Shevuot 75

אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:

Hence, then, from this it is not possible to deduce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Support for R. Johanan: the Mishnah may, or may not, agree with him.');">¹</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he denies on oath the claim of several people in one general statement, 'I swear I owe you all nothing,' he is liable 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.');">²</span>

שבועת הפקדון כיצד תן לי פקדון שיש לי בידך כו': תנו רבנן כלל אינו חייב אלא אחת פרט חייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר שבועה לא לך ולא לך ולא לך חייב על כל אחת ואחת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference between R. Meir and R. Judah is explained below.');">³</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר לא לך ולא לך ולא לך שבועה חייב על כל אחת ואחת ר"ש אומר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחת ואחת

R'Eliezer says: 'I do not owe thee, and not thee, and not thee, l swear it,' he is liable each one. R'Simeon says: [He is not liable for each one] unless he says, 'I swear' to each one.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כללו של רבי מאיר פרטו של רבי יהודה כללו של רבי יהודה פרטו של רבי מאיר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Judah says, 'I swear I do not owe thee and not thee' is counted a particular, he must have heard R. Meir 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.');">⁴</span> 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 i general; and what is the general statement according to R'Meir? 'I swear that you have not in my possession.'

ור' יוחנן אמר הכל מודים בולא לך שהוא פרט לא נחלקו אלא בלא לך שרבי מאיר אומר פרט ורבי יהודה אומר כלל ואיזהו כללו של ר' מאיר שבועה שאין לכם בידי

In what do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel and R. Johanan, in their interpretation of the views of R. Meir and R. Judah.');">⁶</span> disagree? - Samuel argues from the Baraitha, and R'Johanan argues from our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

במאי קמיפלגי שמואל דייק מברייתא ור' יוחנן דייק ממתניתין שמואל דייק מברייתא מדקאמר רבי יהודה ולא לך פרטא הוי מכלל דשמעיה לר' מאיר דאמר כללא הוי ואמר ליה ר' יהודה פרטא הוי

'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: Both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Not thee' and 'and not thee'.');">⁷</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר תרוייהו לר' מאיר פרטא הוי ואמר ליה רבי יהודה בולא לך מודינא לך בלא לך פליגנא עלך ושמואל עד דאודי ליה אודויי לפלוג עליה איפלוגי

are, according to R'Meir, particulars; and R'Judah said to him: In 'and not thee' I agree with you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is a particular.');">⁸</span> but in 'not thee' I disagree with you.

ורבי יוחנן דייק ממתניתין מדקאמר ר' מאיר שבועה שאין לכם בידי כללא הוי מכלל דולא לך פרטא הוי דאי סלקא דעתך ולא לך כללא הוה אדמשמע לן שבועה שאין לכם בידי נשמעינן שבועה לא לך ולא לך ולא לך כל שכן שבועה שאין לכם בידי

But Samuel says: [If so,] why mention that in which he agrees with him; let him mention that in which he disagrees with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When stating his view in the Baraitha, R. Judah should say, 'not thee' is a general (in which he disagrees with R. Meir, who holds it is a particular) ; and not 'and not thee' is a particular (with which R. Meir agrees) .');">⁹</span> 'And R'Johanan argues from our Mishnah': Since R'Meir says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The author of an anonymous statement in the Mishnah is generally R. Meir.');">¹⁰</span>

ושמואל אמר כל האומר ולא לך כאומר שבועה שאין לכם בידי דמי

'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,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is a general statement.');">¹¹</span>

תנן לא לך ולא לך ולא לך תני לא לך

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.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are both equal, and one is not more obvious than the other.');">¹²</span>

ת"ש תן לי פקדון ותשומת יד וגזל ואבידה תני תשומת יד גזל אבידה

We learnt: NOT THEE, AND NOT THEE, AND NOT THEE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is liable far each one, supra Mishnah 36b; the author of the anonymous statement in the Mishnah being R. Meir (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.');">¹³</span> - Read in the Mishnah: 'not thee'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without and.');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש תן לי חטין ושעורין וכוסמין תני שעורין כוסמין

Come and hear: GIVE ME THE DEPOSIT, AND LOAN, AND THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he replies, 'I swear I have not in my possession the deposit, and loan, and theft, and lost object,' he is liable for 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.');">¹⁵</span> Read: 'loan, theft, lost object.'

