sized portion tomorrow.

And this is what Rabbi said:

It makes no difference whether “an olive-sized portion, an olive-sized portion,” or whether “an olive-sized portion and an olive-sized portion,”—

it is a specification!

And it is explained that there is no difference between saying it with a vav and saying it without a vav.

Come and hear from his own words,

from Rabbi Meir’s own words in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Even wheat, barley, and spelt—

he is liable for each and every one!

And it is explained that when he says it with a vav, it is a specification.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Teach: “Wheat, barley, spelt”!

Without a vav.

Rather, if so, raise a difficulty:

What is the meaning of “even”

wheat, barley, spelt? For he did not include them, and therefore they certainly are specifications?

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said: Even

if he was charged with

“wheat”

in the singular and was not charged with “wheats” in the plural, the matter is considered as though he was charged in the plural, because the “wheat” stated in the singular is considered

included in “wheats,”

and it is considered as though he was charged with wheats,

and barley is included in barleys, and spelt

is included in spelts!

We learned in the Mishna:

“Give me a deposit, a loan, stolen property, and a lost object that I have in your possession.”

“Give me wheat, barley, and spelt, etc.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

If he has against him only

one peruta

one

from all of them,

from all the claims together—for example, if the wheat, barley, and spelt are each worth less than a peruta, and for less than a peruta there is no monetary claim, then if all of them together are worth a peruta,

the peruta combines

with the monetary claim, making him liable for a sacrifice because of denial of money.

Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed about it.

In a case where he was charged concerning wheat, barley, and spelt, and as we learned in the Mishna, he is liable for each and every one. Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed: whether he is liable only because of the specified oaths—that is, the wheat, the barley, and so on—for which he is liable for each and every one, or whether he is also liable for an additional sacrifice because of the general oath, “I have nothing of yours in my possession.”

One said: He is liable for the specifications,

for each and every one. But

for the general statement

for his general oath,

he is not liable

for an additional liability,

And accordingly, that which Rabbi Yohanan said, that one peruta combines, applies only when he swore a general oath, so that the peruta from all the components of the general oath combines. But if he specified several particulars in his oath, they do not combine to a peruta, since he is liable for each particular with a separate liability as a separate oath.

And one said: He is also liable for the general statement.

And he brings a sacrifice for his general oath, in addition to the sacrifices that he brings for each and every one.

And accordingly, according to Rabbi Yohanan, a peruta from all the types of particulars combines to make him liable because of the general oath.

And this is difficult:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

concerning that which is taught in the Mishna: there were five claimants claiming against him, and each one claimed wheat, barley, and spelt,

there are here fifteen sin-offerings!

And if it is so,

but if he is also liable for his general oath,

there are twenty,

for he is also liable for his general oath to each of the five claimants claiming against him?

And the answer is:

This tanna

who counted fifteen sin-offerings counted only

the specifications,

the denials in the specific claims;

he did not count the general statements.

And this is difficult:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

elsewhere—

there are here twenty sin-offerings!

And it is precise from this that he is also liable for the general oath. This is difficult for the one who says that he is liable only for the specified oath.

The answer is:

That

twenty sin-offerings are for specifications, since he is liable for each of the five claimants for four different claims—

a deposit, a loan, stolen property, and a lost object!

And therefore there are twenty.

Rava asked Rav Nahman: There were five claimants claiming against him, and they said to him: “Give us a deposit, a loan, stolen property, and a lost object that we have in your possession!” He said to one of them, “An oath that I have no deposit, loan, stolen property, or lost object of yours in my possession. And not to you, and not to you, and not to you!”—

what is the law?

Whether

one

oath

single

alone

he is liable

for each of the four claimants besides the first claimant, for concerning all the others, apart from the first, he did not specify in his oath, but only denied their words in general. And it follows that he is liable for eight sin-offerings: four of them for the four separate claims of the first, and four—one sin-offering for each of the claimants.