Shevuot

Hence, then, from this it is not possible to deduce.1 THE OATH OF DEPOSIT-HOW? ‘GIVE ME THE DEPOSIT WHICH I HAVE IN THY POSSESSION,’ etc. Our Rabbis taught: For a general statement he is liable only once; for a particular he is liable for each one:2 this is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah says: ‘I swear I do not owe thee, and not thee, and not thee,’ he is liable for each one.3 R. Eliezer says: ‘I do not owe thee, and not thee, and not thee, l swear it,’ he is liable for each one. R. Simeon says: [He is not liable for each one] unless he says, ‘I swear’ to each one. Rab Judah said that Samuel said: The general statement of R. Meir is the particular of R. Judah, and the general statement of R. Judah is the particular of R. Meir.4 And R. Johanan said: All agree that ‘and not thee’ is a particular; they disagree only in ‘not thee,’ R. Meir holding it is a particular, and R. Judah holding it is a general; and what is the general statement according to R. Meir? ‘I swear that you have not in my possession ...’5 In what do they6 disagree? — Samuel argues from the Baraitha, and R. Johanan argues from our Mishnah. ‘Samuel argues from the Baraitha’: Since R. Judah says ‘and not thee’ is a particular, we infer that he heard R Meir say it is a general, and therefore R. Judah [disagrees and] says to him it is a particular. And R. Johanan says: Both7 are, according to R. Meir, particulars; and R. Judah said to him: In ‘and not thee’ I agree with you,8 but in ‘not thee’ I disagree with you. But Samuel says: [If so,] why mention that in which he agrees with him; let him mention that in which he disagrees with him.9 ‘And R. Johanan argues from our Mishnah’: Since R. Meir says:10 ‘I swear you [plural] have not in my possession ...’ is a general statement, we infer that ‘and not thee’ is a particular, for if it enters your mind to say that ‘and not thee’ is a general statement, why does he teach us ‘I swear I do not owe you,’11 let him teach us, ‘I swear I do not owe thee, and not thee, and not thee,’ and it would be obvious that ‘I swear I do not owe you’ [is a general statement]. — And Samuel says, if he says, ‘and not thee,’ it is as if he says, ‘I swear I do not owe you.’12 We learnt: NOT THEE, AND NOT THEE, AND NOT THEE.13 — Read in the Mishnah: ‘not thee’.14 Come and hear: GIVE ME THE DEPOSIT, AND LOAN, AND THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT.15 Read: ‘loan, theft, lost object.’ Come and hear: GIVE ME THE WHEAT, AND BARLEY, AND SPELT. — Read: ‘barley, spelt.’ — But does the Tanna go on so frequently blundering?16 — Well then, it is the view of Rabbi,17 who says: There is no difference between ‘Ka-zayith, ka-zayith’ and ‘ka-zayith and ka-zayith’: both are particulars. 18 Come and hear — from his own view:19 R. MEIR SAYS, [EVEN IF HE SAID:] ‘A GRAIN OF WHEAT, AND BARLEY, AND SPELT,’ HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ONE.20 — Read: ‘A grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt.’ — What is the force of EVEN?21 R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: Even a grain of wheat is included in wheat, and a grain of barley is included in barley, and a grain of spelt is included in spelt.22 ‘GIVE ME THE DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT WHICH I HAVE IN THY POSSESSION,’ etc. ‘Give me the wheat and barley.’ R. Johanan said: If there is a perutah23 [in the value] of all of them together, they combine.24 — R. Aha and Rabina disagree. One says: For the particulars he is liable, but for the general statements he is not liable;25 and the other says: For the general statements he is also liable.26 But did not R. Hiyya teach: Behold, there are here fifteen sin-offerings;27 and if it is [as you say], there are twenty. — This Tanna28 is counting the particulars, and is not counting the general statements.29 And behold, R. Hiyya taught: There are here twenty sin-offerings.30 — [No!] that refers to deposit, loan, theft, and lost object. 31 Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If five claimed from him, saying to him: ‘Give us the deposit, loan, theft, and lost object which we have in thy possession,’ and he said to one of them: ‘I swear that thou hast not in my possession a deposit, loan, theft, and lost object; and thou hast not, and thou hast not, and thou hast not, and thou hast not;’ what is the ruling? For one is he liable, 32 only for one oath; but, if he particularises, and says. ‘I swear I do not owe you, nor you, nor you,’ he is liable for each one; v. Mishnah, supra 36b. say that it is a general statement (because of the connecting and), equivalent to ‘I do not owe all of you.’ R. Meir's particular must therefore be, ‘I do not owe thee, not thee, not thee’ (without and) — turning to each claimant, and addressing him separately. This expression, ‘not thee, not thee,’ R. Judah counts as a general statement, for he states that ‘and not thee’ is a particular. Meir, who holds it is a particular); and not ‘and not thee’ is a particular (with which R. Meir agrees). (v. note 6), it proves that R. Meir holds that ‘and not thee’ is a particular; which is a refutation of Samuel's interpretation of his opinion. each one. Hence the enumeration of the objects with the connecting word and makes the statement a particular. This again is an argument against Samuel. exact. (according to Samuel), but of Rabbi. its consumption, or outside the place fixed for its consumption (v. Zeb., Mishnah, Chap. V), it is, in the first case, piggul (an abomination), v. Lev. VII, 18, (for which kareth (v. Glos.) is inflicted), and in the second case, merely ritually unfit (v. Zeb., 29b). If one has the intention: ‘I shall eat a ka-zayith outside the time limit, a ka-zayith outside the place,’ or, ‘I shall eat a ka-zayith outside the time limit, and a ka-zayith outside the place,’ it is the same, according to Rabbi, the first thought (‘ka-zayith outside the time’) being in either case counted as the main thought, and the sacrifice is therefore piggul, and kareth inflicted; Zeb. 30b. Hence, Rabbi holds that whether and is inserted or omitted, the thoughts are separate, and in our Mishnah also he will hold that and separates the persons (or objects); and the statement is therefore particular, and not general. same; and the bailee is denying on oath exactly what the other is claiming. offering for denying on oath that he has them in his possession; for less than a perutah there is no liability. three offerings (for the three particulars), but not four: we do not say that his first words (‘I swear thou hast not in my possession’) are themselves also an oath, meaning, ‘I swear thou hast not anything in my possession.’ R. Johanan's statement (that the wheat, barley and spelt combine to make up the value of a perutah) does not refer to this clause, because he is liable for three separate oaths, and there must be a perutah in each. R. Johanan's statement refers to the first clause: ‘I swear thou hast not these in my possession,’ he is liable only once; and in this case R. Johanan says: The wheat, barley and spelt combine to the value of a perutah. oath. R. Johanan's statement will hence refer to this clause too; and the wheat, barley and spelt combine to the value of a perutah to make him liable at least for one oath, the general oath; though not for the other three, if there is not a perutah in each. is liable to bring 15 sin-offerings (more correctly, guilt-offerings). Hence, since R. Hiyya said 15 offerings, he is counting the particulars only, for if he counted the general statements also, there would be 4 offerings for each of the 5 claimants, i.e., 20 offerings. particulars to each claimant; and, therefore, he will be liable to 4 offerings for the 4 claimants, and another 4 for the first claimant (because in his case he mentioned the 4 particulars), i.e. 8 offerings in all.