והאי תנא כל הכי שביש תני ואזיל אלא הא מני רבי היא דאמר לא שנא כזית כזית ולא שנא כזית וכזית פרטא הוי

Come and hear: GIVE ME THE WHEAT, AND BARLEY, AND SPELT. - Read: 'barley, spelt.'

תא שמע מדידיה ר' מאיר אומר אפילו חטה ושעורה וכוסמת חייב על כל אחת ואחת תני חטה שעורה כוסמת

- But does the Tanna go on so frequently blundering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna inserts and, and you say it must be omitted in all these instances; a Tanna is always very careful and exact.');">¹⁶</span> - Well then, it is the view of Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous statements in our Mishnah, which imply that and denotes a particular, are not the view of R. Meir (according to Samuel) , but of Rabbi.');">¹⁷</span>

מאי אפילו אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אפילו חטה בכלל חטין ושעורה בכלל שעורין וכוסמת בכלל כוסמין:

who says: There is no difference between 'Ka-zayith, ka-zayith' and 'ka-zayith and ka-zayith': both are particulars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one kills a sacrifice, and intends to eat a ka-zayith (a piece the size of an olive) of it later than the time allotted for 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 th 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.');">¹⁸</span> Come and hear - from his own view:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An argument against Samuel's interpretation of R. Meir's view from R. Meir's own clearly expressed opinion.');">¹⁹</span>

תן לי פקדון ותשומת יד גזל ואבידה שיש לי בידך כו': תן לי חטין ושעורין א"ר יוחנן פרוטה מכולם מצטרפת

R'MEIR SAYS, [EVEN IF HE SAID:] 'A GRAIN OF WHEAT, AND BARLEY, AND SPELT,' HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ONE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, and separates the items, and makes each one a particular.');">²⁰</span> - Read: 'A grain of wheat, a grain of barley, a grain of spelt.'

פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר אפרטי מיחייב אכללי לא מיחייב וחד אמר אכללי נמי מיחייב

- What is the force of EVEN?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir says: Even if he said, 'Give me the grain of wheat . .'');">²¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the claimant said, 'grain of wheat,' and the bailee said, 'wheat,' or vice versa, it matters not: they are the same; and the bailee is denying on oath exactly what the other is claiming.');">²²</span>

והתני ר' חייא הרי כאן חמש עשרה חטאות ואם איתא עשרים הויין האי תנא דפרטי קא חשיב דכללי לא קא חשיב

'GIVE ME THE DEPOSIT, LOAN, THEFT, AND LOST OBJECT WHICH I HAVE IN THY POSSESSION,' etc.' Give me the wheat and barley.'

והא תני רבי חייא הרי כאן עשרים חטאות ההיא אפקדון ותשומת יד וגזל ואבידה

R'Johanan said: If there is a perutah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small coin (v. Glos.) .');">²³</span> [in the value] of all of them together, they combine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the wheat, barley and spelt are together worth only one perutah they combine, and the bailee is liable to an offering for denying on oath that he has them in his possession; for less than a perutah there is no liability.');">²⁴</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן היו חמשה תובעין אותו ואמרו לו תן לנו פקדון תשומת יד וגזל ואבידה שיש לנו בידך אמר לאחד מהן שבועה שאין לך בידי פקדון תשומת יד גזל ואבידה ולא לך ולא לך ולא לך ולא לך מהו אחדא מיחייב

- R'Aha and Rabina disagree. One says: For the particulars he is liable, but for the general statements he is not liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the bailee says, 'I swear thou hast not in my possession wheat, barley, or spelt,' he is liable for each one' i.e., 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.');">²⁵</span> and the other says: For the general statements he is also liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is liable for four oaths: for the three particulars, and for his opening words, which are counted as a general 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.');">²⁶</span> But did not R'Hiyya teach: Behold, there are here fifteen sin-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If five persons claimed, each one claiming wheat, barley, and spelt, and he denied on oath the claim of each one, he 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.');">²⁷</span> and if it is [as you say], there ar twenty. - This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya.');">²⁸</span> is counting the particulars, and is not counting the general statements.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he may agree that altogether he has to bring 20 offerings.');">²⁹</span> And behold, R'Hiyya taught: There are here twenty sin-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So he really agrees that for the general statements he also brings offerings.');">³⁰</span> - [No!] that refers to deposit, loan, theft, an lost object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there are 4 particulars, i.e., 20 for the 5 claimants; but he really does not reckon the general statements.');">³¹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each of the 4 claimants, apart from the first, is he liable to only one offering, because he did not mention all the 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.');">³²</span>