Responsa for Shevuot 57:5
שבועה שאוכל ככר זו שבועה שלא אוכלנה הראשונה שבועת ביטוי והשניה שבועת שוא
Come and hear! And so we find that when Moses adjured the Israelites, he said to them: Know that I do not adjure you according to your own minds, but according to the mind of the Omnipresent and according to my mind. Now, why [should he say this]? Let him say to them: Fulfil what God has decreed. Is it not then because they might bring to their minds an idol? - No! But because an idol is also called god, for it is written: gods of silver, or gods of gold, [ye shall not make unto you]. - Well, let him say to them: Fulfil the Torah. - [That might have implied] one Torah. Let him [then] say: Fulfil the two Toroth. - [That might have implied] the Torah of sin offering and the Torah of trespass offering. [Let him say:] Fulfil the whole Torah. - [That might have implied merely the avoidance of] idolatry, for it has been said: Important is idolatry in that he who denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah. Well, let him say to them: Fulfil the precept. - [That would have implied] one precept. [Let him say:] Fulfil the precepts. - [That might have implied merely] two. [Let him say: Fulfil] all the precepts. - [That might have implied] the precept of zizith, for a Master said: The precept of zizith is equal to all the precepts together. Then, let him say to them: Fulfil the six hundred and thirteen precepts. - But, even according to your reasoning, let him say. 'According to my mind;' why is it necessary to add, 'according to the mind of the Omnipresent'? <br>
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
B and C demand that E should pay his share of the expense [in repairing the house] less all rent owed by the former, for the time that they lived in the house. Furthermore, B and C assert that if E states on his word of honor, that he had subsequently given money to the former, then they will waive all their claims to this money, for such was their promise, in the writ of settlement.
E declared on his word of honor, that he owed nothing to B and C, and refused to render any explanation, concerning the matter.
A - (2) The letter which E wrote to B and C, even though it might not have been signed, is an admission to the latter's claim. Therefore, E can no longer aver that he had erred and must give a full explanation regarding the matter.